In 1855, Thakur led a rebellion of the tribal Santals against the British in eastern India. Some historians refused to admit Thakur's involvement in the event because of a three-century-old prejudice against giving supernatural beings agency when we write history. In Provincializing Europe, Dipesh Chakrabarty argues that historians must “anthropologize” such beliefs rather than take them seriously. Taking a cue from their less-than-marginal place in scholarship today, we call supernatural beings the “Unbelieved” and the explicit or implicit denial of them “Dogmatic Secularism.” We argue that objective historians should not discount, in advance, evidence that points to the existence or involvement of the Unbelieved in history; instead, we should cultivate a sceptical attitude towards all sources. In this, the first half of a two-part essay, we trace the boundaries of this epistemological problem in the scholarship about the Santal Rebellion and beyond.

中文翻译：

---

难以置信的历史学家，第一部分：挑战

1855年，他库（Thakur）率领部落的桑塔尔（Santals）起义，对印度东部的英国人进行叛乱。一些历史学家拒绝承认Thakur参与此事件，因为我们在撰写历史时对提供超自然生物的代理权存在三个世纪的偏见。在欧洲化省，迪佩什·查克拉巴蒂（Dipesh Chakrabarty）辩称，历史学家必须“人类化”这种信仰，而不是认真对待它们。从今天他们在学业中的边际地位中寻找线索，我们将超自然生物称为“不相信”，对他们的明示或暗示否认是“教义世俗主义”。我们认为，客观的历史学家不应该事先低估表明无信仰者历史存在或参与的证据。相反，我们应该对所有消息来源持怀疑态度。在这篇分为两部分的论文的前半部分，