The Poetics of Devotion in ʿĀʾisha al‐Bāʿūniyya's Praise of God and Muḥammad

Recently, there has been an effort within Islamic Studies to reassess the common belief that the so‐called ‘post‐classical’ era of Islamic history was characterized by intellectual stagnation and decline. The Mamluk era is one such period that has suffered from a dearth of scholarly attention resulting from outdated stereotypes. This article contributes to scholarship on this era through examining some poems by a late Mamluk poet, ?ā?isha al‐Bā?ūniyya (d. 1517). While much scholarship on al‐Bā?ūniyya focuses on her lyrical mystical verse, the poems studied here incorporate selective allusions to key Islamic sources in order to narrate a history of divine favor as the speaker imagines it. This innovative history expresses a poetics of devotion that focalizes Mu?ammad and the poet's own peers. The poems intertextually anchor this narrative in key Islamic sources, reflecting al‐Bā?ūniyya's extensive scholarly training. They constitute an unusual example of a female poet writing beyond the genres with which women's premodern poetry is conventionally associated. This poetry also represents a post‐classical contribution to Islamic literary and religious history. However, the criterion of originality should ultimately be reconsidered in evaluations of scholarly merit, and scholarship should pay more attention to continuities and intertextuality in texts.     

Neural integration at the mesoscopic level: the advent of some ideas in the last half century

History seen by a professional historian, based only on the documented record, always incomplete and liable to bias, can be unreliable. Modern history seen by a protagonist must surely be among the most unreliable. Yet, I must try, in a limited scope, to show the human drama as well as the flood on which we are floating, unable to dump the baggage of past biases. Our points of view, priorities, and positions on all the controversial issues and even the well established, noncontroversial ones, are not as rational as we would like to think but are strongly conditioned by where we came from. I wil depend on selected vignettes of the way things looked when I was a student, a young postdoctoral fellow and an Assistant Professor, to compare with the way they look now, in each of half a dozen mesoscopic domains--those in between the most basic subcellular or molecular and the higher levels of learning and cognition. The half dozen constitute, of course, anything but a representative fraction of neuroscience. But they add up to a nontrivial segment of the big picture with respect to the integrative aspects of our science. Most of the fronts that grew into today's popular branches are not represented, but a small set of particular interest and probability of further surprises.     

OBJECTS OF HISTORY: THE PAST MATERIALIZED1

What is the role of material culture in understanding the past? This review essay explores two principal approaches—the history of museums and antiquities and environmental history—to reflect on their shared investment in historical materialism. It reviews Timothy LeCain's The Matter of History and Peter Miller's History and Its Objects, discussing their perspectives on objects and the writing of history. One important part of this history concerns the relationship of academic historians to the idea of a history museum, curatorial practices, and public history. What kinds of history can we do in a museum, with things, that might not occur without the presence of objects? Why were nineteenth- and early twentieth-century efforts to encourage a close relationship between historical research and the history museum largely abandoned in favor of a document-driven approach? The second dimension of current interest in historical materialism concerns new approaches to environmental history. It draws inspiration from Deep History as well as recent work in archaeology and STS (Science and Technology Studies) to argue for a more integrated history of humans and nature that demonstrates how things have made us. The history of successive efforts to remake the environment in different parts of the world and their consequences offers crucial object lessons in how humans have responded to nature's own creativity. Both approaches to historical materialism highlight the virtues of a more interdisciplinary approach to historical scholarship, in the museum or in the field, but most important, in our own sensibilities about what it means to think historically with artifacts and to treat them as compelling evidence of a shared history of humanity and nature.     

