Tracing, Cataloguing, Indexing: Reflections on the Joachim and Petra Heidrich papers in the Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient Archive

Table of Con­tents
Tra­jec­to­ries of the col­lec­tors – Joachim Hei­drich and Petra Hei­drich | Emer­gence of col­lec­tions and the life worlds of an archive | “Whose col­lec­tion?”: From mate­ri­al­ly entan­gled sources to a vir­tu­al­ly entan­gled data­base | Sus­tain­ing Inner Archi­tec­tures, Artic­u­lat­ing new Struc­tures | End­notes | Bib­li­og­ra­phy

The Leib­niz-Zen­trum Mod­ern­er Ori­ent (ZMO) was estab­lished in 1996. Its pre­de­ces­sor insti­tu­tion, the Forschungss­chw­er­punkt Mod­ern­er Ori­ent, emerged in 1992 from the Insti­tute for Uni­ver­sal His­to­ry (Insti­tut für All­ge­meine Geschichte) of the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences (Akademie der Wis­senschaften) of the Ger­man Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic (GDR). The ZMO library and archive con­sist of sig­nif­i­cant col­lec­tions of pri­vate papers besides host­ing mul­ti­far­i­ous and exten­sive lit­er­a­ture on his­tor­i­cal, anthro­po­log­i­cal and polit­i­cal themes engag­ing with the Mid­dle East, Asia and Africa as its region­al focus. The pri­vate papers’ hold­ing of the archive com­pris­es col­lec­tions by three emi­nent East Ger­man schol­ars – Horst Krüger (1920–1989), Joachim Hei­drich (1930–2004) and Petra Hei­drich (1940–2006) – who researched on South Asia relat­ed themes. In the case of these three schol­ars specif­i­cal­ly, the archival hold­ing con­sists of research relat­ed papers and no per­son­al diaries or oth­er ego doc­u­ments of the indi­vid­u­als. Tem­po­ral­ly, their col­lec­tions com­menced in the 1960s and con­tin­ued through the Cold War years (the themes researched have files that date back to colo­nial India of the ear­ly twen­ti­eth century).

In a sem­i­nar organ­ised with­in the frame­work of the BA and MA cours­es offered at the Depart­ment for South Asian Stud­ies, Hum­boldt-Uni­ver­sität zu Berlin (one of the three part­ner insti­tu­tions of the MIDA project), the team and the attend­ing stu­dents stud­ied, cat­a­logued, indexed and dig­i­tized the papers of Joachim Hei­drich and a part of those of Petra Hei­drich. This entry will out­line the the­o­ret­i­cal and method­olog­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions which inform the process of cat­a­logu­ing a pri­vate col­lec­tion. It is organ­ised along three pri­ma­ry axes and uti­lizes the col­lec­tions as an illus­tra­tive case study for revis­it­ing larg­er ques­tions on archival archi­tec­tures. The main objec­tive of the post is thus to trans­par­ent­ly share the process of cat­a­logu­ing a col­lec­tion into a data­base with read­ers and ini­ti­ate a dis­cus­sion on ques­tions relat­ed to the entan­gled nature of archival col­lec­tions and how researchers de-and re-con­sti­tute their architecture.

Trajectories of the collectors – Joachim Heidrich and Petra Heidrich

Joachim Hei­drich (13.07.1930–08.07.2004)
Joachim Hei­drich, born in 1930, stud­ied eth­nol­o­gy (Volk­skunde) and suc­cess­ful­ly fin­ished his doc­tor­al dis­ser­ta­tion in 1958. His orig­i­nal train­ing was in Indol­o­gy cou­pled with a pro­found knowl­edge of the his­to­ry and lan­guages of India. Between 1973–81, Hei­drich lived in India and held sev­er­al port­fo­lios for the GDR’s Min­istry of For­eign Affairs, includ­ing dif­fer­ent posi­tions at the embassy in New Del­hi and that of the Con­sulate Gen­er­al of the GDR in Cal­cut­ta. From 1981–1989, he worked at the Cen­tral Insti­tute of His­to­ry (Zen­tralin­sti­tut für Geschichte) fol­lowed by the Insti­tute for Uni­ver­sal His­to­ry (Insti­tut für All­ge­meine Geschichte) at the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences (Akademie der Wis­senschaften) of the GDR. After this, and until 1995, he worked at ZMO’s pre­de­ces­sor insti­tu­tion, the Forschungss­chw­er­punkt Mod­ern­er Orient.

