RUSSIAN MINERS BOW TO THE ANGEL OF HISTORY

This paper follows the struggles of Russian coal miners who first challenged the Soviet regime in 1989 and helped precipitate its downfall in 1991. In the Arctic city of Vorkuta, the movement's most militant and radical center, the dreams of workers have again, as in 1917, become bonds of their affliction. In response to invading market forces, the city strike committee has turned from support of the new regime to renewed opposition, the independent trade union movement increasingly throws its weight behind the once reviled mine management, and the mines themselves have rallied around the conglomerate, long a symbol of arbitrary power.     

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.     

THE CRITICAL THEORY OF HISTORY: RETHINKING THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY IN THE LIGHT OF KOSELLECK'S WORK

There are many ways to consider the philosophy of history. In this article, I claim that one of the most viable approaches to the philosophy of history today is that of critical theory of history, inspired by Reinhart Koselleck. Critical theory of history is based on what I call known history, history as it has been established and expounded by historians. What it contributes—its added value, so to speak—is a reflection on the categories employed to think about historical experience at its different levels, not only as a narrative but also as a series of events: their origins, contexts, terminology, functions (theoretical or practical), and, finally, eventual relevance.     

ROMAN KNOWLEDGE OF SCANDINAVIA IN THE IMPERIAL PERIOD*

Summary. This paper aims to provide a framework of literary evidence as a basis for study of the relations between the Roman Empire and Scandinavia from an archaeological point of view. It covers the period from Augustus to the end of the fourth century.     

论地缘环境对俄国海军发展的影响

俄国控制着欧亚大陆的心脏地带,拥有巨大的战略优势,但它并没有因此成为一个海上大国。在历史上它建立世界霸权的主要手段是陆军,海军的作用极其有限。这与俄国国土所处的纬度、位置、海岸线的性质以及海陆关系这些具体的地理因素有直接的关系。本文从五个方面分析了极其不利的地缘环境对俄国海军发展的限制和影响。     

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.     

THE TRANSNATIONALIZATION OF GENDER HISTORY

W omen's H istory in G lobal P erspective , Volume 1. Edited by Bonnie G. Smith.
B odies in C ontact: R ethinking C olonial E ncounters in W orld H istory. Edited by Antoinette Burton and Tony Ballantyne.     

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE AGROCLIMATIC RESOURCES OF THE RUSSIAN PLAIN

Possible future USSR agricultural productivity, given a global warming scenario, is assessed on the basis of paleoclimatic reconstructions for optima of the Holocene and Mikulino interglacial, which may be analogs of the man-modified warm climate of the future. The calculations were made using a dynamic model of grain yields for 94 territorial units, for the most part coincident with the boundaries of oblasts. Three different indicators, which suggest that the warming trend of climate will be generally favorable for agriculture in the European USSR, are analyzed. The paper also provides insights into current spatial patterns of agricultural productivity. Translated by Larry Richardson, Glendale, CA 91202 from: Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR, seriya geograficheskaya, 1990, No. 6, pp. 29-38.     

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。…     

利用交叉优势推动学科发展——记“全国金属史和钱币史学术研讨会”

现代学术的一个显著特点 ,就是学科之间的交叉和渗透 ,由此也推动着各学科研究的不断深入。近年来钱币学的兴起和发展就提供了一个生动的例子。 2 0 0 2年 1 1月 6— 9日在湖北鄂州市召开的“中国金属史和钱币史学术研讨会” ,再次向人们展现了钱币学与其他学科相互借鉴、相互影响对各自学科在学术观念、研究方法、技术手段、材料资料等方面所发挥的重要作用和所开辟的光明前途。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和湖北省钱币学会联合主办 ,中国人民银行鄂州市中心支行、鄂州市博物馆承办的这次学术研…     

THE POLITICS OF DESPAIR AND THE CALLING OF HISTORY

What happens to history as a set of practices and intellectual protocols when the assumed subject of our historical narratives is not a product of the European Enlightenment? Such has been the question motivating much of Dipesh Chakrabarty's work for almost thirty years. This essay offers a largely chronological account of Chakrabarty's major works. It begins with his first book, published in 1989, which provided a culturalist account of working‐class history in Bengal. It then tracks his movement in the early 1990s toward a position positing radical disjuncture and even incommensurability between the worlds of Indian subalterns and Western moderns, and his subsequent attempts to soften and blur precisely this kind of disjuncture. Meditating on the problems posed by the experiences of subjects who did not live within the time of history led him to answer in the affirmative the question of whether there are experiences of the past that history could not capture. Soon thereafter, however, he drew back from the most extensive articulation of this claim, suggesting that the experiences of the non‐Enlightenment subject could function as a positive resource and not merely as the source of a profound and destabilizing critique. I argue here that this solution to the problem of incommensurability is not entirely satisfactory, for it relies implicitly on precisely the kinds of argumentative asymmetries of which his earlier analysis taught us to be wary. Chakrabarty himself, meanwhile, has continued to step further away from the radicalism of the early 1990s; his most recent book may be read as a defense of rationalist history in the face of contemporary threats posed by the rise of a politics of identity in India.     

THE HISTORY AND THEORY OF EMPIRES

Contemporary histories and theories of empire generally remain within boundaries inspired by varieties of liberalism, and by Marxian theory and its hybrids, in which changing modes of production determine the forms of power, including empire. Liberal theorists and historians of empire generally trace a complex process in which expanding imperial power systems led ultimately to nation‐states, democracy, and market economies. For Marxists and postmodern theorists, the formal aspects of empire remain unimportant compared to the broader workings of modes of production and particularly, the global power of capitalism. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri use the word “empire” to describe the workings of contemporary capitalism and its myriad forms of power. Whether they rely upon the formal definitions of empire or the Marxian‐postmodern one, theories of empire often descend from modern utopian visions: perhaps the Kantian variety emphasizing a peaceful union of states and collective learning, or the Marxian one, although now taking into account changes in the mode of production and victims unattended to by Marx and Engels. New technologies and communications networks impress all contemporary theorists. Some proclaim the end of modern power systems and empire; others find empire in a new, postmodern form. Nonetheless, there are stubborn continuities with the modern in the very persistence of modern utopias, the dominance of nation‐states, the pursuit of democracy, and the durability of capitalism. Theorists of power and empire have to explain these and other continuities, alongside the disappearance of the more than 400‐year‐old balance‐of‐power system in which imperial powers in the European core finally delivered vast power to the United States and the Soviet Union, and created new technologies that strengthen human connection as well as threaten vast destruction. The question of the power of the United States and its imperial status commands the center of attention.     

UNCERTAINTY AND THE HISTORY OF IDEAS

Intellectual historians often make empirical claims, but can never know for certain if these claims are right. Uncertainty is thus inevitable for intellectual historians. But accepting uncertainty is not enough: we should also act on it, by trying to reduce and report it. We can reduce uncertainty by amassing valid data from different sources to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of competing explanations, rather than trying to “prove” an empirical claim by looking for evidence that fits it. Then we should report our degree of certainty in our claims. When we answer empirical questions in intellectual history, we are not telling our readers what happened: we are telling them how strong we think our evidence is—a crucial shift of emphasis. For intellectual historians, then, uncertainty is subjective, as discussed by Keynes and Collingwood; the paper thus explores three differences between subjective and objective uncertainty. Having outlined the theoretical basis of uncertainty, the paper then offers examples from actual research: Noel Malcolm's work shows how to reduce and report uncertainty about composition, and David Wootton's work shows how to reduce and report uncertainty about beliefs.