理发小史

正我国很久以前是没有"理发"一词的,古人认为头发受之于父母,不能随便剃除。故当时男女都留长发,只是盘发的方式不同。到了汉代,始有以理发为职业的工匠。南北朝时,南朝梁国的贵族子弟都削发剃面,那时的理发业逐渐普及,出现了专职的理发师。"理发"一词,最早出现在宋代的文献中,朱熹在注疏《诗·周颂·良耜》中"其比为栉"一句里说明:"栉,理发器也。"     

宫女小史

宫女是宫廷里供使唤的女子。乍听,还以为是美差,实则是葬送女子青春的地方。宫女的来源,最初是从战败国的女俘中挑留。汉代的君主嫌这个面窄,要在民间选宫女,又叫选秀女,由朝廷派出大批人“于洛阳乡中阅视良家童女,年十三以上,二十以下,     

粉盒小史

粉盒作为一种小型日常妆饰用品，反映了古代人们对美的追求。粉盒的质地、造型、纹饰也随着时间不断地发展变化。不同历史阶段，粉盒呈现出不同的发展特点。在秦汉时期，我国出现了价格不菲的漆粉盒，而金属粉盒的主要使用人群为贵族阶层。瓷粉盒首现于唐代，历经五代，盛行于宋，明清时期逐渐成为平民百姓的日常用器。     

港币小史

鸦片战争后,英国殖民主义于1842年侵占了香港。当时香港是一个渔港,华人以打渔为生。当地所用货币,大数用银(主要用西班牙本洋、墨西哥鹰洋、荷兰马剑、美国贸易银、日本龙洋),小数用铜钱(主要是清钱)。这几种不同国度的货币共同流通,由于成色、重量不     

香水政治

前英国首相撒切尔夫人当年如日中天时,曾接受过《People》杂志的专访。她在采访中说：“在政治上,如果你只想找人随便说说,你可以找个男人：     

凹版印刷小史

凹版印刷是当代钞票印制的主要防伪手段之一。这种印刷方法起源于中世纪的欧洲。中世纪的欧洲,骑士阶层十分活跃,他们头戴钢盔、身披铠甲,手持剑矛等各种武器,四处游荡。这些骑士对盔甲武器的装饰十分苛求,于是工匠们就在这些钢铁制品上雕刻了各种各样的花纹,这些花饰一般是由工匠直接用凿子雕刻的,也有的是使用酸等药品腐蚀而成的。为了向顾客兜售自己的产品,他们想方设法散发各种商品样本。有的工艺师在自己雕刻的铠甲上抹上蜡烛黑烟子,然后用布擦净铠甲,只留下刻缝中的油烟,把纸放在铠甲上施加     

延津县地名小史

延津,古名酸枣。酸枣是战国时期的一座名城。公元前414年,魏文侯“伐郑,城酸枣”。又,前242年(秦始皇五年),秦国大将蒙驁攻魏,当时酸枣是魏都大梁(河南开封)北面的屏藩,双方曾在这里展开激烈的战斗。酸枣故城在今延津西南。酸枣名称的来历,《水经注》说是“以棘名邦”。棘,即酸枣树。古代,延津县境酸枣丛生。县境旧有酸枣山、酸水,也都是以县境的酸枣树命名的。     

中国国名小史

“中国”,国名,大约起源于商代(公元前17世纪至前11世纪)前后。那时,华夏部族群居于黄河流域,因地理环境优越,文化发展早于周围各部落,遂以自己居天下之中,故称“中国”。但这时所称的中国,仅仅是一个局部的区域概念。到秦汉以后,随着国家的统一,废分封制为郡县制,实行中央集权,“中国”一词才由局部的区域概念,发展成全国的概念,成为整个国家的称呼。     