Petra Hei­drich (13.11.1940–31.1. 2006)
Petra Hei­drich was born in 1940 in Berlin. She stud­ied Indol­o­gy and Social Anthro­pol­o­gy at Hum­boldt- Uni­ver­sität zu Berlin. In 1965 she joined the Insti­tute of Ori­en­tal Stud­ies, at the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of the GDR. Her research pri­mar­i­ly focussed on social aspects of the agrar­i­an ques­tion in India as well as on the Indi­an peas­ant move­ment and its lead­ers in pre­and post-inde­pen­dence India. Dur­ing the 1970s, she spent sev­er­al years with her fam­i­ly (Joachim Hei­drich, men­tioned above was mar­ried to Petra Hei­drich). In 1983 she obtained her Ph.D. from the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of the GDR and was a staff mem­ber of the Insti­tute of His­to­ry till the dis­so­lu­tion of the Acad­e­my of Sci­ences after the uni­fi­ca­tion of the two Ger­manys. In 1992 she joined the Zen­trum Mod­ern­er Ori­ent in Berlin and con­tin­ued her research on social prob­lems of mod­ern and con­tem­po­rary India. Her pub­li­ca­tions (main­ly in Ger­man and Eng­lish) include con­tri­bu­tions on rur­al devel­op­ment pro­grammes, on the peas­antry and peas­ant lead­ers, on the role of agri­cul­tur­al labour and on social and reli­gious reform move­ments in colo­nial and inde­pen­dent India. In the last years of her employ­ment at the cen­tre, she worked on a com­par­a­tive biog­ra­phy of the two peas­ant lead­ers– Swa­mi Saha­janand Saraswati and N.G.Ranga

The Hei­drich col­lec­tions at the archive of Leib­niz-Zen­trum Mod­ern­er Ori­ent com­prise copies of Indi­an news­pa­per arti­cles, rare lit­er­a­ture and files from diverse Indi­an archives and libraries in Pat­na, Del­hi, Kolkata and Mum­bai. Among oth­ers, the box­es con­sist of copies of pam­phlets, mag­a­zines, min­utes and pro­ceed­ings of meet­ings, let­ters, reports, micro­films and their print­ed out hard copies as well as hand-writ­ten notes (see fig­ures 2a and 2b) and index­es. These dif­fer­ent kinds of sources cov­er numer­ous themes that are rel­e­vant for social his­to­ri­ans of India– the labour and peas­ant move­ments in India, agri­cul­tur­al prob­lems in post­colo­nial India, the devel­op­ment of the All India Kisan Sab­ha (All India Peas­ants’ Union), the emer­gence of dif­fer­ent polit­i­cal cur­rents dur­ing the nine­teenth and twen­ti­eth cen­turies, com­mu­nism and sources relat­ed to the his­to­ry of trade union­ism in India.

When stud­ied close­ly the col­lect­ed files show that their indi­vid­ual research inter­ests also inter­sect­ed on numer­ous themes. The col­lec­tions become a win­dow to their aca­d­e­m­ic world and the spe­cif­ic themes that evoked their intrigue.

