关于新时期历史阶段划分的几点思考

随着历史的不断发展,新时期的历史逐渐成为史学研究的重点。如何对新时期做出科学的阶段划分,是研究这段历史的一个首要问题。理论界对新时期的概念、新时期的上下限、历史阶段的具体划分等问题存在着不同的认识,架构中国特色的历史分期理论体系,对中国史学乃至中共党史、中华人民共和国史理论的发展都是很有意义的。当然对新时期的历史做出阶段性的划分,只是研究工作的第一步。要把新时期波澜壮阔的历史进程生动展现出来,还要进行认真的、大量的理论和史料准备,进行艰苦的、深入的研究和论证,以推动研究的进一步深入。     

学习"七一"讲话,正确研究国史

江泽民同志的"七一"重要讲话,是加强新时期党的建设、全面推进建设有中国特色社会主义伟大事业的纲领性文件,也是我们国史工作者正确研究和宣传中华人民共和国史的强大思想武器.深入学习"七一"讲话,有助于我们在以下几个国史研究的问题上进一步明确思想,提高认识.     

关于国史学理论的若干思考

国史学理论包括国史理论和国史学理论。国史理论即国史学历史理论,是考察国史发展过程的理论,主要包括国史主线及其分期、国史重大事件与重要人物评价等内容。国史学理论是反思国史学自身的理论,主要包括国史学的性质、特点、研究对象、研究内容、指导思想、研究方法等问题。国史学的性质从时限上说属于当代时限内的历     

试析“以问题为中心”的国史分期理论

研究历史有多种思路,既可以自上而下地顺向研究。也可以自下而上地逆向追溯,当然还可以以某个问题为中心进行全方位研究,即以问题为中心。研究国史分期理论就要在明确国史学理论学术坐标的前提下,论证国史分期的理论资源,阐述中共中央领导集体对国史分期理论的贡献,论述国史     

构建中华人民共和国史研究学科体系初探

中华人民共和国史的内涵、性质与特征,特别是国史发展的主题与主线、主流与本质,规定了国史研究的指导思想,也决定了构建国史研究学科体系、学术体系和话语体系的学理基础。国史研究学科体系是国史研究发展到一定阶段的产物,同时对国史研究起着引导和推动作用。根据国史研究的学科属性和特点,国史研究学科体系主要应由国史史源与史料学、理论研究类学科、国史本体研究类学科和国史研究交叉类学科所构成。这一学科体系是国史本体论、认识论和方法论的统一,也是需要在新的起点上坚持问题导向、推动创新发展的。确立起成熟、完善的学科体系,是国史研究成为相对独立学科并发展成熟的主要标志。     

近30年中华人民共和国史教材编写若干问题的探讨

中华人民共和国史的学科建设是在中共十一届三中全会后逐步形成体系和规模的。近30年来,国史课程建设和教材建设取得了非常显著的成绩,在将国史与党史进行科学区分方面,在全面、系统梳理和阐释国史的历史发展脉络、发展规律以及历史经验教训,从而树立国史的信史形象与影响方面,取得了比较大的进展,凸现了国史的学术风格和特色。同时也存在着一些问题,如低水平重复、学术积累和学术规范重视不够、学科定位欠准确等。     

《当代中国史研究》2007年总目录

(题后括号内数字,前为期次,后为页码)特稿国史研究要以科学、敬谨的态度对待对国史中的问题要全面客观地加以分析谈谈国史研究中的党性和立场问题陈奎元(6.4)张全景(6.8)张启华(6.11)政治史江泽民科学发展思想的历史考察汪青松(1.4)江泽民创新思想发展述论周一平(1.11) 20世纪90年代前后中国共产党抵御执政风险的历史经验王真(1.19)新中国社会主义意识形态的基本确立张星星(1.28)毛泽东理论问题指示平议程中原(1.34)略论毛泽东处理十大经济关系问题的辩证思维张俊国(1.41)新时期的思想解放与马克思主义中国化的历史发展王先俊(1.51) 1961…     

“四个全面”战略布局的理论品质

"四个全面"战略布局是新一届党中央把马克思主义与中国实际情况有机结合起来而形成的最新理论成果,是对我国老一辈领导人治国理政思想的继承与发展,是中国特色社会主义理论体系的重要组成部分。"四个全面"聚焦我国经济社会发展当中存在的问题和面临的挑战,指向中国特色社会主义发展的阶段性目标,从制度体制机制层面给出解决问题的诸多办法。在"四个全面"当中,全面建成小康社会是近期我们党治国理政的战略目标。全面深化改革、全面依法治国和全面从严治党既是全面建成小康社会的战略举措,又是未来若干年党执政兴国的主抓方向。"四个全面"战略布局立足现实又立志高远,具有显明的历史承继性、现实针对性和目标导向性。     

