And speaking of camels….
A few weeks ago, or perhaps a few months ago, or at least recently enough that it has stayed in my head, one of the Marginalia asked me about camels.
The short answer is simple: read Richard W. Bulliet's The Camel and the Wheel. It’s a charming and well-illustrated book that explores the question of why the wheel virtually disappeared in the Middle East sometime between ancient Assyria, when chariots were the hottest military technology around, and the rise of Islam in the seventh century CE. He attributes it to the domestication of the camel, which he argues was a superior mode of transport in desert conditions.
Written long before micro-history became trendy, The Camel and the Wheel is an example of micro-history at its best: using a specific object to illuminate a broad swathe of the human past. Bulliet considers not only the relationship (rivalry?) between pack camels and wheeled vehicles drawn by oxen or horses, but also the complex relationships between the nomadic tribes that historically bred camels and the sedentary peoples with whom they interacted. He discusses the history of camel domestication, the broader question of the process of domesticating a species, the nature of roads and the cultures who build them, trade routes and import duties, the use of camels as draft animals, and the technology of saddles and harnesses. Perhaps my favorite chapter is that one that deals with European and American attempts to use camels in other parts of the world.*
Bulliet sums up the camel as "900 pounds of muscle, hauteur, and, for those who can appreciate it, grace." He leaves out the nasty habit of spitting.
*As I’ve said many times, I’m interested in the times and places where two cultures meet and change each other.
Re-Inventing the Wheel
If English is your primary language, you know that "reinventing the wheel" is a standard phrase for, well, spinning your wheels--recreating something that already exists, usually at the expense of unnecessary time and effort.* The phrase rests on several assumptions: That the wheel is one of the foundational discoveries on which civilization was built. That wheels, unlike mousetraps, cannot be substantially improved. That cultures that did not invent the wheel are inherently primitive. (To which I say: 1)Sometimes 2)Wrong and 3) Wrong!!)
If you spend any time thinking about the Sahara,** you begin to question the primacy of the wheel as an element of transportation.*** Because here's the deal: wheeled vehicles don't work everywhere. (There is a reason that camels and sled dogs provided a practical form of transportation well into the modern world. ) Wheeled vehicles depend on stable, relatively level ground (not sand, mud, or stuff that melts under friction) or at least a paved road. To give you an example, in Why the Wheel is Round, biomechanical expert Stephen Vogel calculates that a draft horse can pull a 4000 pound wagon load on level ground; on a road with a six degree grade, Vogel calculates that same horse can pull a 90 pound load. Until we changed from literal horse power to mechanical horse power, the wheel was not universally viable.
Rant over.
*As opposed to building a better mousetrap, which is recreating something that already exists in a new and exciting way. Which may take time and effort, but doesn't waste them.
**I presume this is also true of those who of you who spend time thinking about the Arctic. Which I don't much.
***As opposed to its use in making pottery, spinning yarn, grinding grain, drilling holes, etc.
Medieval Christianity: More complicated than you might think (or at least more complicated than I thought)
The Baptism of Clovis I
For one reason and another I've been hanging out in that dark and troubled period between the "fall" of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne.* It seemed like the conflict between believers in Arianism and other versions of Christianity popped up wherever I went. Which confused me. Everything I knew about Arianism could be summed up in two words: "Arian heresy". How could a belief dismissed as a heresy play such a critical role in the power struggles of what we'll call the Dark Ages for want of a better term?
It turned out to be that same old answer: the winners write the history books, and apparently the entry level theology texts. (Also, according to the autocorrect feature in Scrivener, the theology tests. Which I suspect may also be true.)
The monolithic Catholicism that created Chartres Cathedral, the Crusades, St. Francis of Assisi, Jesuit missionaries, and the Spanish Inquisition** was several centuries in the future. Christianity was well-established in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire following the conversion of Constantine.*** It was a relatively new idea in the traditionally polytheistic societies of Europe. (The first of the Merovingian kings converted in 496 CE, but Christianity didn't make serous inroads in outliers like Scandinavia until the early twelfth century.)
More importantly, theology was still in flux. The nature of the Trinity, in particular, was a hot topic.***** The big split was between Arianism and what became Catholicism and the Orthodox churches. And once kings and emperors weighed in on one side or the other, the argument expanded to include political power and material wealth. In at least one case, the Roman emperor Valens’ attempt to force an Arian bishop on a non-Arian population in what is now Syria led to a brief, vicious rebellion.
As someone said to me recently, “There’s a lot of history out there.”
*5th to 8th century, more or less. And as a reminder, the darkness was in ruins of the western half of the Roman empire. The eastern half, with its capital at Constantinople remained intact (again, more or less) for another thousand years.
**To chose a few random high and low points
***Just a reminder: the modern Middle East is the birthplace of monotheisms. Those who think of Christianity as a creation of European civilization aren't paying attention to the historic details.
****Largely at the urging of his wife, Clotilde, who was later named a saint for her role in his conversion of Europe, which was a critical step in the conversion of Europe.
*****Do not expect me to explain the theological details here. I do not have that kind of mind. To the extent that I understand it, the debate hinged on how you can have a trinity without diluting the mono- in montheism. At that point my head begins to hurt. Any theologically inclined Marginalia willing to take a stab at explaining this in the comments?