Emergence of collections and the life worlds of an archive

Any attempts at cat­a­logu­ing and under­stand­ing the inter­nal orga­niz­ing archi­tec­ture of a col­lec­tion or an archive neces­si­tates gain­ing back­ground knowl­edge of the his­to­ry of the col­lec­tion or the hold­ing. The inten­tions and the cri­te­ria that led to the col­lec­tion of sources (documents/texts/objects) help gain a com­pre­hen­sive overview of the his­tor­i­cal moti­va­tions that trig­gered the col­lec­tion and its even­tu­al incor­po­ra­tion in a par­tic­u­lar archive. In the case of the Joachim and Petra Hei­drich pri­vate papers’ col­lec­tions (Nach­lass), these moti­va­tions are some­what obvi­ous. As two GDR schol­ars who were his­tor­i­cal­ly and anthro­po­log­i­cal­ly inter­est­ed in British and post-colo­nial India, their col­lec­tion opens a vibrant spec­trum of top­ics that they deemed cru­cial for research on India with­in the over­ar­ch­ing frame­work of acad­e­mia in the GDR. Their per­son­al tra­jec­to­ry also adds an inter­est­ing lay­er to the col­lec­tions. As res­i­dents in India for over eight years, a rar­i­ty for most his­to­ri­ans as well as anthro­pol­o­gists, both indeed prof­i­teered from exten­sive archival vis­its, often also col­lect­ing an exhaus­tive range of sources on themes, which did not nec­es­sar­i­ly find their way into their pub­li­ca­tions direct­ly. Thus the col­lec­tions, when con­trast­ed with the lists of pub­li­ca­tions of the two schol­ars, also show which sources were effec­tive­ly used to mate­ri­al­ize pub­li­ca­tions as well as sources on those top­ics that con­tin­ued to evoke inter­est for a sus­tained peri­od of time but could not take the shape of pub­lished work.

As men­tioned, the themes one encoun­ters in the sources are diverse and mul­ti-lay­ered. Among oth­ers, they relate to – The All India Trade Union Con­gress, the role of reli­gious lead­ers in the peas­ant move­ment in the 1920s up to inde­pen­dence, agrar­i­an and peas­ant his­to­ry, peas­ant revolts, trade union­ism and strikes, the caste ques­tion, pro­ceed­ings of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty of India and its role in the inde­pen­dence move­ment as observed in secret reports of the Home Depart­ment of the colo­nial gov­ern­ment and a com­pre­hen­sive overview of the his­to­ry of the polit­i­cal Left in India. These con­scious­ly elect­ed themes not only reveal the kind of aca­d­e­m­ic inter­ests in India that were trig­gered by the two schol­ars with­in the GDR, but they also reflect the over­ar­ch­ing frame­work of social­ism and com­mu­nism inspired aca­d­e­m­ic tra­di­tions of the GDR more generally.

Joachim Heidrich’s col­lec­tions also become inter­est­ing from anoth­er per­spec­tive. As an anthro­pol­o­gist who pur­sued a career in diplo­ma­cy and acquired posi­tions with­in the embassies soon after the GDR was rec­og­nized by the Indi­an gov­ern­ment, his life tra­jec­to­ry offers telling details about the ranks and files of GDR diplo­ma­cy in India more generally.

These were not diplo­mats who did rapid crash-cours­es on the sub­con­ti­nent before embark­ing onto their diplo­mat­ic careers, but very often, care­ful­ly select­ed indi­vid­u­als who had had a sus­tained, long-term aca­d­e­m­ic inter­est in South Asian his­to­ry and pol­i­tics. Joachim Hei­derich, even­tu­al­ly re-turned to aca­d­e­m­ic research after being in diplo­mat­ic posi­tions between 1973–81. Thus, his col­lec­tion, when viewed from the his­tor­i­cal lens, reveals cer­tain impor­tant ele­ments– (1) The inter­sec­tion of diplo­mat­ic and aca­d­e­m­ic careers; (2) A long peri­od of res­i­dence in India which enabled the Hei­drichs to exten­sive­ly con­sult and copy an exhaus­tive list of pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary sources on Indi­an his­to­ry from very diverse archives across the coun­ty and (3) The reflex­ive aware­ness that the col­lec­tion could be high­ly rel­e­vant for the future gen­er­a­tion of schol­ars engag­ing with South Asia, as is also revealed by their care­ful index­ing, order­ing and list­ing of sources.