新时代中华人民共和国史知识创新刍议

<正>新时代，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视中华人民共和国史(以下简称国史)的研究、宣传和教育。2022年12月，在致国史学会成立30周年的贺信中，习近平总书记要求广大国史研究工作者“不断提高研究水平，创新宣传方式，加强教育引导，激励人们坚定历史自信、增强历史主动，更好凝聚团结奋斗的精神力量，为全面建设社会主义现代化国家、全面推进中华民族伟大复兴作出新贡献”。^①搞好国史研究、宣传和教育，离不开国史自主知识体系的建构，因为知识体系是研究、宣传和教育的基础，而研究又是创新发展知识体系的手段和路径。     

"四个全面"战略布局的发展创新——从全面建成小康社会到全面建设社会主义现代化国家

中共十九届五中全会对"四个全面"战略布局的发展创新包括两个方面:一是将以习近平同志为核心的党中央提出并形成的"四个全面"战略布局,确定为"十四五"时期经济社会发展指导方针;二是将以全面建成小康社会为战略目标的"四个全面"战略布局,发展创新为以全面建设社会主义现代化国家为战略目标的"四个全面"战略布局.只有全面认识这些发展创新的理论逻辑、实践逻辑、历史逻辑,才能深刻理解"四个全面"战略布局对新发展阶段党和国家各项工作的战略指引与实践指南的重大意义.     

On the New Trends in Recent Chinese Historiography—An Appraisal Based on Views from Social History

The development of historiography in the new era has manifested in the discourse of “new historiography.” One of its achievements is the rise of “social history” or “new social history.” Over the course of the past four decades, the study of social history has prospered, as it has continuously broadened the research field by embracing interdisciplinary methods. As a result, its development has shaped the prospects of Chinese historiography in the new era. Admittedly, if we were to follow a stricter standard of evaluation, then it becomes evident that some problems worthy of reflection are present in the development of new historiography, such as sociologization, the localization of historical research, and the pursuit of new trends in research. For these reasons, we must be aware of these problems in academia in the new era.     

From the government to the university: Efforts to write national history in the early Republic

ABSTRACT

From the controversies surrounding the National History Bureau in the early Republic to the short-lived National Historiography Office at Peking University, the traditional undertaking of writing dynastic history experienced many crises during the transformative Republican era. The National History Bureau was merged with Peking University as part of Cai Yuanpei’s efforts to separate the field of national historiography from the government and shift it toward universities, as well as his efforts to further reform the university system. In comparing the staff members and aims of the National History Bureau and the National Historiography Office of Peking University, the latter clearly represented an update in terms of concepts and methods. The purpose of the History Bureau’s shift from “dynastic” to “popular” history, which apparently intentionally imitated the German academic system, was to render national historiography and other related research independent of the government, cast off the traditional moral burden of “condemning evildoers and praising the virtuous,” and gradually move forward on the path of specialization for national historiography within the university system. The National Historiography Office’s various editing plans amply demonstrate this tendency. The many winding detours that the “national history” efforts took between dynastic and popular history both expressed the entanglement of new and old ideas within academic circles, and revealed the contemporary struggle between the government and universities.     

A History of Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia

Abstract

This article traces the development of archaeological inquiry in the former Soviet Republic of Armenia, from its antiquarian roots in the 19th century, through the Soviet era, and into modern times. The resurgence of western attention in the region since the end of the Cold War has been driven by collaborative research projects from the United States, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, England, Russia, and Canada, that employ a variety of methods to understand the archaeological heritage of Armenia. Research problems are related to the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, as well as to the Urartian, Achaemenid, and Hellenistic periods.

For those unfamiliar with Armenia, this article is meant as a primer to the history of the discipline as it has been practiced in the region. For those already engaged in archaeology there, it is our hope that this discussion will lend an added historical dimension to ongoing field projects.     

