• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Research data close
• Research software close
• Other research products close
• Film close
• Digital Humanities and Cultural Her... close

Curatorial note from Digital Pedagogy in the Humanities: In this video, visiting fellow Chris Jones describes the Field School in Digital Humanities, offered in 2015, where students visited two medieval parish churches in Surrey containing historical objects that Jones was digitizing: a 1615 King James Bible and various medieval wall paintings. The field school’s aim was to investigate which digitizing technologies are appropriate for the artifacts. The video’s pedagogical use lies in its advocacy for site-specific research, or assessing historical artifacts in the sites they would have been originally experienced in order to understand their social and material significance. High-resolution digital photos, for instance, distort the original experience of viewing the wall paintings by candlelight and the censorship of the images during the medieval period. The video thus considers the adequacy of digital photography and videography as documentary tools, suggesting the need for contextualization through other media. It also demonstrates the need for site-specific sensitivity in digital fieldwork.

ESRI's ArcGIS data, and other vector data system, are highly vulnerable to partial or complete data loss over time because as the company makes frequent software updates, and the data themselves have so many moving parts. In this presentation, Lucy Farr (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research) describes her experiences using ArcGIS, lessons learnt, and recommendations for best practices to prevent data disaster and frustration.

Interview of Sir Keith Thomas - on his life and work

A panel in Cambridge on 'Personal Histories in Archaeological Theory and Method' chaired by Dr. Kate Pretty

[EN] Speaker: Gail Higginbottom (The Australian National University). There are hundreds of free-standing stone monuments in western Scotland and no-one really understands how they were used or why they were built. My project uncovers something about the interactions between the builders and their monuments by investigating the reasons behind the locational choices for the monuments. This talk will explain some of the background, methods and outcomes of the evidence-based, interdisciplinary investigations done in Scotland and show how all the monuments together form an expression of communal belief systems across geographical areas & explain something of what these systems might be. The immediacy and striking nature of the land and sky–scapes, helps point to the possible essential nature of both the individual’s experience and the community’s understanding of their world in Scotland. I shall then suggest how these approaches, combined with others so far missing from the Scottish project, would assist in the research of megalithic monuments of Galacia. In particular, how creating a comparative project, might enable us to assess whether or not understandings and values associated with the creation of megalithic monuments were shared between previous and current cultures in different regions across Europe. [ES] Ponente: Gail Higginbottom (The Australian National University). Hay cientos de monumentos de piedra aislados en Escocia occidental y nadie realmente entiende cómo fueron usados o por qué fueron construidos. En esta charla se explican algunos de los antecedentes, métodos y resultados de las investigaciones realizados en Escocia y se muestra cómo todos los monumentos juntos forman una expresión de creencias comunes a través de áreas geográficas y se explica lo que podrían ser estos sistemas. La inmediatez y la impresionante naturaleza de la tierra y el cielo ayudan a indicar la posible naturaleza esencial tanto de la experiencia del individuo como de la comprensión de la comunidad en Escocia. Se sugiere cómo estos enfoques, junto con otros que hasta ahora faltan en el proyecto escocés, ayudarían en la investigación de monumentos megalíticos de Galicia. En particular, se plantea cómo se podría crear un proyecto comparativo que permitiría evaluar si los conceptos y valores asociados con la creación de monumentos megalíticos fueron compartidos entre las culturas anteriores y actuales en las distintas regiones en toda Europa. No

