Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA Ajalooline Ajakiri on eelretsenseeritav akadeemiline ajakiri, mis ilmub Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo ja arheoloogia instituudi juures.<br> “Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal” is peer-reviewed academic journal of the Institute of History and Archaeology, University of Tartu. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus en-US Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal 1406-3859 Moonakast kodanlaseks, kodanlasest terroristiks: Hans Heidemann ja tema tegevus 1920. aastate alguse Eesti pahempoolses poliitikas [Abstract: From farm hand to bourgeois, from bourgeois to terrorist: Hans Heidemann and his activity in Estonian left-wing politics in the early 1920s] http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2017.4.01 The ideologised treatment of history in the Soviet period celebrated communists who had perished or been executed in the interwar Republic of Estonia as martyrs. They fit in to the narrative of class struggle and its victims. Monuments were erected in their memory and memorial articles appeared in the press on anniversaries of their birth. One such communist featured during the Soviet period was Hans Heidemann (1896–1925), a trade unionist and member of the parliament of the Republic of Estonia, and also an underground Estonian Communist Party activist. He was arrested as one of the ringleaders in the attempt to overthrow the government on 1 December 1924 and executed in 1925 as a spy for Soviet Russia by decision of a military district court. This article relies primarily on archival materials from the Estonian National Archives. It is an attempt to write a political biography of Hans Heidemann that for the first time aims to more closely examine the course of the life of this individual who has been ideologised many times over. His room for manoeuvring and his possible influences in the space in which he operated are reconstructed. The article examines how this man of modest background but with a relatively good education, a veteran of the Estonian War of Independence who served as a staff clerk, became an activist in the trade union movement, a communist, and eventually an organiser of a coup d’état. It also considers why Heidemann was the only one at the subsequent major trial of communists in 1925 to be sentenced to death. An important context for Heidemann’s rise in politics is the struggle for control in the trade unions that took place in the early 1920s among Estonia’s left-wing parties. While the communists dominated the trade unions of industrial workers in the cities, they had to compete with social democrats and independent socialists for control in unions of rural workers. Southern Estonia and the City of Tartu formed a more problematic operating region than the average district, as in 1920–21 the Security Police had liquidated many large communist networks there. Heidemann was a member of the Party of Independent Socialists but when in 1922 the party was taken over by its communist-oriented left wing, he started gravitating towards the underground communists. At that time, the communists needed able organisers in order to regain their positions in Southern Estonia and it seems that they pinned their hopes on Heidemann. In 1922 Heidemann rose to leading positions in the trade union organisations of both Tartu County and the City of Tartu, and also became one of the leaders of the left wing of the Party of Independent Socialists. It is not clear, however, whether Heidemann had officially joined the Estonian Communist Party, or functioned as its legal operative. In January of 1924, when the Security Police arrested many trade union leaders and political activists associated with the communists, Heidemann went underground. Over the next eight months, he attempted to obtain weapons for overthrowing the government and to form combat squads mainly on the basis of youth organisations. He was unable to participate in the attempted communist coup d’état on 1 December since he had been arrested two months earlier in Tartu. But his trial was held under changed conditions after the failed coup. By that time, the Protection of the System of Government Act had been passed and the communists had been expelled from parliament. Even though Heidemann had been charged with working as a leader of the local organisation of the underground Communist Party and forming combat squads for the planned coup, he was sentenced to death and executed on the grounds of the charge for which there was least evidence. According to this charge, he had allegedly gathered military information for the Soviet Union as a soldier in the War of Independence six years earlier. Different sources suggest that this charge was questionable and unconvincing. It seems that there was a wish to convict Heidemann as the head of the regional communist organisation no matter what, and to punish him as harshly as the actual participants in the failed coup were punished, which the other counts of indictment did not allow. Mari-Leen Tammela ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-20 2018-03-20 4 403 443 10.12697/AA.2017.4.01 Kodu- ja väliseestlaste vahelise kultuurisuhtluse institutsionaalne raamistik Nõukogude Liidu kultuuridiplomaatia kontekstis [Abstract: The institutional framework of cultural communication between Estonians in the homeland and in exile in the context of Soviet