scholarly journals The excavation and analysis of an 18th-century deposit of anatomical remains and chemical apparatus from the rear of the first Ashmolean Museum (now The Museum of the History of Science), Broad Street, Oxford

2003 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
GRAHAM HULL
2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
LORRAINE DASTON

Since the Enlightenment, the history of science has been enlisted to show the unity and distinctiveness of Europe. This paper, written on the occasion of the award of the 2005 Erasmus Prize to historians of science Simon Schaffer and Steven Shapin, traces the intertwined narratives of the history of science and European modernity from the 18th century to the present. Whether understood as triumph or tragedy (and there have been eloquent proponents of both views), the Scientific Revolution has been portrayed as Europe's decisive break with tradition – the first such break in world history and the model for all subsequent epics of modernization in other cultures. The paper concludes with reflections on how a new history of science, exemplified in the work of Shapin and Schaffer, may transform the self-image of Europe and conceptions of truth itself.


Itinerario ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Romano ◽  
Stéphane Van Damme

Through its focus on the question of circulation, world history attained a central position amongst the historical configurations in the last decade. Indicative of our fundamentally changing world, the past thereby reveals itself to have been shaped by commercial, human and intellectual flows of global dimension. The history of science has been particularly receptive to such methodological developments, especially with regard to works influenced by a markedly social approach to science and knowledge, which has focused for some time on the analysis of intellectual networks. From the French provincial Enlightenment to Athansius Kircher's circles—including the relationships of patronage of mathematicians and court philosophers—social, intellectual and epistemological configurations have been designed, allowing us to consider different scales in the circulation of knowledge.


2020 ◽  
pp. 719-735
Author(s):  
Simon S. Ilizarov ◽  

This paper reviews the work of the Archive of the Soviet Academy of Sciences during the blockade of Leningrad in 1941–42. It is based on the archive series that contains a report detailing the work of the 22 Academy’s institutions in Leningrad (11 scientific research institutes, 3 museums, the Archive, the Library, the Geographical Society, etc.) over 7 months of 1942 and prepared for the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It lists Archive’s staff members who died or were evacuated during this period. It shows that, even in the hardest days under the blockade, the work in the Archive never stopped. An important part of this work was associated with the activities of the Commission for the History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (KIAN). The paper reviews the history of the KIAN creation under the auspices of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Leningrad in 1938, soon after forcible liquidation of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology and tragic death of its first director, Academician N.I. Bukharin. A number of outstanding historians-archivists and historians of science – A.I. Andreyev, I.I. Lyubimenko, L.B. Modzalevskii, and others – participated in the work of the KIAN headed by Academician S. I. Vavilov and his deputy, Director of the Archive, G.A. Knyazev. The research and archaeographic work of the Archive’s staff was associated with preparation of publications for the “Scientific Heritage” series (it was established in 1940 upon initiative of the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences V. L. Komarov with active participation of the eminent historian of science T. I. Rainov). During that period, the editorial work on the second volume of the “Reviews of Archive Materials” (Obozreniya arkhivnykh materialov) was completed and V.F. Gnucheva completed her unique history-of-science book “The Geographical Department of the 18th century Academy of Sciences.” Both books were published after the war, in 1946. The main result of the work of the few Archive’s staff members was safeguarding the precious historical materials and searching for, concentrating, and preserving documentation of evacuated institutions and individual scientists, some of whom were killed by the cold, famine, and diseases. The paper contains data from official reports: quantitative data concerning documents taken into the Archive’s custody in 1941 and in 1942 and processed and described series; it names institutions and scholars, whose documents ended up in the Archive of the Academy of Sciences. By July 31, 1942, the number of fonds in the Archive reached 740. Reports of such Academy institutions as the Institute of Oriental Studies, the N.Ya. Marr Institute for the History of Material Culture, the Institute of Literature, the All-Union Geographical Society, and others allow the scholars to analyze their work associated with the preservation of books and archival fonds and collections. The paper is based on documentary sources that are being introduced into scientific use for the first time.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 1027-1036
Author(s):  
Igor L. Tikhonov ◽  

The article is a review of the textbook on the history of Russian archaeology prepared by A. S. Skripkin, professor of Volgograd State University, a well-known archaeologist specializing in the study of the Sarmatian tribes. The textbook was issued by the “Urait” publishing company in 2017. The first part, dominating in amount, is devoted to the history of the development of the Russian archaeology from the 18th century until the last quarter of the 20th century. The second part briefly outlines the topic well-known to the author — the history of archaeological research in the Lower Volga region in the same chronological period. However, the main problem of the reviewed publication is the author’s failure to use a considerable number of works published on this subject over the last 25 years. Almost all the information contained in the first section of the textbook was borrowed from the books by A. A. Formozov, G. S. Lebedev, V. F. Gening, A. D. Pryakhin published in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, in the years passed since then, a whole direction connected with the study of various aspects of its history has been formed in the Russian archaeology. A significant range of monographic publications, collections of articles and conference materials have been published; more than fifty candidate and doctoral dissertations have been defended. Unfortunately, all this remained beyond the scope of A. S. Skripkin. Therefore, there are numerous out-of-date ideas concerning various subjects connected with the formation and development of the Russian archaeology. Furthermore, the text contains a considerable number of factual errors, inaccuracies, misprints.


2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Mcevoy

Since its inception in the 18th century, the discipline of the history of science has served a motley collection of extrinsic disciplinary interests, philosophical ideas, and cultural movements. This paper examines the historiographical implications of modernism and postmodernism and shows how they in.uenced positivist, postpositivist, and sociological interpretations of the Chemical Revolution. It also shows how these interpretations served the disciplinary interests of science, phi-losophy, and sociology, respectively, and it points toward a model of the history of science as history.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-62

The title of the article prompts at least two questions: (1) how to determine that any particular research topic or problem belongs to the history of science and (2) the effect of the history of science and other research in problematizing the very idea that science is a natural category. The category of “science” itself has become so historicized and slippery that it calls into question the integrity of what historians of science are engaged in. The thesis of the article is that the integrity of the history of science as a distinct field of scholarship may lie in understanding the antecedents to modern science as well as its ongoing development. The evident mismatch between the common representations of “science” and the miscellany of materials typically studied by a historian of science comes from a systematic ambiguity that may itself be traced back to early modern Europe. In that cultural setting, natural philosophy was held (most famously by Francis Bacon) to involve both contemplative and practical knowledge. The resulting tension and ambiguity are typified in the 18th century by Buffon’s views. The new enterprise that was called science in the 19th century arrived at an unstable ideology of natural knowledge that was heavily indebted to those early modern developments. The two complementary and competing elements in the ideology of modern science may be described as “natural philosophy” (a discourse of contemplative knowledge) and “instrumentality” (a discourse of practical or useful knowledge). The history of science in large part deals with the interrelations — always shifting and often repudiating each other — between those two poles.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document