[ES] Documental que pretende transmitir una imagen sensible del paisaje cultural de la isla, de ahí que se incluya el patrimonio material e inmaterial com oparte de un mismo paisaje que debe ser entendido como un todo. Este audiovisual fue elaborado a partir del archivo de Patrimonio Cultural inmaterial que se está confeccionando actualmente y a partir del registro de actividades de prospección y significación de elementos arqueológicos del paisaje. Pero los interlocutores de este vídeo son los propios habitantes de la isla, los portadores de este patrimonio, quienes a su vez son los que le dan valor y significado a este patrimonio. La ´voz del experto´ aporta lo indispensable para lograr una caracterización desde su disciplina y se coloca a un mismo nivel con sus interlocutores, cediendo el protagonismo a los mismos. [GA] Documental que pretende transmitir unha imaxe sensible da paisaxe cultural da illa, de ahí que se aborde o patrimonio material e o inmaterial como parte dunha mesma paisaxe que debe ser entendida como un todo. Este audiovisual foi elaborado a partir do arquivo do Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial que se está confeccionando na actualidade e a partir do rexistro de actividades de prospección e significación de elementos arqueolóxicos da paisaxe. Pero os interlocutores deste vídeo son os propios habitantes da illa, os portadores deste patrimonio, quenes a súa vez son os que lle dan valor e significado a este patrimonio. A ´voz do experto´ aporta o indispensable para lograr unha caracterización dende a súa disciplina e colócase a un mesmo nivel cos seus interlocutores, cedendo o protagonismo aos mesmos. [GA] Corto documental realizado no marco das actividades de divulgación do proxecto dirixido por Paula Ballesteros Arias, ´Estudo arqueolóxico e etnográfico da Paisaxe Cultural das Illas Ons (Bueu, Pontevedra), cuxo responsable científico é Felipe Criado Boado. [ES] Corto documental realizado en el marco de las actividades de divulgación del proyecto dirigido por Paula Ballesteros Arias, ´Estudo arqueolóxico e etnográfico da Paisaxe Cultural das Illas Ons (Bueu, Pontevedra), cuyo responsable científico es Felipe Criado Boado. Consellería de Medio Rural, Xunta de Galicia; LaPa (IEGPS-CSIC); LPPP (IIT-USC)

Sanj talks about the history of the Torghuts in Kalmykia. According to him, there are several versions of the etymology of the ethnonym Torghut. In the view of the French scholar Paul Pelliot, it derives from the Turkic verb ‘tur’ (to stand) + the plural suffix. The Secret History of Mongols writes that in the beginning turgak kishg, who were Chingis Khan’s bodyguards during the day, consisted of 80 men. After 1206, their number grew to ten thousand. The bodyguards were divided into three groups, including turgak (day guards), keptyul (night guards) and khorchin (bowmen). Apart from providing personal security to the Khan, these guards also served as policemen. In other words, the ethnonym Torghut derives from the word turgak. The contemporary Torghut, however, are not the same as the historical Torghuts. The Torghuts joined the Oirats, which was a feeble union of tribes, in the 14-15th centuries. When the Mongol Empire was split into five khanates, the Oirats were part of a force that opposed Kublai Khan. Following the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty (founded by Kublai), a civil war broke out among the Mongols. Although, according to the established convention it was only the direct descendants of Chingis Khan who had the right to the throne, the Oirat lords started to challenge the status quo. In the 15-16th centuries in their struggle with the Eastern Mongols, the Oirat union suffered defeat after defeat, which prompted their leaders to call a meeting (chulgan) in order to strengthen the union. Despite internal struggles, the union had a centripetal tendency under the leadership of the lords from the Tsoros clan. Nevertheless, several tribes, or clans, left the union and moved westwards. According to Soviet sources, the first among the Oirats to arrive in the Volga region was the Torghut lord Kho-Urlyuk of the Keryad clan. Recent studies, however, dispute this view and show instead that it was the Khoshud lords who first came to this region. The Derbet lord Dalai Taishi was the next to arrive in the Volga. Various Oirat groups thus settled in the territory of today’s Astrakhan, near the Volga, displacing the indigenous Nogais whom the Russians used as a buffer force against foreign tribes. So, when the Derbets drew the Nogais out of their land, the Russians were not in a position to defend their vassals. The third wave of Oirat arrival took place when the Torghuts headed by Kho-Urlyuk’s older son, Luuzang, came to the Volga. Once settled, Luuzang carried out a policy to attract into his dominion various Turkic tribes, including the Tatars, Nogais and Tomuts. According to Nikita Bichurin, the Tomuts were a mix of Tatars and Bashkirs who had a religion that was also a mix of various religions, including shamanism, Buddhism and Islam. During the Oirat/Kalmyk settlement, half of the Tomuts dissolved among the Oirats, while the other half left for Crimea, becoming the Crimean Tatars. Sanj Khoyt says he wrote an article about hybridization, or ethnic mixing in Kalmykia. According to his research, the Kalmyks mixed with many ethnic groups, including Russians, Kazakhs, and peoples from the Caucasus. Hybridization took place among all social strata, including the aristocracy and ordinary people alike. Ordos (China) is the motherland of the Torghuts. According to available genetic and ethnographic data, they were most likely Eastern Mongols. After joining the Oirat union, the Torghuts, who consisted of Mongol and Turkic tribes, were headed by the Keryad clan. The Torghuts reached the Volga region through Central Asia while incorporating on their way various clans and tribes. Hence their colorful composition. The Torghuts differ from the Derbets both in terms of their dialect and customs. In the Volga region all these groups – the Torghuts, Khoshuds, Zyungar, Khoit, etc. – came to be known under the umbrella term of Kalmyk. Owing to widespread Russification, today the difference among various Kalmyk groups is negligible. With the passage of time, some Kalmyks, especially impoverished individuals, engaged in fishing. Those Kalmyks who lived close to the Volga and the Caspian Sea became good fishermen. Historically, the majority of Kalmyks were Torghuts, which means that the Kalmyk Khanate was in fact a Torghut Khanate. Hence, the Kalmyk Khan Ayuka described himself in his letters as a Torghut Khan. When in 1771 the majority of the Kalmyks, or Torghuts, set out on a return journey to Dzungaria, the number of the Torghuts that remained in Kalmykia diminished accordingly. When the Khanate was abolished by the Russian government as a consequence of this exodus, the Tundutov family of the Choros clan of the Derbet were appointed as representatives of the Russian administration among the Kalmyks. Historically, the Torghuts participated in religious wars. When Kagyu and Gelug schools of Buddhism fought with each other in Tibet, the Oirats supported Gelug, while the Khalkhas, or Mongols, supported Kagyu. It is known that a contingent of Torghut soldiers from the Volga reached Zungaria and Tibet. After their military campaign, they returned home. Sponsored by Arcadia Fund, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin.

