Search

In Sapiens; A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari the 200.000 years of history of sapiens has been presented to the reader as an appendix to the 13.500.000.000 years of the world history. Sapiens covers numerous topics in the fields of humanities and non-humanities. However, considering that the subtitle of the book claims to present human history, this article deals only with the historical critique of this work, that is, the methodological approach and the critique of the author’s historical theory, and will critique the methodological capacities of this book from the perspective of critical philosophy of history and its theoretical discussions from the position of evolutionary creationism. Focusing on the content of the book and the authors method, this article deals with three sections: 1) prehistoric period; from 13.5 billion years ago to the invention of calligraphy in 5.000 years ago 2) historical period; from the invention of calligraphy until now, and 3) posthistoric period; human future. According to the critical view of this article, the words mystery, history and minatory refer to these three periods, respectively.

Persian translation of Ibn Khaldon and History'-a book by Mohammad Talbi (1921-2017); a Tunesian historian and thinker-provide a fortune to Iranian for getting familiar with the author and his thoughts. Although Talbi wrote various works in the field of Muslim thought and history during his life, but a few of his works are translated into the Persian language. Talbi has several articles on Ibn Khaldon life and his Moghaddameh but Ibn Khaldon and History is a single book of Talbi that has been translated and published in the Persian language. After reviewing Ibn Khaldun thought, Talbi asks about the purpose of history. This question inevitably leads to other issues, and finally, Talby comes to the answer: History is inevitably constantly moving towards civilization. Talbi named this prosses: Sonnat Allah. The survey aims to provide a critical assessment of the book and its translation. The most important issue that has been criticized is Talbi Eurocentric historiography.

The Darehshuri sub-tribe is one of the sub-tribes of the Qashqai tribe. In the political structure of power, the sheriff was officially responsible for the administration of the sub-tribe. In addition to their affiliated sub-sections, the sheriffs employed a group of executive agents who were referred to as "Deīr Bar" and "Adāra." The authors of this article want to clarify the relationship between the power of Darehshuri sub-tribe sheriffs and the duties of their agents. So the question is, why and how did the sheriffs use agents in the council? This field research has been done on the basis of interviews and by supplementing library resources, by a descriptive-analytical method. The findings show that sub-tribe sheriffs used their agents to do family affairs and maintain order in sub-sections with people like the Kadkhoda. As the executive arm, they not only performed duties in the sheriff's office, but also some agents outside the sheriff's office. The agents, while skilled in administrative matters, were warriors whom the sheriffs used to suppress the rebellious people and sub-sections and advance their goals alongside the loyal tribes.

It is said that the relationship between history and theory is like “the deaf dialog”. It means that there are incongruous interests between them, and maybe the interpretation itself, causes an inconsistent relation between historians and theorists. The present paper explains that every historian needs to have a theoretical base for writing and studying history. Then, it emphasizes that to criticize the historical works the critics must be aware of the theoretical base they criticize, and they themselves have to adopt a specific theoretical base. So, every theoretical base is pertinent to the metahistorical field, and it means that the historians who theorize have to attend to necessaries more than facts gathering. Therefore, the most necessary debate is an explanation of the relationship between the critique of history and metahistory. The paper analyzes different levels of historical knowledge to explain the relationship.