Search

This essay does not deal with the matter of Celtic and Germanic peoples as such, but with that of the historical production of their difference from the point of view of the historians. Such difference cannot for sure be considered anything pertaining to their essence, more or less in terms of racial features, however in terms of the unavoidable upshot of the social processes having taken place before their encounter and afterwards determined by this same encounter – as well as by the manner historians have bestowed validity to the presentation of such social production. However, this difference production is obviously not merely observed at the level of whole peoples such as the Celtic or Germanic ones: it is a multiscalar process that is characteristic of the production of the social itself, from the scale of the individual to the scale (by our time) of mankind – therefore, a general process of sociogenesis. This is what leads me to re-examine the sense of what the French medievalist Marc Bloch affirmed in 1937 and afterwards, that History is defined, above all, as a science of difference. Nevertheless, for a long time, this matter of the difference has not been taken seriously from the point of view of the historians (particularly the medievalists): it was merely observed in order to grant the impression of a medieval society which was simply heterogeneous, diverse, variable, incoherent, subject to exogenous factors (climate accidents, invasions, gold incomes, pandemics, technical contributions, cultural influences etc.) or to collective intentionalities (kings, popes, knights, peoples, etc.). Since a certain amount of time, yet, the idea of a society the dynamics of which derives precisely from the multiple scale articulation (from the village to Christianity) of both material and ideal contrasts emerges – contrasts which are not at all to be eliminated, including at the level of the global speech (in opposition to the universalism postulated by our own system, in face of which the affirmations of difference that multiply themselves are only reactions), because they were not at all a problem, but the very ground of social logics. I hence avert that such type of general problematic (the multiple scale production of the social by means of the articulation between the differences) is one of the most crucial questions to the historian – independently from the object which one analyses. I shall therefore continue the reflections that I have been undertaking, along with some colleagues, about the matters of the statute, the object and the future of the historical discipline as an attempt to redefine its relative role before the other social sciences, aiming at a reunified science of the social. It is precisely at this point that the matter of difference is able to furnish an interesting key, because for me (and for some others), change is not a condition of the historian’s work, but it's very object. Thus History does not only consist of identifying, by comparison, the differences as signs of a change that would constitute the board of explanation in History (replying to the question of why and how practices have changed), yet of turning difference into its own object, both in space and time, as an empirical form of social dynamics (thus answering the question about how society – in this case, medieval society – produced difference in space and time). That is why I can easily consider that History is the science of change (obviously the social change). Stating that History is the science of (social) change implies that the historian’s object is the historicity of social systems, that is, ineluctably the historicity of social domination systems. By “historicity” I mean both a process of historical formation and transformation of dominium relationships, and the fact that all of them have or will come to an end. The exam of the matter of producing local singularity in Middle Ages allows us to take into account the fact that peoples identified as specific ethnic groups (still during the Carolingian period) have eventually disappeared as to give rise to populations rooted in some location and identified to it (place, region, kingdom) – the concept of "population" having to be understood here in the sense of Michel Foucault. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including thesis on anthropology in Paris, France, medieval manuscripts in 19th century and archeology in Morocco.

The article critiques the book "Erbe. Ubertragungskonzepte zwischen Natur und Kultur," by Bernhard Jussen, focusing on management of heritage sites by human rights organization UNESCO.

The article is based on a corpus of documents concerning two societies of tournament (the Unicom and the Bear) in Franconia (Upper Germany) at the end of the 15th century, two of which (the statutes of both societies) are newly edited here. The Unicorn society was thought as a maritally integrated group, just as the nobility (adel) itself was said to be. Conversely, the Bear society was considered a union of lineages (geschlecht), both societies being furthermore thought each one as a form of "closeness" (freundschaft) as well, which belonged partly to the field of parenthood. Therefore, this case study allows us to observe how the double structure of medieval parenthood (consanguinity vs. affinity on one side, carnal vs. spiritual parenthood on the other side, the second being then more important than the first) is mobilized to produce two kinds of separation: the more visible, but less important, between both societies, and the more important, between aristocrats and their dependants, that disappears behind the creation of euphemized forms of aristocratic cohesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the culture of writing and social construction in the imperial city of Nuremberg, Germany, around 1500. The notions of identity, collective identity, and urban identity are discussed. The author is particularly interested in measuring whether criteria for urbanity such as producing, using, conserving, and re-using writings reflect a particularistic or identity logic. The author also aims to distinguish the city's realistic historical identity and the city's historical identity as portrayed by medievalists. The city's conflicts with princes and nobility is also mentioned.

The article introduces an international research project focused on a reinterpretation of a European habitation trend in the High Middle Ages. The concept of “Einwohnerschaft” (“community of inhabitants”) is used to describe what is called “the spatialization of the social,” which involves a study that blurs the conventional academic distinction among towns, villages, and parishes in spatial terms, and looks at spatialization as a means to economic effectiveness and social control. In general the effort is said to be part of medievalists’ “anthropology of spatiality.” “Einwohnerschaft” is claimed to mark a break with conventional historiographic research.

Citrus thrips, Scirtothrips citri (Moulton), is a plant-feeding pest most widely recognized for causing damage to citrus and mango fruits. This insect has broadened its host range to become a significant pest of commercial blueberries grown in the San Joaquin Valley of California. We evaluated Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) for control of citrus thrips in blueberries grown under two watering regimes (drip irrigation with and without overhead sprinklers) and using two fungal formulations (commercially available spores in suspension vs. colonized seed) over two sampling periods, that is, for two 3-d periods after treatment. We found significant differences in thrips densities as a function of water regime treatment and fungal formulation. Thrips levels were reduced significantly with both fungal treatments at 3 d after treatment, but at 6 d, only results with colonized seed differed from the control treatment. These data suggest entomopathogenic fungi might be useful for control of citrus thrips on blueberries in particular situations (in organic production or as a resistance management tool) but that traditional pesticides will likely remain the preferred management option.