“Whose collection?”: From materially entangled sources to a virtually entangled database

The Hei­drich col­lec­tions are unique in that they con­sist of sources from Indi­an archives and libraries sole­ly and, unlike most hold­ings from Ger­man archives that have been cat­a­logued and indexed in the MIDA data­base, they do not have a sin­gle file in the Ger­man lan­guage. They are a spe­cial illus­tra­tion of entan­gled archives where­by it is not just the con­tents of files but also rather the phys­i­cal pres­ence of sources on India from India in a Ger­man archive that inter­links hold­ings in India to those in Ger­many. Besides, the col­lec­tions also indi­cate the entan­gled life tra­jec­to­ries of the two GDR schol­ars of India who were also a cou­ple in pri­vate life. This has also borne con­se­quences for how the sources have been list­ed in a for­mat that is based on the struc­ture of the data­base. For exam­ple, Box 2.4 from Joachim Heidrich’s col­lec­tions con­sists of sources on Swa­mi Saha­janand Saraswati, an ascetic and a peas­ant leader, who also found­ed the All India Kisan Sab­ha in 1929. A brief overview of Petra Heidrich’s schol­ar­ly inter­ests and pub­li­ca­tions may sug­gest that these were sources col­lect­ed by her for her com­par­a­tive research on N.G. Ran­ga and Saha­janand Saraswati. As researchers cat­a­logu­ing the col­lec­tion, we are unaware if the con­tents of Box 2.4. came to be insert­ed in the Joachim Hei­drich col­lec­tion as an act of col­lect­ing by the two researchers them­selves of by the two per­sons who assem­bled the mate­r­i­al and were respon­si­ble for enabling their trans­fer to the archive after Petra Heidrich’s death. This realm of uncer­tain­ty and ambi­gu­i­ty is almost cer­tain­ly part of the process of cat­a­logu­ing for all archives. In this case, offi­cial­ly, the Box con­tin­ues to be part of the Joachim col­lec­tion at the archive and prece­dence was giv­en to the order­ing in which the sources were inher­it­ed. Thus, in order to ensure that the files appear as part of the Joachim Hei­drich col­lec­tion to not dis­turb the prove­nance of the ZMO archive and, at the same time, indi­cate that they clear­ly were in fact col­lect­ed by Petra Hei­drich, such files have been list­ed under the Petra Hei­drich Nach­lass cat­a­logue in the final list based on the struc­ture of the MIDA data­base. How­ev­er, those list­ing the sources for the data­base have ensured that read­ers, when read­ing the descrip­tion of the box’s con­tents are duly aware that it actu­al­ly is phys­i­cal­ly placed in Box 2.4 of the Joachim Hei­drich col­lec­tion. The team list­ing and index­ing these sources was often con­front­ed with the ques­tion of whether in such obvi­ous cas­es the files should be sep­a­rat­ed and placed in the respec­tive collection’s box­es or if it would be ben­e­fi­cial to put both the col­lec­tions togeth­er as one col­lec­tive hold­ing in the name of both the researchers. We thus see how the act of ‘vir­tu­al’ or ‘digi­tial’ re-order­ing, where­as actu­al­ly bear­ing no con­se­quences for the phys­i­cal place of the sources (all box­es, whether from Petra or Joachim Heidrich’s col­lec­tion, are placed on neigh­bour­ing shelves in the same cel­lar) does bear con­se­quences for how sources will be seen, accessed and re-placed/­con­tex­tu­alised in future indi­vid­ual research. All of this can thus result from a minute act of the cat­a­logu­ing researcher.

On a sim­i­lar tone, in one of the oth­er box­es, one encoun­ters a hand-writ­ten list of archival entries for micro­film­ing, which has been signed by Horst Krüger (per­haps part of the reg­u­lar exchange which Krüger had with the two Hei­drichs?). The list was inher­it­ed from the Hei­drich house and thus con­tin­ues to be a part of the Hei­drich col­lec­tions (see fig­ures 4) and not the Krüger papers though once again, the descrip­tion of the con­tents of the box men­tions that the list was actu­al­ly pre­pared by Horst Krüger. Such seem­ing­ly minute and banal issues often become com­plex top­ics for archivists more gen­er­al­ly when orga­niz­ing “the place” of hold­ings in larg­er archives.

