全国金属史和钱币史学术研讨会在鄂州市召开

由中国钱币学会古代钱币专业委员会、中国科学技术史学会金属史专业委员会、湖北省钱币学会主办,中国人民银行鄂州市中心支行、湖北省鄂州市博物馆承办的,全国金属史和钱币史学术研讨会在湖北省鄂州市召开。来自全国各有关方面的专家、学者及代表105人参加了会议。会议共收到学术论文71篇。     

钱币学和金属冶铸史

钱币学是以钱币实物为研究对象的一门学科。钱币学最基本的任务、或者说最核心的课题是要通过对钱币实物的鉴定 ,确定它们的铸行时期、铸行区域 ,确定它们的历史作用、社会地位 ,以及遗存的情况 ,从而确定它们的文物价值、学术价值。钱币 ,除了实物货币、纸币和其它信用货币之外 ,大量的是金属称量货币和金属铸币 ,以及它们在文化意义上的衍生物———历代的压胜钱和纪念章。于是钱币学和金属史、冶铸史的研究便有了不解之缘。而且随着时代的推进 ,研究的深入 ,钱币学和金属史学、冶铸史学之间的关系会越来越密切 ,因为两个学科之间的协作 ,…     

征稿启事

《中国钱币》是由中国人民银行主管、中国钱币博物馆和中国钱币学会共同主办的学术刊物。本刊创办于1983年,是目前国内唯一的全国性钱币学、货币史专业学术刊物,以中国钱币研究为主,涵盖古今中外钱币学、货币史等多方面的内容,融学术性、资料性、知识性于一体。本刊设有钱币学论坛、货币史研究、出土与发现、红色金融、钱币知识等栏目,在承袭钱币学传统的基础上。     

征稿简则

《中国钱币》是全国性钱币学专业刊物,旨在繁荣钱币文化、推动钱币学科发展。本刊注重学术性、资料性、知识性,辟有钱币学论坛、货币史研究、钱币精华、出土与发现、银行与纸币、人民币、革命根据地货币、外国钱币、钱币专题讲座等栏目。     

征稿简则

《中国钱币》是全国性钱币学专业刊物,旨在繁荣钱币文化、推动钱币学科发展。本刊注重学术性、资料性、知识性,辟有钱币学论坛、货币史研究、钱币精华、出土与发现、银行与纸币、人民币、革命根据地货币、外国钱币、钱币专题讲座等栏目。     

“上海货币的发展与研究”学术研讨会在上海举行

为贯彻落实中国钱币学会马德伦理事长“要紧密围绕中央银行业务,以史为鉴,既要研究钱币学、货币史,又要紧密围绕中央银行的中心工作,深入研究钱币文化的外延,更好地为经济、金融工作服务”的指示精神,根据市社联关于学会要加强学术研究工作的要求,按照上海市钱币学会2007年工作计划．学会于11月16日在上海市社联所在地召开了“上海货币的发展与研究”学术研讨会。     

中国钱币博物馆

中国钱币博物馆是中国人民银行总行直属的国家级专业博物馆,是中国钱币学会、中国博物馆协会钱币与银行博物馆委员会的挂靠单位,是国际钱币学委员会和国际钱币与银行博物馆委员会的主要成员;主要从事古代货币、近现代货币及与银行史相关实物的收藏、研究和展示。     

黄锡全等出席第14届国际钱币学大会暨国际钱币与银行博物馆委员会2009年年会

2009年8月30至9月6日,以中国钱币博物馆馆长、中国钱币学会副理事长兼秘书长黄锡全为团长的中国钱币学会暨中国钱币与银行博物馆委员会代表团一行6人,出席了在苏格兰格拉斯哥大学召开的第14届国际钱币学大会暨国际钱币与银行委员会2009年年会。     

蒋其祥先生逝世

中国钱币学会理事、中国钱币学会学术委员会委员、新疆文物考古研究所研究员蒋其祥先生因病医治无效 ,于 2 0 0 2年 6月 2日不幸病逝 ,享年 71岁。蒋其祥先生出生于江苏淮阴 ,复旦大学历史系毕业后分配到新疆自治区博物馆工作 ,上世纪 80年代以后 ,蒋先生开始专门从事新疆古代钱币的整理与研究 ,2 0多年来 ,勤于耕耘 ,成果累累 ,对中国少数民族钱币研究做出了很大的贡献蒋其祥先生逝世@新钱秘     

