ABSTRACT The growth of the field of ethnohistory on Argentina's southern frontier has revolutionized Argentine historiography, challenging historians to rethink time‐worn subjects as they considered Indigenous peoples' experiences. This article contends that historians should prioritize decolonizing the field through putting Indigenous peoples' experiences and ways of thinking at the center of their analyses rather than the government and settler frameworks that are most available in source material. Expanding the range of geographic and temporal frameworks that are deployed in historical studies will also help refocus attention on the events that were most important for these people. “Indigenizing” the study of Argentina's Indigenous people is a worthy goal and a necessary step toward understanding the Indigenous world of tierra adentro on its own terms.

No abstract is available for this article.

No abstract is available for this article.

ABSTRACT The field of medieval Middle East history has seen a renewed attention to the use of documentary sources in recent years. These sources have long seen some neglect, and their interpretation has suffered from a stubborn narrative of paucity that has tended to relegate them to the fringe of this history. With the impact of other scholarly trends in the historical field at large, such as the “archival turn” and an emphasis on materiality, they are now being revisited with new and creative approaches. This article outlines this “documentary turn” in the medieval history of Egypt and Syria, focusing on three scholarly approaches which may have special potential and import for the field: the rejuvenation of history “from below,” the foregrounding of the lives of documents themselves, and the discovery of “new” document corpora.

ABSTRACT Every year, millions of Australians choose to read popular history and watch historical documentaries. Despite the apparent political, social, economic and personal significance of history, we have very little reliable information about what Australians think and believe about history. What do Australians think that history is? What do they think it is for? How have they learnt about the past and how do they decide what historical knowledge is trustworthy? What role do they believe history should play in the life of the nation? In this article, we present the findings from the Deakin Contemporary History Survey (DCHS), a large‐scale, nationally representative programme. This survey, with repeated cross‐sectional waves conducted in 2021, 2023 and 2024, aimed to explore Australians' perceptions of history, its role in national life and their beliefs about historical knowledge and its credibility. We begin by placing these surveys within the context of similar research undertaken in Australia and elsewhere, outlining the methodology and scope of our approach. The three surveys reveal some widely shared attitudes towards history among Australians as well as areas of significant disagreement. They point particularly to generational shifts in understanding the nature of history and its relationship to national identity. Based on these results, we also identify some directions that will be fruitful for further and more in‐depth investigation.

ABSTRACT Untranslatability is not a separate field of study in history; rather, it is a conceptual lens that captures the concerns of certain strands of scholarship which have tended to somewhat problematize connections, translations, and mediation across imperial and colonial divides. Usually, such histories have taken stock of the problematic relation shared by “universals” and “particulars,” and in doing so, have sought to engage with vernacular categories and histories following the “linguistic turn” in history. South Asian postcolonial histories since the 1950s have taken stock of these issues of untranslatability with treatments of such issues reaching their zenith through the post‐structuralist, Saidian, and Subaltern schools of historiography. This article surveys certain works in South Asian history and argues that untranslatability must be employed as a lens to understand the relationship that cultural translation shares with power. In examining these debates, this article revisits these concerns through a series of other concepts that have marked the historiography of the problem in recent times, namely continuity, conciliation, and commensurability, before reconsidering whether untranslatability can still serve as a meaningful historiographical tool, and how it has begun to figure as one in newer works.

ABSTRACTIslamic legal studies generally classify the administration of criminal justice during the formative and classical periods as a departure from traditional Islamic law. During this time, rulers, military‐judicial authorities, and other officials largely oversaw the criminal courts, rather than the judges and jurists, who were considered the paramount actors of Islamic law. A primary challenge confronting any study of this topic is the scarcity of surviving criminal records, coupled with embellished narratives and concerns regarding the historical relevance of the jurisprudential material. Consequently, recent research, in the last few decades, has begun to investigate alternative sources on this administration of criminal justice: Egyptian papyri, administrative manuals and investiture diplomas, nawāzil (legal responses and rulings for new cases), Cairo Geniza, and criminal reports found in historical chronicles. This essay explores this rich historiography, focusing on these novel approaches to these texts, and aims to propose new methodological pathways for future research in this field.