论顾颉刚的中华民族共同体思想:以民族史编撰为中心

清末民初以来,面对国家危亡的局势,许多知识分子通过“中华民族”话语和历史书写,推动民众民族意识的觉醒。其中,顾颉刚的民族史编撰思想尤其具有典型意义。顾颉刚最初只希望做与实用和政治无关的学问,其古史辨致力于打破中国“民族出于一元”的神话,这无疑与当时已兴起的中华民族话语相抵牾;在“九一八”事变后的民族危亡之际,他自觉地转向救亡图存和民族边疆现实问题的研究,并在反思其疑古立场的基础上,结合中国的历史与现实,提出了“中华民族是一个”的理论,强调以此理论为核心编撰中国通史和民族史,纠正古史材料“言分化有余,言团结不足”的偏颇,以历史教育培育中华民族共同体意识。尽管顾颉刚的中国通史和民族史编撰事业并未完成,但其民族史编撰思想及理论自觉意识,对新时代加强中华民族共同体历史研究和铸牢中华民族共同体意识仍有着重要的启示意义。     

A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England

For the past two decades, issues of English national identity have provided a fertile field for historical investigation. In the late Victorian era, the development of professional standards of scholarship within the academy gave a new dimension to historical debates. The bitter quarrels about appropriate research techniques from the 1860s to the 1890s, among James Anthony Froude, Edward Freeman and John Horace Round, acted as a proxy for the vision of national identity that each historian espoused. After 1870, the development of a national narrative focused on constitutional history as its primary vehicle. The battle over historical reconstruction represented a surrogate for divergent views about political values and national identity. What sometimes seemed frivolous scholarly skirmishes, therefore, had a much greater political importance. As a result, the long feud had greater importance than the eccentric personalities of the participants appeared to indicate. For Froude, the Tudor age of discovery and religious reformation represented the best of English character. For Freeman, a strong Gladstonian Liberal, consensus and continuity over many centuries defined English history best. John Horace Round, a Conservative stalwart, thought that Freeman had slanted his historical conclusions to validate his Liberal politics and reinterpreted the Norman conquest to express his own political beliefs. Thus the quibbles about shield walls and other issues provided a terrain for the real cause of antagonism: different views of national identity that history furnished. Each historian constructed a usable past in order to justify contemporary discussions of national identity.     

新世纪以来中华人民共和国史研究的发展和成熟

新世纪以来,中华人民共和国史研究作为一门新兴的历史学科,取得了显著的成绩和进步。近十余年来,随着国史学界对国史研究基本问题认识的不断深化,出版了一批具有通史性的国史著作、资料性研究著作、专史性研究著作,使国史重大问题的研究取得了新的进展。认真研究已有成果,评述国史研究的发展状况,并提出推进国史研究的一些思考,将为这一新兴学科的发展提供有益借鉴。     

Measuring Inuit Health from Ungava to Nunavik via Nouveau Québec: Episodes in the History of Researcher–Subject Relations

ABSTRACT

Inuit have been the subject of research attention since the earliest encounters with Europeans. Using the Foucauldian concept of biopolitics this article explores the history of researcher–research subject relations produced through health knowledge in the region now known as Nunavik. This history is organized in three time periods: The first is the “Ungava” era and is explored in the observations of members of the Hudson Bay Expedition and subsequent mapping efforts. The second “Nouveau Québec” era begins in 1912 when the current borders of Québec were established and lasts until 1975. After a period of indifference, research interest grows rapidly in the post-war period with a focus of social adaptation and culture change. The third era begins in 1975 with the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This marks the beginning of Inuit political development within an Inuit-controlled regional governance structure. The conceptualization of three different health surveys during this period shows an emerging complexity in how Inuit health is imagined. An upcoming fourth survey which marks the first time the study of Inuit physical, social, and community health will be initiated by an Inuit-led health authority.     

关于理论更新对于先秦史研究意义的思考--从解读《牧誓》的启示谈起

目前的先秦史研究中,在具体的实证研究方面已经取得了极为丰硕的成果,但陈旧的理论模式却还在顽固地束缚着我们对于那个时代的宏观把握与总体认识。相对于史学领域内一些理论更新显著的断代研究,先秦史研究这种理论上的滞后显得十分突出。倘若能够从某些新的理论去认识商周时期的历史,我们不仅可以对重大的历史事件提出新的看法,而且对许多具体的历史材料也可以作出新的解释。     

按照“三个代表”，要求开展国史研究

国史研究是党领导的社会科学事业 ,应当坚持以马克思主义唯物史观为指导。“三个代表”重要思想本身 ,就是根据历史唯物主义的基本原理 ,结合党的历史和党所面临的新形势、新任务而提出的 ,是历史唯物主义在新的历史条件下的运用和发展。要按照“三个代表”的要求解决好国史研究的重点问题 ,坚定地站在中国人民的根本利益的立场上来研究国史、撰写国史 ,真实地反映中国人民建设有中国特色社会主义的伟大实践。要按照“三个代表”的要求解决好国史研究中是非判断的标准问题 ,国史的主流是成就是经验 ,国史研究的重点也只能是建国以后的成就和经验。国史研究要更好地发挥资政育人的作用 ,这是国史研究的正确方向 ,也是国史学科建设的关键所在。