One of the objec­tives of the MIDA Archival Guide is to reflect on how the turn towards entan­gled transna­tion­al and glob­al his­to­ries not only rais­es new the­o­ret­i­cal ques­tions but also con­fronts us with method­olog­i­cal issues on the rela­tion­ship between entan­gled his­to­ries and archives.[1] Dis­cus­sions on archives and their inter­twined archi­tec­tures need to be incor­po­rat­ed in our engage­ments with entan­gled his­to­ries. The Hei­drich col­lec­tions housed by the ZMO archive are an illus­tri­ous exam­ple of how entan­gled archives reflect, and often are a trace of, pasts, which are more inter­wo­ven than ter­ri­to­ri­al­ly, con­tain­ing state archives would lead us to believe. They become a win­dow not only to the aca­d­e­m­ic visions of the two schol­ars but also show the lega­cy of India-relat­ed research inter­ests in archives which are not colo­nial, and belong to a new insti­tu­tion­al struc­ture since the reuni­fi­ca­tion of the two Ger­manys. The col­lec­tions also point to the impor­tance of small­er archives, which can enable schol­ars to shift their focus away from the ter­ri­to­ri­al­iz­ing log­ics of larg­er state archives. Thus, we see that the Hei­drich col­lec­tions give us an idea of the top­ics that inter­est­ed the two schol­ars, espe­cial­ly with­in the over­ar­ch­ing con­text of social sci­ences in social­ist GDR. The col­lec­tions can be high­ly ben­e­fi­cial for schol­ars inter­est­ed in the his­to­ry of the Com­mu­nist Par­ty of India, peas­ant move­ments and trade union­ism. In more ways than one they are an archive with­in an archive giv­en that the sources were copied from Indi­an archives, are often to also be found in colo­nial archives and are housed in a Ger­man archive.

Unlike the hold­ings of most Ger­man archives, which chron­i­cle the his­to­ry of Indo-Ger­man entan­gle­ments more direct­ly by mir­ror­ing sources that enable writ­ing bilat­er­al his­to­ries, these col­lec­tions can tell vol­umes about entan­gled life tra­jec­to­ries of GDR schol­ars who were inter­est­ed in study­ing colo­nial and post­colo­nial India. This can be a fruit­ful area of research in its own right that has hith­er­to been rel­a­tive­ly unex­plored, espe­cial­ly in the midst of the pol­i­tics post 1989 and the mak­ing of ‘nation­al’ meta-nar­ra­tives. The tran­si­tions of 1989 pro­voked dras­tic shifts in the organ­i­sa­tion of the GDR’s uni­ver­si­ties and often result­ed in sud­den halts in the careers of numer­ous aca­d­e­mics.[2]
This larg­er trans­for­ma­tion also impact­ed the aca­d­e­m­ic careers of sev­er­al schol­ars of South Asia in the GDR. Although Petra Hei­drich could con­tin­ue with her research at the ZMO after the tran­si­tions faced by theGDR’s Acad­e­my of Social Sci­ences, it was the rejec­tion of her last fund­ing appli­ca­tion in 2000 that brought her offi­cial aca­d­e­m­ic career to an unex­pect­ed stop.[3] Though thecol­lec­tions do not offer any ego doc­u­ments, they may be cru­cial for any schol­ars trac­ing­such biogra­phies in under­stand­ing the aca­d­e­m­ic endeav­ours of the collectors.