论我国的钱币学

一、钱币学的研究对象１．钱币学的直接研究对象是货币实物,即货币的价值载体。包括研究其形制、大小、轻重、色泽、成份、图案、文字以及制作年代、工艺、技术等,也就是说,研究钱币本身是钱币研究的基础。２,钱币学的研究对象除了退出流通的钱币外,也包括流通中钱币,以及各种金银币和纪念币。当代钱币积淀着历代文化中的优秀因素,是历代钱币的发展和继承,它们和历代钱币之间是不可分割的有机整体。３．钱币学除了研究中国钱币,还应研究各国钱币,做到“洋为中用”,吸收世界文化的精华。４．除了研究实物钱币、金属铸币,钱币学还…     

TOPOLOGIES OF HISTORY

History, it is routinely assumed, belongs primarily to time and the temporal. Yet although routine, the assumption is nevertheless mistaken. It is place or topos, which encompasses both time and space (and that is intimately tied to the notion of bound or limit), that is primary here, and so history has to be understood as determined topologically, and not merely temporally. The exploration and elaboration of this claim involves rethinking the ideas of time, space, and place as well as of language and narrative. History appears in its adventual character, but its adventuality is itself seen as a happening of place.     

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.     

THE WORDS OF HISTORY

In From History to Theory, Kerwin Lee Klein writes a history of the central terms of the discipline of theory of history, such as “historiography,” “philosophy of history,” “theory of history,” and “memory.” Klein tells us when and how these terms were used, how the usage of some (“historiography” and “philosophy of history”) declined during the twentieth century, and how other terms (“theory” and “memory”) became increasingly popular. More important, Klein also shows that the use of these words is not innocent. Using words such as “theory” or “historiography” implies certain specific ideas about what the writing of history should be like, and how theoretical reflection on the nature of history and its writing relates to the practical issues of the discipline. In the second half of his book, Klein focuses more on the concept of memory and the memory boom since the later part of the 1980s. He observes that “memory” came to be seen as a kind of “counterhistory,” a postcolonial, fragmented, and personal alternative to the traditional mainstream discourse of history. Klein does not necessarily disagree with this view, but he does warn us about unwanted side effects. More specifically, he argues that the discourse of memory is surprisingly compatible with that of extremist right‐wing groups, and should be treated with suspicion. Although Klein certainly has a point, he presents it in a rather dogmatic fashion. However, a more nuanced version of Klein's criticism of memory can be developed by building on Klein's suggestion that there is an intimate connection between memory and identity.     

SCHOPENHAUER'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Contained mostly within one brief chapter of his The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer's philosophy of history has long been considered either hostile or irrelevant to nineteenth‐century philosophy of history. This article argues that, on the contrary, Schopenhauer maintained what would become a widely accepted criticism of the methodological identity of historiography and the natural sciences. His criticism of Hegel's teleological historiography was more philosophically rigorous than is commonly acknowledged. And his proposal of a “genuine” historiography along the model of art became a major influence on the historiography of Burckhardt, Emerson, and Nietzsche. This article accordingly aims to restore Schopenhauer to the conversation of nineteenth‐century philosophy of history.     

两河流域钱币回眸——伊拉克钱币溯源

两河流域美索不达米亚平原为世界四大古文明发源地之一。巴比伦和亚述经济发展已很繁荣,但并没有出现法定的钱币。留存的文献记载中,贡赋、买卖、借贷和处罚都还限于金银、谷物、奴隶和动产等实物。著名的巴比伦《汉莫拉比法典》中没有钱币字样。亚述时代一头骆驼价为841克白银。阿舒尔·尼拉里(前1307—前1275)从中东掠得大量骆驼,竟狂跌到4·2克白银!可见当时商业还基于实物交换。公元前539年,两河流域沦为波斯人的一个行省。大流士一世(前521—前486)时,波斯统一发行大流克金币(图1)和西格罗斯银币(图2),在波斯帝国统治范围内统一使用。…     

IN SEARCH OF COMMUNITY HISTORY

Abstract

This editorial response to the preceding article by Dennis Mills addresses the meaning of community history. Rejecting an over-tight definition, we argue for a methodologically distinct community history, combining a micro-historical approach with a sensitivity to the discursive construction of the term ‘community’. Furthermore the role of family and community historians should be to adapt a critical stance towards contemporary meanings of both past ‘communities’ and past ‘families’, The article concludes that Withington and Shephard’s schema for approaching the history of ‘community’ offers a practical way forward for the family and community historian.     

