坦泽和房间里的大象。当“化石”于1695年在图林根州被发现时,自然历史和人类历史的不一致性(没有)被讨论。

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Susanne Friedrich
{"title":"坦泽和房间里的大象。当“化石”于1695年在图林根州被发现时,自然历史和人类历史的不一致性(没有)被讨论。","authors":"Susanne Friedrich","doi":"10.1080/00033790.2025.2483296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1695 the fossils of a woodland elephant were excavated in Burgtonna (Thuringia). This article deals with the debate between Gotha's court historiographer Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659-1707), who interpreted the discovery as the remains of an elephant, and the <i>collegium medicum</i> of Gotha, that insisted that it was a <i>lusus naturae</i>. The debate, in which scholars throughout Europe soon became involved, is paradigmatic for the social, professional, epistemological and religious frames that determined what around 1700 one could say and think about the history of the earth and the role humans played in it. While Tentzel, as a specialist in human history, proved that the findings of fossilized exotic animals could not be explained by human intervention and argued for the Deluge as an agent of transport, for some of his correspondents inconsistencies between human history and the history of Nature emerged at this point, and time itself became an issue. The study emphasizes the importance of regional historiography for the understanding of nature as well as the transformation of history of Nature into natural history.</p>","PeriodicalId":8086,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tentzel and the elephant in the room. Inconsistencies in the history of nature and history of humans (not) being discussed when 'fossils' were found in Thuringia in 1695.\",\"authors\":\"Susanne Friedrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00033790.2025.2483296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 1695 the fossils of a woodland elephant were excavated in Burgtonna (Thuringia). This article deals with the debate between Gotha's court historiographer Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659-1707), who interpreted the discovery as the remains of an elephant, and the <i>collegium medicum</i> of Gotha, that insisted that it was a <i>lusus naturae</i>. The debate, in which scholars throughout Europe soon became involved, is paradigmatic for the social, professional, epistemological and religious frames that determined what around 1700 one could say and think about the history of the earth and the role humans played in it. While Tentzel, as a specialist in human history, proved that the findings of fossilized exotic animals could not be explained by human intervention and argued for the Deluge as an agent of transport, for some of his correspondents inconsistencies between human history and the history of Nature emerged at this point, and time itself became an issue. The study emphasizes the importance of regional historiography for the understanding of nature as well as the transformation of history of Nature into natural history.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2025.2483296\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2025.2483296","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1695年,在布尔通纳(图林根州)出土了一头森林象的化石。这篇文章涉及哥达宫廷历史学家威廉·恩斯特·坦泽尔(Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel, 1659-1707)和哥达医学院之间的争论,后者将这一发现解释为大象的遗骸,而哥达医学院坚持认为这是一种自然现象。整个欧洲的学者很快都参与了这场辩论,它是社会、专业、认识论和宗教框架的典范,这些框架决定了1700年左右人们对地球历史和人类在其中扮演的角色的看法和思考。坦泽尔作为人类历史专家,证明了外来动物化石的发现不能用人类的干预来解释,并认为大洪水是一种交通工具,但他的一些通讯员却在这一点上出现了人类历史和自然历史之间的不一致,时间本身也成为了一个问题。该研究强调了区域史学对于理解自然以及将自然史转化为自然史的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tentzel and the elephant in the room. Inconsistencies in the history of nature and history of humans (not) being discussed when 'fossils' were found in Thuringia in 1695.

In 1695 the fossils of a woodland elephant were excavated in Burgtonna (Thuringia). This article deals with the debate between Gotha's court historiographer Wilhelm Ernst Tentzel (1659-1707), who interpreted the discovery as the remains of an elephant, and the collegium medicum of Gotha, that insisted that it was a lusus naturae. The debate, in which scholars throughout Europe soon became involved, is paradigmatic for the social, professional, epistemological and religious frames that determined what around 1700 one could say and think about the history of the earth and the role humans played in it. While Tentzel, as a specialist in human history, proved that the findings of fossilized exotic animals could not be explained by human intervention and argued for the Deluge as an agent of transport, for some of his correspondents inconsistencies between human history and the history of Nature emerged at this point, and time itself became an issue. The study emphasizes the importance of regional historiography for the understanding of nature as well as the transformation of history of Nature into natural history.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Science
Annals of Science 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Science , launched in 1936, publishes work on the history of science, technology and medicine, covering developments from classical antiquity to the late 20th century. The Journal has a global reach, both in terms of the work that it publishes, and also in terms of its readership. The editors particularly welcome submissions from authors in Asia, Africa and South America. Each issue contains research articles, and a comprehensive book reviews section, including essay reviews on a group of books on a broader level. Articles are published in both English and French, and the Journal welcomes proposals for special issues on relevant topics. The Editors and Publisher are committed to supporting early career researchers, and award an annual prize to the best submission from current doctoral students, or those awarded a doctorate in the past four years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信