Toward a Received History of the Holocaust

In this article, I examine both the problem of so-called postmodern history as it relates to the Holocaust and suggest the ways that Saul Friedlander's recent work successfully mediates between the somewhat overly polemicized positions of “relativist” and “positivist” history. In this context, I find that in his search for an adequately self-reflexive historical narrative for the Holocaust, Hayden White's proposed notion of “middle-voicedness” may recommend itself more as a process for eyewitness writers than as a style for historians after the fact. From here, I look at the ways Saul Friedlander's reflections on the historian's voice not only mediate between White's notions of the ironic mode and middle-voicedness, but also suggest the basis for an uncanny history in its own right: an anti-redemptory narrative that works through, yet never actually bridges, the gap between a survivor's “deep memory” and historical narrative. For finally, it may be the very idea of “deep memory” and its incompatibility to narrative that constitutes one of the central challenges to Holocaust historiography. What can be done with what Friedlander has termed “deep memory” of the survivor, that which remains essentially unrepresentable? Is it possible to write a history that includes some oblique reference to such deep memory, but which leaves it essentially intact, untouched and thereby deep? In this section, I suggest, after Patrick Hutton, that “What is at issue here is not how history can recover memory, but, rather, what memory will bequeath to history.” That is, what shall we do with the living memory of survivors? How will it enter (or not enter) the historical record? Or to paraphrase Hutton again, “How will the past be remembered as it passes from living memory to history?” Will it always be regarded as so overly laden with pathos as to make it unreliable as documentary evidence? Or is there a place for the understanding of the witness, as subjective and skewed as it may be, for our larger historical understanding of events? In partial answer to these questions, I attempt to extend Friedlander's insights toward a narrow kind of history-telling I call “received history”—a double-stranded narrative that tells a survivor-historian's story and my own relationship to it. Such a narrative would chart not just the life of the survivor-historian itself but also the measurable effect of the tellings—both his telling and mine—on my own life's story. Together, they would compose a received history of the Holocaust and its afterlife in the author's mind—my “vicarious past.”     

FUTURE BY HISTORY: RETHINKING PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Philosophy of history has a threefold dimension: material, formal, and functional, which have largely been conceptualized as mutually exclusive. It is high time to mediate them into a coherent relationship, and Rohbeck's book is a decisive step toward such a new philosophy of history. The book is divided into three parts: the first deals with the relationship between history and the future, the second analyzes the relationship between history and ethics, and the third synthesizes these two aspects into a pragmatics of history. With regard to the first part, historical thinking is based on a perception of temporal otherness related to the past. Rohbeck prolongs the time perspective by bridging this time gap into the future. As to the second, Rohbeck replaces teleology by ethics. Teleology includes ethics but limits its scope to a one‐sided development. Ethics allows many more options. Finally, who is the agent for historical ethics? Rohbeck proposes the “generation” as the basic actor in historical change and the addressee of ethical commitment. At the end of his work, Rohbeck draws consequences for the idea of philosophy of history from his idea of historical ethics. He shows that history has a new perspective if it is viewed through the lens of ethical elements in the fundamental relationship between past, present, and future. Of course, many questions follow this fascinating new version of the old philosophy of history. I raise only three of them: (1) What synthesizes the three dimensions of time into one and the same history? (2) Did we not learn from historicism that values in ethics have an inbuilt temporality? This argument does not run against the idea of an ethics of history, but should sharpen its genuine historical character. (3) Who is the agent of this change: who brings it about and at the same is subjected to it? An anonymous sum of generations in space and time is not a convincing answer. We need an integrative idea that covers the vast field of experience of the human world in space and time and that covers the strong commitment to universal values. In this respect it would be worthwhile to pick up the idea of humankind as it was conceptualized as the red thread of history in traditional, modern philosophy of history.     

NEW CHRONOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALAEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND SLOVAKIA: NEW OPTICALLY STIMULATED LUMINESCENCE DATING RESULTS

We report new optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates from the Central European sites of K?lna, Stránská skála, Bohunice, Vedrovice V, Vedrovice Ia, Moravský Krumlov IV and Dzeravá skala, which date to the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition period. There are important unresolved questions surrounding the timing of archaeological events during this crucial period in European prehistory. Archaeological layers from this time period are at the limits of the ¹⁴C method and most of these sites lack good chronology. The results of this dating project suggest that some parts of the current chronological framework may need to be revised. Although in many cases our OSL results are broadly consistent with previous dates obtained by ¹⁴C, in other cases they reveal unexpected surprises. One OSL result from K?lna opens up the possibility that Neanderthals may have survived in this part of Europe past the 30 ka bp mark as has been argued for several Neanderthal sites in southern Europe. The large Szeletian assemblage recovered from Vedrovice V may be significantly older than previously thought, which undermines the idea that the Szeletian culture is exclusively an Early Upper Palaeolithic industry. More dating research is needed to confirm the more controversial results of this research.     

