Again, recommend Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. Great book.
Creating Christian Marriage in Early Islamic Arabia:
…perhaps the earliest, of a churchman saying definitively that marriage isn’t marriage without a specific Christian ritual comes from an unexpected corner of the late antique world: the Persian Gulf island of Dayrin (modern Tarut in Saudi Arabia) under the rule of the early Muslim caliphate. On this island in 676, Patriarch George I—chief bishop of the Church of the East, one of the two main churches of the Syriac Christian tradition—issued a canon that only unions that received a priestly blessing would be recognized as legitimate, lawful marriage….
…Patriarch George’s writings suggest that East Arabian Christians habitually drank at Jewish taverns and participated in “pagan” funerals—pagan, that is, in their “un-Christian” ostentatiousness. Significantly, interreligious mixing extended into family relations too. George complains of Christian women marrying “pagans,” here meaning Muslims….
I’m not a total revisionist. But not the date. 676. Contrary to traditional Islamic historiography I think it is highly plausible, even probably, that these men would not have been “Muslims” as we’d conceive of them. Rather, Islam, as we’d understand it really, makes sense only from 750 AD and later, with the emergence of the Sunni ulema, the turn against philosophy in mainstream Islam, and the focus on religious legalism. No Bukhari, no Islam.
This brings me to another issue that emerged in a discussion with a reader about Brown Pundits. Some Hindus say that their religion is founded in the Vedas. Similarly, though traditional most Muslims (Shia and Sunni) ground their faith in customs and traditions which accrued organically in the centuries after the death of Muhammad, they will assert that the fundamental basis of their religion goes back to Muhammad and that Islam qua Islam exploded out of the deserts of Arabia under the Rashidun.
From the perspective of the nonbeliever, I think both narratives miss important cultural genealogical features of the development of “Hinduism” and “Islam.” Hindus believe that their religion is the tradition of the Aryans. I hold that the Aryan, Indo-European, traditions that are present within Hinduism are calcified fossils, artifacts which symbolic meaning, but that the core of Dharmic traditions, whether Hindu or Buddhist or Jain, are not fundamentally from the Indo-Europeans. Some intellectual historians suggest that the Sramanic traditions, the counter-Hindu movements, are a revolt of the indigenous non-Aryan components. But I think the same is arguably true of Puranic Hinduism. All of these religions are qualitatively different from the sacrificial ritualism of the pastoralist Aryans.
Similarly, with Islam it is no secret that I am sympathetic with the argument that the emergence of the mawālī, non-Arabs, within Islam after 750 A.D. fundamentally transformed from the religion. Whereas proto-Islam under the Umayyads crystallized was the cult of the ruling caste, an Arab peculiarity, under the Abbasids, who saw the waxing of Iranian culture within the Caliphate, Islam became the religion of the state, and eventually the dominant element of the society. Though I would argue that the influence of Iran and Turan on Islam is probably quantitatively less than that of non-Aryan India on Hinduism, the transformation is great enough that I think one can make a similar case that Islam, a post-Christian Arab ruling sect, was “hijacked” by Iranian and Turanian modalities under the Abbasids.
Again, to be clear, I am not interested in “explaining” to Muslims or Hindus that “actually….” their religion isn’t what they think it is. I’m trying to get a better sense of cultural development and relatedness from the perspective of non-believers.
Biotic interactions affect fitness across latitudes, but only drive local adaptation in the tropics. This surprised me at first blush.
A week ago I had a conversation with Thomas Chatterton Williams for the BrownCast. One thing that we both agreed on: we hate Twitter, but we can’t leave it. Also, lots of people on Twitter are very stupid. I used to think commenters on this blog were stupid, but the reality is that you are geniuses among the dull compared to the Twitter mobs.
Why Elites Dislike Standardized Testing. The reality is that the gains to test-prep are not that great. ETS works really hard on this. But if you read Twitter or many mainstream commentators they act as if test-prep is driving the inequalities. It’s not. The world is full of bullshit.
The Life History of Human Foraging: Cross-Cultural and Individual Variation. Very important paper.
A Bayesian Approach for Inferring the Impact of a Discrete Character on Rates of Continuous-Character Evolution in the Presence of Background Rate Variation. I don’t know much about the details of phylogenetic methods, but the first author is an old grad school classmate of mine. He knows his shit.fopen
Integrating natural history-derived phenomics with comparative genomics to study the genetic architecture of convergent evolution.
Genomic architecture of phenotypic plasticity of complex traits in tetraploid wheat in response to water stress.