cultural diplomacy] http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2017.4.02 During the Cold War, a massive organisation for cultural diplomacy was developed in the Soviet Union as well as in other countries, especially in the United States. Exile Estonians were drawn into the middle of the cultural Cold War that evolved between the two superpowers. In this article, the institutional framework for influencing exile Estonians is analysed in the context of Soviet cultural diplomacy. A frequently confusing fact is that two major organisations – firstly, the Estonian Society for Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries and secondly, the Society for the Development of Cultural Ties with Estonians Abroad – were involved in the Soviet efforts aimed at influencing émigrés. In some cases, these organisations are even mixed up. This article clarifies the situation and shows how these organisations were formed, and how they were related to each other. However, the main aim of the article is to show how and why cultural communication with foreign countries and influencing exile Estonians were two sides of the same coin, from the point of view of the Soviet authorities, and how the respective organisations were therefore tightly intertwined. Two important conclusions were drawn: firstly, institutions were shaped by the fact that exile Estonians, as well as Soviet diaspora overall, were an inconvenient reality for the Soviet Union because they hampered Soviet propagandistic efforts in their countries of residence. Thus, when dealing with diaspora, the aim of institutions for cultural diplomacy was on the one hand to achieve a positive, or at least neutral, attitude towards the Soviet Union within exile Estonian communities, and on the other hand to reduce the influence of émigrés on the population of their countries of residence. Secondly, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union’s diaspora policy gradually switched from repatriation to propaganda and influence through cultural communication. These political changes were conspicuously reflected in the structural transformation and name changes of the organisations analysed in this article. The Society for the Development of Cultural Ties with Estonians Abroad was formed in 1960 as a section of the Estonian Society for Friendship and Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries and was then gradually disengaged until their final separation in 1968. Among other things, this was caused by the thaw period with a growing number of contacts across the Iron Curtain, and an increased workload in both organisations. Due to overlapping fields of activity, the two organisations maintained their cooperation until the very end in the early 1990s. Triin Tark ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-20 2018-03-20 4 445 474 10.12697/AA.2017.4.02 Kas aeg on liigestest lahti? Uuemad arutelud aja üle ajaloos ja ajaloofilosoofias [Abstract: Is time out of joint? Recent discussions on time in history and the philosophy of history] http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2017.4.03 The core aim of this article is to provide an overview of the recent contemporary interest in temporality in the humanities by scrutinizing the thesis that during the last few decades, the modern understanding of time, and in particular the idea of the distinctiveness of the categories of past, present, and future, is no longer feasible and thus requires reconsideration. Authors of the new paradigm claim that instead of a past that is separate from the present, we now are increasingly facing a past that has become a significant part of the present. With respect to the future, it is often claimed that instead of seeing our future as a bright horizon of improvement and progress, we are now confronting a future that appears as a threat and a menace. On closer examination, the discussion on temporality concerns transformations of Western cultural and political life more generally, as well as the foundations of academic disciplines working on matters of the past. Interestingly, recent trends in the philosophy of history also testify to growing interest in issues regarding time, particularly the relationship between past and present. The paper consists of four parts. The first part sheds light on the diverse terminology that different authors such as Reinhart Koselleck, François Hartog, Aleida Assmann, and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht employ in examining temporality. It also illustrates the broad scope of empirical material that such research can be based upon. The second part focuses on explaining the core premises of the modernist idea of time by drawing primarily on Reinhart Koselleck, who has famously argued that the modern developmental vision of history, which according to him sustains both the discourse of progress and modern historical thinking, took root during the period he has labelled Sattelzeit. The third part of the paper explicitly focuses on the widespread idea that the modernist, future-oriented concept of time no longer holds and is therefore in need of reinterpretation. Among others, the discussion includes Hartog’s hypothesis of the rise of the presentist regime of historicity manifested, for example, by the contemporary preoccupation with memory and heritage. Furthermore, it is shown that as attitudes towards the past diversify, the modernist assumption of the past as separate from