Bewertung durch Auswahl Wieviel wählt der Wissenschaftshistoriker aus,wieviel übergeht er?

In presenting events in history, the historian is forced to select a few people. This selection of people choosen by the historian is an evaluation in itself. How restricted is his selection? In the history of science we could ask: How large is the proportion of selected scientists in comparison with those that are not mentioned? The answer: A book that covers the entire history of science, usually will select one out of about three hundred scientists.     

Change and the Corporeal in Seventeenth‐ and Eighteenth‐Century Gender History: Or,Can Cultural History Be Rigorous?

This essay is a methodological evaluation of the procedures and presuppositions informing the social and cultural history of gender, as exemplified in recent scholarship about the transformations of sex and gender in Britain from the early modern period through the long eighteenth century. It suggests answers to two questions: how can we write the cultural history of gender while maintaining both rigour in the enterprise and an awareness of its limits? And where might we go when these limits suddenly appear to undermine the very foundational presuppositions on which the whole cultural‐historical project is built?     

Neural integration at the mesoscopic level: The advent of some ideas in the last half century

Abstract

History seen by a professional historian, based only on the documented record, always incomplete and liable to bias, can be unreliable. Modern history seen by a protagonist must surely be among the most unreliable. Yet, I must try, in a limited scope, to show the human drama as well as the flood on which we are floating, unable to dump the baggage of past biases. Our points of view, priorities, and positions on all the controversial issues and even the well established, noncontroversial ones, are not as rational as we would like to think but are strongly conditioned by where we came from.

I will depend on selected vignettes of the way things looked when I was a student, a young postdoctoral fellow and an Assistant Professor, to compare with the way they look now, in each of half a dozen mesoscopic domains ‐ those in between the most basic subcellular or molecular and the higher levels of learning and cognition. The half dozen constitute, of course, anything but a representative fraction of neuroscience. But they add up to a nontrivial segment of the big picture with respect to the integrative aspects of our science. Most of the fronts that grew into today's popular branches are not represented, but a small set of particular interest and probability of further surprises.     

韩国的高句丽研究及其史观--以高句丽归属问题为中心

韩国的高句丽史研究的总体状况怎样 ?以什么样的史观分析高句丽的归属问题 ?对中国学界关于高句丽问题的新观点如何评价 ?搞清这些问题 ,对我国进行高句丽问题的对策性研究及加强与韩国的学术交流非常重要。     

Who were the Reunion ‘Coolies’ of 19th-century New Caledonia?

The history of the importation of ‘coolie’ labour from Reunion Island to New Caledonia in the 19th century is little known. While most historians mention the groups of ‘Malabars’ brought in to help colonists from Reunion set up the New Caledonian sugar industry, few have delved into the backgrounds or indeed identities of this particular group of contract labourers. Who were they? Where did they come from? What languages did they speak? What was their status in the colony? What became of them after the demise of the sugar industry? Based on archival research, this paper traces the arrival and settlement history in southern New Caledonia of the sugar industry ‘coolies’ and discusses the problems of status and identity among this surprisingly heterogeneous group.     

