2019年历史理论研究综述

历史理论研究所是中国社会科学院中国历史研究院唯一新建的研究所,旨在加强历史理论研究,下设马克思主义历史理论、中国史学理论与史学史、外国史学理论与史学史、历史思潮、中国通史、国家治理史、中华文明史、中外文明比较、海外中国学九个研究室,在学科设置上打通古今中外,注重大历史和长时段研究。为便于大家及时掌握学科研究动态,准确把握学科发展方向,加快推进学科体系建设,历史理论研究所拟按照九个学科(研究室)的设置,逐年就历史理论领域的研究状况写一综述,包括就其中的热点问题进行评析。     

Modern Chinese History Studies No. 6, 2005

The Increase in the Number of Regular Markets in North China in the Late Qing Period and An Interpretation of Its Significance; The Hankou-Daye-Pingxiang Company＇s Steel Sales and China＇ s Modem Steel Market （1908-1927） ;The Chinese Communist Party＇s Policy of Rent and Interest Reduction during the Resistance War against Japan, and Changes of Land Ownership. A Case Study of Junan County in the Shandong Base Area; The Impact of the Russo-Japanese War on Sino-Korean Relations;     

美国城市史学中的人文生态学理论

城市史学作为历史学的一个分支学科是在20世纪60年代出现的,它是以埃里克．E．兰帕德的《美国历史学家和城市化研究》一的发表作为新城市史学与旧的方志式的城市史相区别的标志。他在章中明确提出了城市化研究应该作为城市史学家主要致力．的任务,应该把城市社会诸多关联的方面作为一个生态复合体来研究。以后,关于城市化的理论在这一学科范围内不断深化和发展,直至今天,人们约定俗成,承认60年代是城市史学诞生的年代。     

Marsone, Pierre, The Steppe and the Empire: The Formation of the Khitan [Liao] dynasty-4th-10th Centuries [History]

Conventional treatments of Chinese history include a "Liao/Khitan dynasty" existing on the northern frontier from 907 to 1125,ruled by the ethnically distinctive Khitan (Qidan) people.As Pierre Marsone points out in the foreword to La Steppe et l'Empire,in many histories discussion of this polity is absent or perfunctory.Indeed the work to which Marsone's title alludes,the classic 1938 L'Empire des steppes by René Grousset,presented a comprehensive history of steppe empires yet spared only a few pages of its bulk for the Khitan state.Such neglect obstructs historians' understanding of long-term trends.The Chinese world had seen powerful empires with some degree of "foreignness" before,but this was a new kind of entity that proved immune to the accustomed methods of Chinese policy.Too powerful to play off against other states,with an administration too systematized to succumb to personal politics,the Liao/Khitan empire became such a fixation of Northern Song (960-1127) policymakers that the political history of the latter cannot be effectively told without frequent reference to the former,and it is no coincidence that the two Asian superpowers collapsed nearly simultaneously.In turn,the Liao/Khitan empire set the precedent for the stable hybrid bureaucratic states that were so important in later Chinese history.Marsone's work makes the valuable contribution of clarifying how this empire came into being.The resulting account is an invaluable corrective to dynastically delimited narratives in which the Liao empire appears in the tenth century as an abrupt and novel development,epitomizing the Great Man model of history in the form of its founder,Yelü Abaoji.     

论区域社会史研究的理论与方法——山西明清社会史研究

开展区域社会史研究是 2 0世纪 90年代以来中国社会史研究的重要趋势 ,已经引起了国内外学者的高度重视。相关理论尤其是国家与社会、大传统与小传统等在区域社会史研究中得到了广泛应用。作者认为 ,在方法论上 :应从整体史的角度出发 ,加强区域间的比较研究 ;要重视区域史的分期问题及其划分区域的客观标准 ;要加强地方文献的搜集整理工作 ,提倡史学工作者走出象牙塔 ,走向田野与社会。结合明清以来山西社会变迁的实际情况和特点 ,结合国内外学术发展前沿和主要趋向 ,作者提出今后山西区域社会史应当首先从“明清以来山西人口、资源、环境与社会变迁 ;晋商与山西地方社会 ;三晋文化与民俗 ;山西抗日根据地社会状况及其变迁”四个方面开展研究。     

以现代化为主线略论中国近代史研究

现代化是一个含义深刻、层次广泛的概念,对于什么是现代化及其实质、层次等问题,目前史学界仍分歧大于共识。但是,以现代化为视角研究中国近代史已被一些史学工作所接受并实践。本以现代化为主线略论中国近代史研究中的一些问题,如现代化与民主革命的关系、在现代化追求中学习西方与反抗侵略的关系、以现代化理论克服以往中国近代史研究中的主观情绪等。关于中国近代史的主要线索问题,曾在20世纪80年代引起过旷日持久的争论,这一悬案至今没有真正解决。为此,本略做述论,试图对这一问题有所解释。     

Einoo,Shingo; Jun Takashima,From Material to Deity. Indian Rituals of Consecration [Japanese Studies on South Asia No. 4]

Indo-Iranian Journal -     

海外清史研究:历史、趋势与问题

<正>自1644年清军入关伊始,清朝以及清史研究就一直吸引着世界的眼光。清朝灭亡百年之后,中国人民大学清史研究所启动"百年清史学术史"项目,对百余年来清史研究予以回顾、反思和展望。鉴于海外清史研究的重要性,清史研究所特邀请日本、韩国、美国、英国、法国、意大利、俄罗斯、比利时等国学者撰写相关国家或地区百余年来的清史研究学术史。虽然未能邀请到所有域外国家的清史学者,但海外研究清史的重镇,如日本、美国、法国等,都全部在列。如此大规模地由各自国家的专     

中国共产党社会建设理论是国史研究的重要内容

中共十六大以来,以胡锦涛为总书记的中共中央在全面分析国内外形势发展和我们党所肩负的历史使命,尤其是深刻总结新世纪新阶段全面建设小康社会实践经验的基础上,提出了构建社会主义和谐社会的战略任务和建设目标。这表明,随着我国经济社会的不断发展,中国特     

The World Upside Down: Boas,History, Evolutionism,and Science

A new wave of neo‐Boasian anthropologists advocate retrieving Boas’s sense of historicity. In his theoretical writings, and especially his early exchange with Mason and Powell in 1887, Boas linked history to Alexander von Humboldt’s “cosmographical” method and to inductive science, accusing evolutionists of reasoning deductively on the basis of artibrary classifications. Boas, on the contrary, would not classify but would consider the “individual phenomenon”. Strangely enough, Boas’s presentation of his scientific procedure has more or less been taken at face value, and I question this Boas‐centric view of Boas. Examining Boas’s theoretical statements, his onslaught against evolutionism and his ethnographic practice, I find the accusation of deductive reasoning against evolutionists totally polemical. Furthermore, I discover neither induction nor history or cosmography in his practice, but a Linnaean‐type natural history. In brief, I uncover an inverse image of what Boas presented of himself, and no basis whatsoever for retrieving a historicity for contemporary anthropology.