现在扼要说说要求我评论的史学史。没有什么可说的。1990年是一个标志性的转折点。此前大量缺乏的相对跨民族的内容已经引入了。大多数这类历史著作仍旧是以西方中心的，只有最近才有历史学的全球方法。（48）
    最后我要做一下自我批评：我把历史学严格界定于历史写作，但大量历史已经通过其他媒介呈现出来了，我这里未加考虑。
    译者张文涛，中国社会科学院世界历史研究所研究人员。
    注释：
    ①Ivan Elenkov and Daniela Koleva,“Historiography in Bulgaria after the Fall of Communism.Did the Change happen?,” Historein,vol.4（2003-2004），183-198; Antonis Liakos,“Modern Greek Historiography（1974-2000）。The Era of Transition from Dictatorship to Democracy” in:Ulf Brunnbauer,ed.,（Re） Writing History:Historiography in Southeast Europe after Socialism（2003），351-378.
    ②On Poland and Hungrary,see Georg G.Iggers,Q.Edward Wang,and Supriya Mukherjee,A Global History of Modern Historiography（Harlow,England,2008），267.
    ③English:London,1985.
    ④“Representations et attitudes a l'egard de la propriete pendant le Haut Moye Age,” Annales.Economies.Societes.Civilisations,27（1972），523-48 and later his The Origins of European Individualism（English:Oxford,1995）； still in the Soviet Union,Medieval Popular Culture:Problems of Belief and Perception（English:New York,1988）。On Medieval Studies in the Soviet Union,see Yuri Bessmertny,“August 1991 as Seen by a Moscow Historian,or the Fate of Medieval Studies in the Soviet Era,” American Historical Reviews,97（1992），803-816.
    ⑤Georg G.Iggers,ed.,Ein anderer historischer Blick:Beipiele ostdeutscher Sozialgeschichte（Frankfurt a/M.1991）。
    ⑥See Liakos,n.1.
    ⑦Bernd Faulenbach,Die Ideologie des deutschen Weges（Munchen,1980）； also Georg G.Iggers,The German Conception of History:The National Tradition of Historical Thought from Herder to the Present（Middletown,CT,1968）。
    ⑧See Iggers,German Conception; also Iggers,“The Intellectual Foundations of Nineteen-Century Professional Historical Scholarship” to appear in Daniel Woolf,ed.,Oxford History of Historical Writing vol.4（Oxford,2010）。
    ⑨See Iggers,“Intellectual Foundations; ” see also Ranke's inaugural address on becoming a full professor 1836 “Uber die Verwandschaft und den Unterschied zwischen der Historie und der Politik,” Samtliche Werke,vol.24,280-293.
    ⑩Effi Gazi,Scientific National History:The Greek Case in Comparative Perspective（1850-1920）（New York,2000）。
    （11）Hayden V.White,Metahistory:The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe（Baltimore,1973）； Tropical Discourse:Essays in Cultural History（Baltimore,1978）； and Content of the Form:Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation（Baltimore,1987）。
    （12）Saul Friedlander,Probing the Limits of Representation:Nazism and the Final Solution（Cambridge,MA,1992）。
    （13）See Global History of Modern Historiography.
    （14）Benjamin A.Elman,From Philosophy to Philology:Intellectual and Social Aspects of Change in Late Imperial China,rev.ed.（Los Angeles,2000）； Q.Edward Wang,“The Rise of Modern Historical Consciousness:A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Eighteenth-Century East Asia and Europe,”Journal of Ecumenical Studies,40（2003），74-95.
    （15）Jphann Gustav Droysen,“Art and Method”in Fritz Stern,ed.The Varieties of History（New York 1956），137-144; also Droysen,“Erhebung der Geschichte zum Rang einer Wissenschaft” in Droysen,Historik:historisch-kritische Ausgabe,ed.Peter Leyh,vol.l（Stuttgart,1977），451-469.
    （16）See Iggers,“Intellectual Foundations.”