“SEEING” THE PAST: TEXT AND QUESTIONS OF HISTORY IN THE RĀJATARAṄGIṆĪ

Traditional scholarly opinion has regarded Kalha?a's Rājatara?gi?ī, the twelfth‐century Sanskrit chronicle of Kashmiri kings, as a work of history. This essay proposes a reinvestigation of the nature of the iconic text from outside the shadow of that label. It first closely critiques the positivist “history hypothesis,” exposing its internal contradictions over questions of chronology, causality, and objectivity as attributed to the text. It then argues that more than an empiricist historical account that modern historians like to believe it is—in the process bracketing out integral rhetorical, mythic, and didactic parts of the text—the Rājatara?gi?ī should be viewed in totality for the kāvya (epic poem) that it is, which is to say, as representing a specific language practice that sought to produce meaning and articulated the poet's vision of the land and its lineages. The essay thus urges momentarily reclaiming the text from the hegemonic but troubled understanding of it as history—only to restore it ultimately to a more cohesive notion of historicality that is consistent with its contents. Toward this end, it highlights the concrete claim to epistemic authority that is asserted both by the genre of Sanskrit kāvya generally and by the Rājatara?gi?ī in particular, and their conception of the poetic “production” of the past that bears a striking resonance with constructivist historiography. It then traces the intensely intertextual and value‐laden nature of the epistemology that frames the Rājatara?gi?ī into a narrative discourse on power and ethical governance. It is in its narrativity and discursivity—its meaningful representation of what constitutes “true” knowledge of time and human action—that the salience of the Rājatara?gi?ī may lie.     

From English to British liberty, 1550–1800

This essay was written for a symposium on Dutch conceptual history in a comparative European perspective. The concept in question here is liberty, and the context first English and then (following the creation of the United Kingdom in 1707) British. What follows primarily addresses two themes, both challenging. First, what role did the concept of liberty play over an exceptionally long and turbulent period of English history punctuated by two revolutions? Second, what relationship existed during this period between English and Dutch understandings and experience of this concept?     

DOES HISTORY MATTER? CHARLES TAYLOR ON THE TRANSCENDENTAL VALIDITY OF SOCIAL IMAGINARIES

Since its appearance in 2007, Charles Taylor's monumental book A Secular Age has received much attention. One of the central issues in the discussions around Taylor's book is the role of history in philosophical argumentation, in particular with regard to normative positions on ultimate affairs. Many critics observe a methodological flaw in using history in philosophical argumentation in that there is an alleged discrepancy between Taylor's historical approach, on the one hand, and his defense of fullness in terms of openness to transcendence, on the other. Since his “faith‐based history” is unwittingly apologetic, it is not only “hard to judge in strictly historical terms,” but it also proves that “when it comes to the most ultimate affairs history may not matter at all.” This paper challenges this verdict by exposing the misunderstanding underlying this interpretation of the role of history in Taylor's narrative. In order to disambiguate the relation between history and philosophy in Taylor's approach, I will raise three questions. First, what is the precise relation between history and ontology, taking into account the ontological validity of what Taylor calls social imaginaries? Second, why does “fullness” get a universal status in his historical narrative? Third, is Taylor's position tenable that the contemporary experience of living within “an immanent frame” allows for an openness to transcendence? In order to answer these questions, I will first compare Peter Gordon's interpretation of the status of social imaginaries with Taylor's position and, on the basis of that comparison, distinguish two definitions of ontology (sections I and II). Subsequently, I try to make it clear that precisely Taylor's emphasis on the historical character of social imaginaries and on their “relaxed” ontological anchorage allows for his claim that “fullness” might have a trans‐historical character (section III). Finally, I would like to show that Taylor's defense of the possibility of an “openness to transcendence”—as a specific mode of fullness—is not couched in “onto‐theological” terms, as suggested by his critics, but that it is the very outcome of taking into account the current historical situation (section IV).     

3. INDIGENOUS EMPIRES AND NATIVE NATIONS: BEYOND HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY IN PEKKA HÄMÄLÄINEN'S THE COMANCHE EMPIRE

How should historians write Native history? To what extent should one privilege Native terms, sources, chronologies, and epistemologies? And to what extent should historians align Native history with concepts developed for other peoples and places? These crucial questions about emic (insider) and etic (outsider) approaches to the past are cast into sharp relief in Pekka Hämäläinen's award‐winning The Comanche Empire. This essay charts the perils and possibilities of each position. It then explores possible ways to move beyond the emic/etic division that has dominated many of the recent debates about Native history through a rereading of an episode in which Comanche history collides with US and Mexican history.     