WRITING THE HISTORY OF SPINOZISM

In this essay I reflect on Knox Peden's Spinoza contra Phenomenology, a history of French rationalist Spinozism in the mid‐twentieth century. The book marks an important intervention in modern French and European intellectual history, depicting the importance of Baruch Spinoza's thought in the negotiation of and resistance to the phenomenology that captivated much of twentieth‐century French intellectual life. With philosophical and historical sophistication, Peden tells the story of several relatively overlooked thinkers while also providing substantially new contexts and interpretations of the well‐known Louis Althusser and Gilles Deleuze. While accounting for Peden's major accomplishment, my aim is also to situate his work among a number of recent works in the history of Spinozism in order to reflect on the specific methodological questions that pertain to the widely varying appropriations of Spinoza's thought since the seventeenth century. In particular, I reflect on Peden's claim that Spinoza's thought cannot provide an actionable politics, a claim that runs counter to nearly two centuries of leftist forms of Spinozism. I offer a short account of some of the ways that theorists have mobilized Spinoza's thought for political purposes, redefining “action” itself in Spinozist terms. I then conclude by reflecting on the dimensions of Spinoza's thought (and recent interpretations of it) that make it possible for such significantly different claims about its political potential to be credible.     

THE CONTINUING MODESTY OF HISTORY

The critique of conventional historical writing has been emergent for a century—it is not the work of a few—and it has immense practical implications for Western society, perhaps especially in English‐speaking countries. Involved are such issues as the decline of representation, the nature of causality, the definitions of identity or time or system, to name only a few. Conventional historians are quite right to consider this a challenge to everything they assume in order to do their work. The challenge is, why do that particular work at all? Understandably, historians have consolidated, especially in North America where empiricism and the English language prevail. But even there, and certainly elsewhere, and given the changes in knowledge and social order during the past century at least, the critique of conventional historical method is unavoidable. Too bad historians aren't doing more to help this effort, and by historians I don't mean the most of us who think constantly in terms of historical causality as we learned it from the nineteenth century and our teachers; by “historians” I mean the experts who continue to teach the young. A major roadblock to creative discussion is the fact that problems such as those just mentioned all exceed disciplinary boundaries, so investigation that does not follow suit cannot grasp the problem, much less respond to it creatively. Of course everyone is “for” interdisciplinary work, but most professional organizations, publications, and institutions do not encourage it, despite lip service to the contrary. Interdisciplinary work involves more than the splicing activity that is all too familiar in academic curricula. Crossing out of one's realm of “expertise” requires a kind of humility that does not always sort well with the kind of expertise fostered by professional organizations, publications, and institutions. And even the willing have trouble with the heady atmosphere outside the professional bubble. In such conditions key terms (“language,”“discourse,”“relativism,”“modernity,”“postmodernity,”“time,”“difference”) are pushed here and pushed there without gaining the focus that would lead to currency until finally the ostensible field of play resembles a gigantic traffic jam like the one that opens the film Fellini Roma. Discussion of these issues leads in the end to Borges and his story, ‘The Modesty of History,” from which the title of this essay is borrowed.     

THE HISTORY OF TIBETAN MEDICINE

1. Origins The search tot the means to maintain health is as ancient as the civilization of man. There is a Tibetan saying that： ＂the first ailment was indigestion; and boiled water,the first medicine,＂ There are many such expressions through which we can deduce the knowledge of ancient times. For example, the application of melted butter to cauterize a wound, or the drinking of boiled water to cure indigestion, tell us something of traditional household treatments. Such experiential knowledge, gathered and passed on for many generations, gradually was collected and became a written tradition.