With the efflorescence of palaeoscientific approaches to the past, historians have been confronted with a wealth of new evidence on both human and natural phenomena, from human disease and migration to landscape change and climate. These new data require a rewriting of our narratives of the past, questioning what constitutes an authoritative historical source and who is entitled to recount history to contemporary societies. Humanities-based historical inquiry must embrace this new evidence, but to do so historians need to engage with it critically, just as they do with textual and material sources. This article highlights the most vital methodological issues, ranging from the spatiotemporal scales and heterogeneity of the new evidence to the new roles attributed to quantitative methods and the place of scientific data in narrative construction. It considers areas of study where the palaeosciences have “intruded” into fields and subjects previously reserved for historians, especially socioeconomic, climate, and environmental history. The authors argue that active engagement with new approaches is urgently needed if historians want to contribute to our evolving understanding of the challenges of the Anthropocene.

Avec l’efflorescence des approches paléoscientifiques du passé, les historiens ont été confrontés à une multitude de nouveaux indices sur des phénomènes tant humains que naturels, des maladies aux migrations en passant par les transformations du paysage et le climat. Ces données inédites exigent une réécriture des récits portant sur les périodes lointaines, remettant en cause à la fois les fondements de l’autorité des sources historiques traditionnelles et la légitimité des personnes habilitées à narrer le passé aux sociétés contemporaines. Les travaux d’histoire appuyés sur les sciences humaines doivent embrasser ces nouveaux types d’indices ; cependant, pour y parvenir, il est nécessaire pour les chercheurs de s’engager dans cette voie de manière critique, comme ils le font pour les sources textuelles et matérielles. Cet article souhaite mettre en lumière les questions méthodologiques les plus essentielles, qui vont des échelles spatio-temporelles et de l’hétérogénéité des nouvelles preuves au rôle à attribuer aux méthodes quantitatives et à la place des données scientifiques dans la construction narrative. Il examine les domaines d’étude où les paléosciences se sont « immiscées » dans des champs et des sujets auparavant réservés aux historiens, notamment l’histoire socio-économique, climatique et environnementale. Les auteurs soutiennent qu’il est urgent pour ces spécialistes d’explorer activement ces pistes novatrices, s’ils entendent contribuer à l’évolution de notre compréhension des défis de l’Anthropocène.

The Universe is permeated by hot, turbulent, magnetized plasmas. Turbulent plasma is a major constituent of active galactic nuclei, supernova remnants, the intergalactic and interstellar medium, the solar corona, the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere, just to mention a few examples. Energy dissipation of turbulent fluctuations plays a key role in plasma heating and energization, yet we still do not understand the underlying physical mechanisms involved. THOR is a mission designed to answer the questions of how turbulent plasma is heated and particles accelerated, how the dissipated energy is partitioned and how dissipation operates in different regimes of turbulence. THOR is a single-spacecraft mission with an orbit tuned to maximize data return from regions in near-Earth space – magnetosheath, shock, foreshock and pristine solar wind – featuring different kinds of turbulence. Here we summarize the THOR proposal submitted on 15 January 2015 to the ‘Call for a Medium-size mission opportunity in ESAs Science Programme for a launch in 2025 (M4)’. THOR has been selected by European Space Agency (ESA) for the study phase.

1.1 This paper owes its existence on two counts to the late Jim Souness whose term of office as President of the Faculty coincided with the bulk of our research. Firstly, as President, he encouraged Faculty research groups to be active and to produce material worthy of sessional papers. More directly it was the late President who funnelled our general investigations of life office management (which had continued after the Group's 1987 sessional paper) towards the issue of demutualisation.

There have been several notable demutualisations of life offices in recent years, yet there is little published research in the UK other than case studies into the actuarial issues which these restructurings raise for the profession. Furthermore much of what has been published pertains to overseas regimes not subject to UK-style regulation. However at the time of writing we are aware that another paper (reference 20) was being written concurrently, and it relates specifically to the UK.