Bembya says that some temples in Kalmykia had Tibetan architectural influence. In Kalmykia, in one of the villages there stood a temple that resembled the mandala of Vajrabhairava. Many Kalmyk temples had symmetrical walls which is also known among other Mongolian groups. Kalmyks also had temples that had Russian influence. An example is the Khosheutovsky Temple, built in the likeness of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. There were also temples that had mixed architecture, i.e. Tibetan-Mongolian or Tibetan-Oirat, although Kalmyks did not have temples with Chinese architectural influence. Sponsored by Arcadia Fund, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin

The beautiful focus of this film is a quilt made in c.1890 in Swaledale and its journey through the generations of a family and on to the Quilters’ Guild collection in the early twenty-first century. It conveys how textiles hold powerful emotions for their makers and the relatives who have inherited them, and communicates the pleasures of hand quilting in the past and today. It also shows how inherited objects offer insights into our history, reflecting on the way inherited quilts provide insights into changing regional patterns of women’s work and lives. With Deborah McGuire and Joanne Begiato.

Mergen says that of all schools of Buddhism, Gelug was the most open to the masses. Whilst other schools, which were more closed, did not send out missionaries, Gelug pursued this line of activity. Despite being like this, Gelug also comprises of esotericism and secret tantric practices. The Oirats played an important role in the establishment of the Gelug tradition. Gushi Khan’s campaign, the creation of the Kokonor Khanate and the creation of a theocratic state in Tibet itself – these are all the contribution of the Oirats. The Oirats were also first among the Mongolian peoples to adopt Buddhism. In addition, the Kalmyks were instrumental in spreading Buddhism in modern Europe and the United States. There are many hypotheses about when Buddhism spread among the Oirats. Some scholars say that it was during Chingis Khan, others take it further back to the pre-Chingis period, and yet there are scholars who contend that Buddhism began to spread in the 17th century. At present, there are no historical sources to verify any of these theories. Before adopting Gelug, various Mongolian tribes practiced other Buddhist traditions. The question of why Mongolian tribes chose Gelug can be explained partly by the fact that Altan Khan of Mongolia had personal contact with the Dalai Lama III, head of the Gelug school. Born in the 15th century, Gelug spread among the Mongols in the 16th century. Why was Gelug so popular among the Oirats? In Mergen’s view, this school’s lavish ceremonies involving large numbers of monks might have attracted the Oirats. To this should be added Buddha’s prediction that his religion would spread to the north. There could be geographical factors as well added to this explanation. Sponsored by Arcadia Fund, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin