• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Other research productsclose
• Open Access close
• LV close

Funding Information: This satellite symposium was organized by the Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Rīga Stradiņš University, Odense University, and Lund University. The network ‘Bridging the Baltic: Medicine in the Baltic Sea Region’ brings together researchers who currently work on aspects of medical history in the Baltic Sea region to illuminate currents of ideas and areas of cooperation and conflict. One of the main themes of the network is how the circulation of knowledge in medicine played out during the Cold War. How did science exchange in medical practice across the Iron Curtain? The Riga meeting has also been characterized by interdisciplinarity with speakers from different fields, such as historians, physicians, scholars of other medical studies, health care economists, politicians, and diplomats (Fig. 6). The symposium was supported by the German Research Foundation and the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health (Bridging the Baltic, 2021). Funding Information: The symposium ‘Anatomy & Beyond’ was curated by Pascale Pollier and was a collaborative project of the Association Européenne des Illustrateurs Médicaux et Scientifiques (AEIMS), The Medical Artists’ Association of Great Britain (MAA), Biological and Medical Art in Belgium (BIOMAB), Art Researches Science International Collaboration (ARSIC), International Society for the History of Medicine (ISHM) and the RSU Anatomy Museum. The event was supported by the Embassy of Belgium to Sweden and Latvia, the General Representation of the Government of Flanders in Poland and the Baltic States, Vesalius Trust, and the Honorary Consul of Belgium in Latvia, Dr. Didzis Gavars. publishersversion Peer reviewed

Previosusly it was thought that no picture of the first telescope installed at the Astronomical Tower of the University of Latvia was preserved. During thorough search at the Museum of the University of Latvia a single picture of the telescope was found. This video explains how the picture was found. Agrāk domāja, ka Latvijas Universitātes Astronomiskā torņa pirmā teleskopa fotogrāfija nav saglabājusies. Veicot rūpīgus meklējumus Latvijas Universitātes Muzejā, tika atrasta vienīgā teleskopa fotogrāfija. Video paskaidro, kā tā tika atrasta.

Portrait of Pēteris Ķiķauka (1886-1967), Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Latvia, taken in 1930. Latvijas Universitātes klasiskās filoloģijas profesora Pētera Ķiķaukas (1886-1967) portrets, kas uzņemts 1930. gadā.

publishersversion Peer reviewed

publishersversion Peer reviewed

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Andrejs Gusachenko et al., published by Sciendo 2021. On 18 November 1918, the independent Republic of Latvia was declared in an extremely complicated international and domestic environment - the First World War was still going on, empires were collapsing, and ethnically and ideologically diverse military troops were fighting within the boundaries of Latvian territory. Despite the historical context of a previously tense relationship between Latvians and other ethnic groups, representatives of all minorities fought next to Latvians against the enemies of the Latvian state. Up until 11 August 1920, when the Peace Treaty with the Soviet Russia was signed, the prospects of de jure recognition of the newly established state were blurred; yet, the defeat of the White forces in the Russian Civil War opened the long awaited "window of opportunity", as a result of which Latvia managed to achieve its international recognition on 26 January 1921. More than seventy years later, on 4 May 1990, when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), the international and domestic situation was no less complicated. Latvia was forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940 and became part of it, yet the economic and political deterioration of the Soviet Union, the national awakening in the Baltic States and other Soviet republics alongside the fall of the Berlin Wall gave momentum for the regime to change. On 21 August 1991, after the barricades and bloody clashes with the Soviet Special Purpose Police Units (OMON) in Riga on January and the failed coup d'état in Moscow in August, Latvia's independence once again became a reality. In the events of the 1990s, the memories of 1918 and Latvia's independence in the period between the two world wars were crucial. It is manifested by the fact that Latvian statehood in 1991 was not established anew but restored. Acknowledging the importance of history on contemporary identification and policy-making, this article aims to provide an insight into the history of 1917-1922 and its resonance in the contemporary situation. Using the methodology of literature analysis and historical process-tracing it will reveal the complicated process of the state's formation and recognition in the period of 1917-1922, paying particular attention to the role of the minorities and diplomatic efforts. It will also uncover the resonance of the events of 1918-1922 in the 1990s, when Latvia's independence from the Soviet Union was declared, focusing in particular on aspects defining the statehood of Latvia and its citizenship. In this part, it will be argued that the history of 1917-1922 was brought back when the statehood of Latvia was concerned, while overshadowed by fifty years of the Soviet occupation, when the citizenship issue was on the agenda. Indeed, not only ethnic Latvians but also minorities living in Latvia played a decisive role in the efforts of restoring Latvia's independence. However, as a result of the Citizenship Law,1 adopted in 1994, more than one-fourth of the population - in most cases, representatives of the Russian-speaking community - were denied citizenship. This practice contrasts the Act that had been adopted in the interwar period, when Latvian citizenship was granted to all ethnic groups who were living within the borders of the then agreed Latvian territory, notwithstanding their diverse ideological background. Given this fact, the article provides future research opportunities related to perceptions of history in contemporary policy-making. publishersversion Peer reviewed

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Klavs Sedlenieks, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston 2021. The stereotypes of Montenegrin gender relations depict men doing war and women constrained to lead extremely hard lives consisting of reproduction and domestic work. In this study with a focus on Njeguši, the author instead demonstrates how gender relations are characterised by a dynamic process which defies attempts to present a one-dimensional picture. For example, the widespread tradition that sons inherit, to the exclusion of daughters, proves to be linked to the much less problematised principle of virilocal marriages, with the consequence that women are strongly encouraged to leave family property, while men are morally bound to stay on it. The reverse condition is that women are able to enjoy freedom of movement while men have difficulty finding spouses, and once married many of them live apart from their wives. The author also addresses the business of 'importing' brides as well as the phenomenon of brother-and-sister households. publishersversion Peer reviewed

Publisher Copyright: © 2017 by Inna Šteinbuka. This contribution articulates the synergies and divergences of the various formats of cooperation between China and the European countries. The EU and China have a strong interest in each other's flagship initiatives, namely the Investment Plan for Europe, and the One Belt, One Road Initiative (Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road). The authors argue that there are certain synergies between these initiatives. Furthermore, the new initiative EU-China Connectivity Platform is aimed to explore these synergies. The authors explore the recent developments in the EU-China investments, trade cooperation and the challenges of the ever-growing CEEC-China partnership in different formats, including the new platform of 16+1. The authors examine these implications in relation to the need to expand and adapt the content and approach of the EU-China Bilateral Investment agreement. The article concludes that the CEEC-China relation does not go against the EU; moreover, neither the CEE countries nor China have any motivation to try to weaken the EU. publishersversion Peer reviewed