Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate initiated by the “historic turn.” This debate has seen several rebuttals of the methodologies and conceptual frameworks advocated by proponents of the “historic turn” including ANTi-History. In contributing to this debate, this paper provides a discussion on some of the ongoing debates within the field. The purpose is to neither condemn nor defend – but to clarify and find points of agreement.

Design/methodology/approach

The design implied is an overview of some of the themes in the field – locating key concepts of agreement and key aspects of disagreement.

Findings

There is a middle ground between the two schools. One is a continued focus on primary sources, the use of new methodologies, understanding context and some new approaches. We must carefully consider context and text and limit the use of concepts that have real limitations.

Originality/value

This is an overview of the field by someone who was considered a critic of the new history. The purpose is to find middle ground.

中文翻译：

---

老鹰敢于哪里：有关管理历史的辩论的讨论

目的

本文的目的是为“历史性转折”引发的辩论做出贡献。在这场辩论中，对包括ANTi-History在内的“历史性转变”的支持者所倡导的方法和概念框架进行了几次反驳。为了促进这场辩论，本文就该领域内一些正在进行的辩论进行了讨论。目的是既不谴责也不捍卫，而是澄清和寻找协议要点。

设计/方法/方法

所隐含的设计是对本领域中某些主题的概述-查找协议的关键概念和意见分歧的关键方面。

发现

这两所学校之间有中间立场。一个是继续关注主要资源，新方法的使用，理解背景和一些新方法。我们必须仔细考虑上下文和文本，并限制具有实际局限性的概念的使用。

创意/价值

这是被认为是新历史评论家的人对该领域的概述。目的是找到中间立场。