MIGRATION AND NARRATION: HOW EUROPEAN HISTORIANS IN THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES TOLD THE HISTORY OF HUMAN MASS MIGRATIONS OR VÖLKERWANDERUNGEN

Historians’ interest in the history of human migrations is not limited to recent years. Migrations had already figured as explanatory factors in connection with cultural and historical change in the work of classical and ancient studies scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the writings of these scholars, migrations acted as historical landmarks or epochal thresholds and played a key role in the construction of geo-historical areas. This model has been called “migrationism” and cannot be explained simply on the basis of the history of individual disciplines, but must be seen in its complex interaction with scientific and historical contexts. However, “migrationism” does not relate to fixed political and scientific positions or movements. For this reason, it cannot be explained adequately by using a historically or ideologically based approach. Relying on narratological approaches, this article examines migration narratives that historians of this period used to explain the rise and fall of ancient civilizations. Referring to contemporary historiographical representations of the ancient Near East, it distinguishes three main narratives that are still common today: narratives of foundation, narratives of destruction, and narratives of mixtures. In this sense, analyzing older migration narratives helps us to sharpen the critical view on the genealogy of our own views on the history—and present—of human migrations.     

TOWARD A MULTIDIRECTIONAL FUTURE OF HISTORIOGRAPHY: GLOBALITY,INTERDISCIPLINARITY, AND POSTHUMANITY

Compared with the survey offered in the New Perspectives on Historical Writing nearly three decades earlier, historical practices around the world today have witnessed a remarkable change on several fronts. First, marked expansions occurred in such fields as gender history, history of memory, history of knowledge, and visual history, resulting in their noticeable transformation (for example, “gender history” to “history of sexuality” and “visual history” to “history of things”). Second, by exploring and presenting the “other(s)” in modern historiography, new areas are opened up in postcolonial history, global history, emotions history, and so on, which have prompted historians to reconceptualize their notions of time and space. Third, menacing global climate change and notable breakthroughs in various areas of modern technology have exerted an unprecedented impact on historical writing, exemplified by the new developments in environmental history, neurohistory, digital history, and animal history. Science and technology help historians to rejuvenate their research methodology and teaching pedagogy, but they have also demanded that historians acquire a better understanding of the interaction and co-evolution of humans and nonhumans in history, or to take the nonanthropocentric and nonanthropomorphic approach. In sum, what lies ahead for historians and history students today is a multidirectional future, which is at once an opportunity and a challenge.     

CHALLENGING CERTAINTY: THE UTILITY AND HISTORY OF COUNTERFACTUALISM

Counterfactualism is a useful process for historians as a thought-experiment because it offers grounds to challenge an unfortunate contemporary historical mindset of assumed, deterministic certainty. This article suggests that the methodological value of counterfactualism may be understood in terms of the three categories of common ahistorical errors that it may help to prevent: the assumptions of indispensability, causality , and inevitability. To support this claim, I survey a series of key counterfactual works and reflections on counterfactualism, arguing that the practice of counterfactualism evolved as both cause and product of an evolving popular assumption of the plasticity of history and the importance of human agency within it. For these reasons, counterfactualism is of particular importance both historically and politically. I conclude that it is time for a methodological re-assessment of the uses of such thought-experiments in history, particularly in light of counterfactualism's developmental relatedness to cultural, technological, and analytical modernity.     

The Study of Chinese Historiography from the Perspective of Intellectual History

To promote historical research today, one needs to create a vigorous environment for historiographic criticism, to summarize the progress and state of all fields and topics of history, and to enhance the study of historiography. All these three aspects, which share similar characteristics, can be called “historiography.” Their essence is the basic method for deepening the study of historiography as a whole and refining its branches from the perspective of intellectual history. They can help us to form a healthy scholarly mechanism to review historical achievements, which would be crucial to the development of academic research. Translated from Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition), No. 2, 2004     

永恒的薪火——怀念我的老师白寿彝先生

白寿彝先生把自己一生贡献给史学事业.他的治史体现出崇高的精神境界,这就是研究历史是为了推动历史发展的气魄,治史中不断创新的器识以及世界史的胸怀.先生研究历史的眼光是开阔的,他总是从世界范围内认识历史学问题.     

1997-1999年史学评论状况评析

统计资料表明,近年来史学评论及其理论研究越来越受到史学界的重视,出现了学术书评建设、学风与学术规范建设、世纪末中国史学回顾等史学评论热潮.但从整体来看,史学评论在数量上还远远低于专业学术文章,在质量上则参差不齐,相当一部分评论学术质量不高;在史学评论学科与理论建设方面,则存在着明显不利于自身发展的思想倾向.因此,当代中国的史学评论尚不能真正实践其矫正史学发展方向和规范史学活动的学科目标,史学评论理论建设和学科建设依然任重而道远.     

马克思主义史学的发展与新时期史学思潮

面对改革开放的新形势,受“左”倾思潮影响的教条主义史学面临来自多方面的挑战,史学危机的呼声不绝于耳,西方各种史学思潮纷至沓来。史学工作者本着解放思想、实事求是的原则,结合实际,重新学习,调整步伐,注重历史学的学科特性,与时俱进,使马克思主义史学获得了新的生机。     

明至清前期海外关系的变化与史学

明至清前期,随着海外关系的变化,史学也表现出不同的特点。明前期,皇朝海外关系是建立在“宣威柔远”政治目的基础之上的。这种关系因郑和一下西洋”的活动达到高潮,史学则因此出现了几部反映这种海外关系特点的著作。晚明,倭患问题与私人违禁进行海外商贸等问题交织在一起,经权衡利弊,皇朝开始改变初期的海禁政策,私人海外贸易迅速发展;与此同时．西方殖民者东来,与中国开始发生直接的接触;随着传教士“精神狩猎”的开始,中西文化交流逐渐展开。这些海外关系的特点,都在史学中得到体现。清前期是海外关系大倒退的时期,中西文化交流逐渐偃息,史学的发展也受到影响。     

清代史馆制度的特点

和前代相比,清代史馆制度有自身的特点。顺康时期,清朝官方就形成了以常开、例开史馆为主干,以阅时而开、特开史馆为辅助的史馆格局,这种史馆格局既具有稳定性,又具有灵活性,功能完善,相得益彰,在清廷的政治运作中发挥了重要作用。清代帝王对史馆修史的干预更加全面,皇帝亲自确定修史项目,对史书修纂的内容进行全面指导,时常过问史馆的管理,并形成了史书修纂次第进呈御览的制度,一切仰承圣裁,保证了帝王意志在史馆内的贯彻执行。清代史馆还具有鲜明的民族特色,官方以制度化的方式规定了史馆内满汉纂修官的员额和比例,保证满人参与修史。清代史无专官,但史馆从组建、管理到史官选任、资料征集等,都有一整套严格而又灵活的运作机制。     

《史学原论》在中国的传播和影响

五四时期,在我国史学专业化的背景下,《史学原论》作为西方史学方法论的经典教科书,在史学界流传甚广。胡适、李泰菜、梁启超等人的著作深受此书的影响。民国时期不少青年学生赴法留学,跟随《史学原论》著者研习史学方法,这些中国留学生归国后执教于各地大学历史系,极力宣扬师说,使西方史学方法论在大学课程设置中得到贯彻,“史学方法”被官方定为必修课。这本教科书在中国现代史学专业化进程中产生了重大的作用。