Records, Sir George W. Forrest, whom Bhattacharya highlights. Recently, archival historians have explored the history of the London-based India Office records. To his credit, Bhattacharya incorporates the India Office records into his narrative, aswell as the archival history of the ‘Indian states,’ and mention of the Peshwa Daftar, or Pune archives (124, 172–177). One wonders, however, whether the central dynamic of archival policy in India, as Bhattacharya states it, is between archive-based historical research and writing on the one hand, and a historiography constructed without recourse to or despite the existence of public archives, on the other. Or, whether a more forthright account of the forces of colonialism would better explain the closed nature and under-utilized character of India’s imperial archives prior to political independence. Regardless, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya’s legacy includes a set of strong arguments to encourage further debate about the sociological formation of national archives in the era of European colonialism.

中文翻译：

---

两位沃里克郡女性角色：玛格丽特·谢尔顿（Margaret Sheldon，c 1510–1590）和玛格丽特·诺利斯（Margaret Knollys，c 1549–1606）

记录，乔治 W 福雷斯特爵士，巴塔查里亚重点介绍了他。最近，档案历史学家探索了位于伦敦的印度办事处记录的历史。值得称赞的是，Bhattacharya 将印度办公室的记录纳入了他的叙述，以及“印度国家”的档案历史，并提到了 Peshwa Daftar，或 Pune 档案（124、172-177）。然而，有人想知道，印度档案政策的核心动力是否如 Bhattacharya 所说，介于一方面基于档案的历史研究和写作之间，另一方面是在不依赖或不顾公共档案存在的情况下构建的史学，在另一个。或者，对殖民主义力量的更直率的描述是否能更好地解释印度帝国档案在政治独立之前的封闭性和未充分利用的特征。