航空神社小史

九一八事变之后,为了在日本国内推行“爱国心”与“敬神崇祖”教育政策,在高层的授意下,日军在国内军事管理区内兴建了各类神社设施。本文重点研究了1937年日本陆军航空士官学校内创建的“航空神社”,并对这一神社的创建及兴衰的历史进行梳理,从中挖掘出此类日本神社不为人知的历史冰山中的一角。     

芳香之旅——格拉斯香水女神的伊甸园

人类的历史有多长,香水的历史就有多长。 远在人类出现之前,那些鲜花和香草就作为地球上美丽景色的一部分而摇曳生姿。然而直到现在,我们才刚刚开始了解人类嗅觉机制的复杂性。 香水能够带给我们愉悦感,特别能唤起我们记忆中熟识的片段。 气味可以改变人与人的关系,也可以记录逝去的时光。     

唐代镂空刻花涂金银香球及其西传

上世纪后半叶西安郊区出土四批八件银香球,其内部结构设计奇巧,设计原理与现代陀螺仪中的万向支架相同。在马穆鲁克王朝统治下的埃及和叙利亚,金属匠师对唐代香球进行了非常精确的仿制。13-15,世纪香球及其制造技术西传欧洲,对其时的科学技术发展产生了深远影响。     

Environmental History versus History of Science

Moran, Emilio F., ed. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1984. xiv + 320 pp. including index. $28.50 cloth.     

History of Science or History of Learning

This essay presents analogies between the development of historical writing and of physical science during the early modern period. Its necessarily spotty coverage runs from the mid sixteenth century to the beginning of the eighteenth. The analogies include arising from practical concerns; preferring material documents and experimental inquiries over texts; making use of mathematical auxiliary sciences; distinguishing between primary and secondary elements; establishing new fundamental principles; undermining the traditional world system; and devising methods to control rapidly multiplying knowledge. A history of learning that meets today's standards of historical scholarship should identify and exploit such parallels, not only because of scholarly interest and responsibility, but also because an understanding of the historical importance of linkages between distant branches of learning may help redress the increasing imbalance in resources among the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities in our higher schools and universities.     

大历史与历史研究

大历史是历史研究与教学的新领域,它是指从各种可能的规模甚至宇宙的规模来探究一切事物的历史。大历史也是一种跨学科研究。它与世界史存在关联,也是对传统史学的一种补充。大历史探究也满足了人们的精神、心灵和社会需求,有利于人们更好地认识自我。     

Intellectual History and the History of Philosophy

Summary

The issue which I wish to address in this paper is the widespread tendency in Anglophone philosophy to insist on a separation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas or intellectual history. This separation reflects an anxiety on the part of philosophers lest the special character of philosophy will be dissolved into something else in the hands of historians. And it is borne of a fundamental tension between those who think of philosophy's past as a source of ideas and arguments of interest to the present, and those who hold that the philosophy of the past should be studied on its own terms, in relation to its immediate context, without reference to the present. The challenge, then, is to re-historicise the history of philosophy, and to keep the philosophers onside.     

Making History, Talking about History

Making history—in the sense of writing it—is often set against talking about it, with most historians considering writing history to be better than talking about it. My aim in this article is to analyze the topic of making history versus talking about history in order to understand most historians' evident decision to ignore talking about history. Ultimately my goal is to determine whether it is possible to talk about history with any sense.
To this end, I will establish a typology of the different forms of talking practiced by historians, using a chronological approach, from the Greek andRoman emphasis on the visual witness to present-day narrativism and textual analysis. Having recognized the peculiar textual character of the historiographical work, I will then discuss whether one can speak of a method for analyzing historiographical works. After considering two possible approaches—the philosophy of science and literary criticism—I offer my own proposal. This involves breaking the dichotomy between making and talking about history, adopting a fuzzy method that overcomes the isolation of self-named scientific communities, and that destroys the barriers among disciplines that work with the same texts but often from mutually excluding perspectives. Talking about history is only possible if one knows about history and about its sources and methods, but also about the foundations of the other social sciences and about the continuing importance of traditional philosophical problems of Western thought in the fields of history and the human sciences.