the present is rendered questionable. This in turn has lead scholars to work out alternative conceptions of time that could do justice to the past that refuses to let go of the present. Berber Bevernage’s ideas are mentioned as an example of an author who has taken steps in this direction. Ultimately, the idea is articulated that insofar as the status of the past proves to be increasingly ambivalent, the foundations of academic history also become questionable. In relation to that, many have argued that the rise of memory studies is another sign of the current tendency to rearticulate the relationship between past and present within historical studies. In the fourth and final part of the paper, some recent attempts to rearticulate the relationship between past and present in the philosophy of history are scrutinized. Particularly, the outlines of two philosophical projects, those of Eelco Runia and David Carr, are sketched. Most importantly, it is shown that both authors aim to go beyond the framework of representation – a dominant trend in the field within the last couple of decades – by introducing ways the past can be experienced as something real and directly given. In wrapping up the results, it is observed that based on the recent literature, diverse and multifaceted interest in the subject of time and temporality can be identified that shapes some of the most important contemporary discussions in the humanities. Juhan Hellerma ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-20 2018-03-20 4 475 492 10.12697/AA.2017.4.03 Kuidas tekib pärand? Pärandiloome protsess kultuuri- ja looduspärandi näitel [Abstract: How is heritage generated? The heritage creation process as demonstrated by cultural and natural heritage] http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2017.4.04 One of the most important materials available to us for building the future is the past. The future not only draws on the past, it is literally built out of the past. All this directly affects heritage as well – heritage is a technique that has to be used as effectively as possible for solving the local and global problems of contemporary and future societies. In this article, I describe the theoretical background of the heritage creation process and present two analytical tools that help to cast light on heritage identification processes. The first analytical possibility is to consider heritage creation processes based on different levels of society. Individual and community levels will be considered, along with local governments and the state, and finally all of mankind as well. Secondly, I differentiate object-centred, value-centred and human-centred approaches in creating heritage according to which aspects of heritage are at the centre of the process. I use the process of creating natural and cultural heritage as examples primarily in the Estonian context. The management of nature conservation and cultural heritage are two very significant fields of activity where the world is discursively divided into certain definite parts and managed according to this division. The views of both courses of action concerning heritage are rather different due to different professional backgrounds. The basis for heritage management is the clear definition of the values of heritage. All objects and phenomena are not equally valuable and it is impossible to manage them all. The fact that people ascribe heritage values to both natural and cultural objects does not mean that heritage is an arbitrarily constructed phenomenon that we can treat however we like. Alongside values, the next important aspect in managing heritage that has to be taken into consideration is the materiality of heritage. Heritage of any description always exists in material form. This is obvious in the case of natural objects and material cultural heritage, but intellectual and spiritual cultural heritage also implies at least the existence of people. The materiality of heritage means that heritage is always associated with other material objects, forming actor networks, to use Bruno Latour’s terminology from his so-called actor-network theory. Just as living beings are engaged in ecological systems, maintaining their own self-existence even without mankind, so are buildings, for instance, similarly connected to both human and natural actors. The preservation of natural or cultural heritage will not succeed without the active enterprise of man. Thereat, the central idea is not solely the preservation of physical material or the gene pool from the past, but also the management of changes. Managing changes means that it is impossible for us to preserve objects, phenomena and nature in such a way that it would be isolated from the physical and social environment. Yet since the environment is constantly changing, the adaptation of heritage management to those changes is necessary. Taking changes into consideration requires recognition of the historicity of heritage, and this also applies to natural objects and environments. Kurmo Konsa ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-20 2018-03-20 4 493 514 10.12697/AA.2017.4.04 Akteure mittelalterlicher Außenpolitik: Das Beispiel Ostmitteleuropas, hrsg. von Stephan Flemmig, Norbert Kersken http://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EAA/article/view/AA.2017.4.05 Mihkel Mäesalu ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2018-03-20 2018-03-20 4 515 521 10.12697/AA.2017.4.05