Sustaining Inner Architectures, Articulating new Structures

One of the main aims of the MIDA project is to devel­op an online open-access data­base that
sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly cat­a­logues, index­es and describes those files and hold­ings in key Ger­man
archives which relate to Indi­an his­to­ry or the his­to­ry of India-Ger­many entan­gle­ments.
With­in the con­text of the ZMO archive, the Hei­drich col­lec­tions are ordered accord­ing to the
prin­ci­ple of prove­nance with­in the archi­tec­ture of the archive. The MIDA data­base trans­forms this cat­e­go­riza­tion accord­ing to the prin­ci­ple of per­ti­nence by extract­ing such sources and order­ing them the­mat­i­cal­ly, with India as the focus.[4]

One of the objec­tives of the process of pro­duc­ing the data­base, has been to simul­ta­ne­ous­ly mir­ror the archi­tec­ture of the archive con­cerned and nonethe­less show­case the India-spe­cif­ic sources. How can this be done effec­tive­ly so that the data­base allows users to view the sources as they exist in the con­text in which they are embed­ded in the archival struc­ture while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly insert­ing them in a new sys­tem­at­ic? This requires prob­ing into the struc­ture of the data­base and how the col­lec­tions are effec­tive­ly list­ed in it.

The data­base, whose struc­ture became the guid­ing tool-kit for the stu­dents of the sem­i­nar while sys­tem­atiz­ing infor­ma­tion from the Hei­drichs’ col­lec­tions, com­pris­es three dif­fer­ent lev­els of descrip­tion– The ‘Archive’ field (Archiv), the ‘Hold­ings’ field (Archiv Bestand) and the ‘Files’ field (Archiva­lien). In the case of the Hei­drich col­lec­tions, there are two hold­ings described under the ‘Hold­ings’ field i.e. Nach­lass Joachim Hei­drich and Nach­lass Petra Hei­drich. The ‘Files’ field lists each indi­vid­ual file. The title of the file cor­re­sponds to the main title as list­ed on the first sheet of each group of pages that were care­ful­ly pinned togeth­er by the col­lec­tors. It is here that one often encoun­ters pho­to­copies of sev­er­al doc­u­ments (numer­ous files from Indi­an archives) which were placed togeth­er as one file by the col­lec­tors. Thus, although an indi­vid­ual file may in real­i­ty cor­re­spond to sev­er­al pho­to­copied files, these are nonethe­less treat­ed as a sin­gu­lar enti­ty (Ein­heit) in order to sus­tain the order­ing log­ic of the col­lec­tors. For exam­ple, Box 1.3 con­sists of a file (see fig­ure 3), which is in fact a col­lec­tion of vary­ing doc­u­ments that have been clipped togeth­er as a sin­gu­lar enti­ty. The file has sim­ply been titled as “Telegram (title illeg­i­ble)” in the MIDA data­base entry. In the col­umn titled ‘Descrip­tion of Con­tents’ (Inhalts­beschrei­bung [En]), how­ev­er, one can see that the file con­sists of five dif­fer­ent sources viz.

1. A Telegram com­ment­ing on anoth­er doc­u­ment (not entire­ly leg­i­ble or comprehensible)
2. A let­ter of M.N. Roy
3. A news­pa­per arti­cle titled: “Com­mu­nist Par­ty in India — New Pro­gramme out­lined — M.N.Roy urges cap­tur­ing of the worker’s party.”
4. A telegram from Shim­la by the India News Agency on MN Roy’s speech
5. A secret week­ly report of the Direc­tor Intel­li­gence Bureau of the Home Depart­ment analysing dif­fer­ent anti-British move­ments in India and India-relat­ed for­eign move­ments of the same nature. The dif­fer­ent doc­u­ments seem to have been col­lect­ed from dif­fer­ent sources all more or less relat­ed to com­mu­nism in India in gen­er­al or M.N.Roy specifically.

Hence, in order to keep the orga­niz­ing order undis­turbed, the oth­er­wise five dif­fer­ent sources have been treat­ed as a sin­gu­lar file in the data­base but they are also list­ed indi­vid­u­al­ly in the descrip­tion field to give the user a most detailed view into the con­tents. At the same time, the exact source of the file is also incor­po­rat­ed in the descrip­tion. The per­son mak­ing the entry men­tions that the file was copied by Joachim Hei­drich from the Home Depart­ment of the Nation­al Archives of India (NAI) beside the exact file num­ber as it appears in NAI’s cat­a­logue. In this way, the orig­i­nal source is also indi­cat­ed to a user while re-plac­ing the source in the new sys­tem­at­ic of the data­base. In some cas­es, where vis­i­ble in the form of offi­cial stamps of the archives (Nation­al Archives of India or NMML), the date when the file was copied by the col­lec­tors is also mentioned.