5. INDIA,ITIHASA, AND INTER‐HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DISCOURSE

An effective and enriching discourse on comparative historiography invests itself in understanding the distinctness and identity that have created various civilizations. Very often, infected by bias, ideology, and cultural one‐upmanship, we encounter a presumptuous‐ness that is redolent of impatience with the cultural other and of an ingrained refusal to acknowledge what one's own history and culture fail to provide. This “failure” need not be the inspiration to subsume the other within one's own understanding of the world and history and, thereby, neuter the possibilities of knowledge‐sharing and cultural interface. It is a realization of the “lack” that provokes and generates encounters among civilizations. It should goad us to move away from what we have universalized and, hence, normalized into an axis of dialogue and mutuality. What Indians would claim as itihasa need not be rudely frowned upon because it does not chime perfectly with what the West or the chinese know as history. accepting the truth that our ways of understanding the past, the sense of the past, and historical sense‐generation vary with different cultures and civilizations will enable us to consider itihasa from a perspective different from the Hegelian modes of doing history and hence preclude its subsumption under the totalitarian rubric of world history. How have Indians “done” their history differently? What distinctiveness have they been able to weave into their discourses and understanding of the past? Does the fact of their proceeding differently from how the West or the Chinese conceptualize history delegitimize and render inferior the subcontinental consciousness of “encounters with past” and its ways of being “moved by the past”? This article expatiates on the distinctiveness of itihasa and argues in favor of relocating its epistemological and ideological persuasions within a comparative historiographical discourse.     

环境史的转折点

千百年来,环境史并不总是沿着同一条直线发展的,而是有许多变化并且有多个转折点存在。为了创造一个新版本的历史,环境史学家应该研究这些转折点而不是把自己局限在一个小的专业范围内。但是怎么来识别这些转折点呢?什么是决定性的点呢?在这里作者认为为了重建漫长的历史演化进程中人类与自然之间的关系,历史学家应该抛弃那些深深根植于西方社会与中国古代社会的人性化自然的传统观念。人类是自然界的一部分,他们与外部世界的联系以及与人类本性的联系是紧密相关的。通过这种研究,环境史将占据历史研究中的很大比重,而不是仅仅处于其边缘地位。在这种理念的基础上,作者认为重建环境史的转折点是有可能的。首先他提出了人类早期历史的四个转折点即渔猎活动的产生,农耕文化的起源,人工灌溉农业的开端以及游牧业的兴起。在各种情形下,新的环境管理方式总是与人性化自然的新形式相联系的。在过去的500年中,这一重建工作变得更加困难了。鉴于这个时期的历史特征,作者提出并讨论了以下的六个转折点(1)流行病,吸毒成瘾,糖与殖民化(16世纪)。(2)公有制的结束以及计划性可持续发展的产生(约1800年)。(3)自然保护的发现以及现代神经病和社会卫生学(约1900年)。(4)沙尘暴,土壤保护以及水利工程的兴起(20世纪30年代以后)。(5)世界范围的美国生活方式的繁殖(20世纪50年代以后)。(6)生态革命是否为幸福的终结(1970年以后)。     

Rethinking Performative Methods in the History of Science

Performative methods have been part of history of science research and education for at least three decades. Understood broadly, they cover every methodology in which a historian or philosopher of science engages in embodied interaction with sources, tools and materials that do not traditionally belong to historical research, with the aim of answering a historical research question. The question no longer appears to be whether performative methods have a place within history and philosophy of science research, but what their place is, could, or should be; when and how they can and cannot be used. Because although performative methods are seen as an enrichment of the field by many, their growing popularity also raises questions: what new insights and challenges has the increased use of performative methods in the history of science brought us? How has it changed the field? Should performative research methods become a mandatory part of the training of new generations of historians of science? In this special issue, historians and philosophers of science for whom performative methods play an important role in their work reflect on these questions from their own research and teaching practices.