This post has attempt­ed to engage users with the process of trac­ing, enlist­ing and index­ing sources relat­ed to India from a pri­vate col­lec­tion housed in the archive of the Leib­nizZen­trum Mod­ern­er Ori­ent, Berlin. In doing so it has point­ed to some of the method­olog­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions involved when such sources, belong­ing to a giv­en archival archi­tec­ture, are extract­ed for being re-con­fig­ured on a dig­i­tal plat­form which has its own over­ar­ch­ing struc­ture and organ­i­sa­tion­al log­ic. At the same time, it has shown how entan­gled archives (between the GDR and India in this case) inter­twine with, and also reflect, the entan­gled life tra­jec­to­ries of the col­lect­ing his­to­ri­ans. The main objec­tive of the post has thus been to trans­par­ent­ly share the ‘how’ of dig­i­tal cat­a­logu­ing as a process and the ques­tions that arise when data is de– and re–configured in the midst of trans­form­ing order­ing systematics.

Endnotes

[1] As an attempt to ini­ti­ate crit­i­cal dis­cus­sions on this, a first step tak­en by the project is to orga­nize a work­shop espe­cial­ly ded­i­cat­ed to dis­cussing the rela­tion­ship between entan­gled his­to­ries and entan­gled archives. See: the announce­ment of the project’s inter­na­tion­al work­shop in Sep­tem­ber 2018 (Link to be added here).

[2] See for exam­ple, Hecht, A. (ed.), “Ent­täuschte Hoff­nun­gen: Auto­bi­ographis­che Berichte abgewick­el­ter Wis­senschaftler aus dem Osten Deutsch­lands”, s.l.: Ver­lag am Park, 2008 and Idem, Die Wis­senschaft­selite Ost­deutsch­lands. Feindliche Über­nahme oder Inte­gra­tion?, Leipzig: Faber und Faber, 2002.

[3] Hafn­er, A., “Petra Heidrich’s research work in the con­text of the devel­op­ment of South Asian Stud­ies at the ZMO (1992–2000)”, in: ZMO Work­ing Papers, 1, 2010, pp. 1–7.

[4] For more reflec­tions on the Per­ti­nence and Prove­nance prin­ci­ples see the Intro­duc­tion to the MIDA Archival Guide (See the Intro­duc­tion to the Online Archival Guide) and on the process of re-struc­tur­ing through data­bas­es, also see, Baj­pai, A., Hey­mann, J. and Sus­ki, T., “Trac­ing India in Ger­man Archives: Entan­gled Pasts in the age of Dig­i­tal Human­i­ties”, in: South Asia Chron­i­cle, 6, pp. 289–314.

Bibliography

Baj­pai, A., Hey­mann, J. and Sus­ki, T., “Trac­ing India in Ger­man Archives: Entan­gled Pasts in the age of Dig­i­tal Human­i­ties”, in: South Asia Chron­i­cle, 6, pp. 289–314.

Hafn­er, A., „Petra Heidrich’s research work in the con­text of the devel­op­ment of South Asian Stud­ies at the ZMO (1992–2000)”, in: ZMO Work­ing Papers, 1, 2010, pp. 1–7.

Hecht, A., Die Wis­senschaft­selite Ost­deutsch­lands. Feindliche Über­nahme oder
Inte­gra­tion?, Leipzig: Faber und Faber, 2002.

Hecht, A. (ed.), „Ent­täuschte Hoff­nun­gen: Auto­bi­ographis­che Berichte abgewick­el­ter Wis­senschaftler aus dem Osten Deutsch­lands“, s.l.: Ver­lag am Park, 2008.

Anan­di­ta Baj­pai, IAAW, Hum­boldt-Uni­ver­sität zu Berlin, Leib­niz-Zen­trum Mod­ern­er Orient