Archives for category: other stuff

i dunno about you, but i barely do. (*^_^*)

if you’re like me, and you want to understand statistics better, have a look at emil kirkegaard’s understanding statistics page!

it’s a work in progress, but what he’s got there so far is really cool!

email says he’s got one planned for regression to the mean. any suggestions for other concepts?
_____

(p.s. – i am slowly working on my response to kevin macdonald. will try to get that up over the weekend, fingers crossed. buiyt nort whoile i’n tyyypoing. (~_^) )

(note: comments do not require an email. correlation≠causation)

it’s practically guaranteed now that whenever i blog about a population that i haven’t previously discussed — whether it’s to do with the “clannishness” idea or intelligence or some other aspect of human biodiversity — someone (purportedly) from that group will turn up and angrily complain that i’ve got it all wrong or that hbd is nonsense or whatever.

to date, i have felt the wrath of members of all sorts of groups: the scots, the irish, the scots-irish, the spanish, the italians, the greeks, the serbs (boy, was that guy ever mad!), eastern european ashkenazi jews. there was one pashtun guy that was really p*ssed off at me on account of what i’ve had to say about father’s brother’s daughter (fbd) marriage. and there was even one fellow supposedly from a subsaharan african country who was annoyed at me for insulting polygamy (which i hadn’t done).

(i say “purportedly” and “supposedly” because, of course, i can’t know for sure that any of you are who you say you are or that you’re really from where you say you’re from. ip addresses can be faked. you could all be [very sweet and lovable!] dogs for all i know! certainly some people out there are convinced that i am a b*tch. (~_^) )

on the other hand, plenty of other individuals from various populations that i’ve blogged about who have disagreed with me — about what i’ve written about their own populations — or found my posts lacking in some way, have simply come on the blog and calmly disagreed with my interpretations of the data and/or corrected points which they thought i had wrong. sometimes they were right — i was wrong! and i’m very grateful for their input! some poles and russians and finns come to mind, for example. i’ve even gotten a lot of positive feedback (via email) from a person who claims to be an arab from the middle east (i think that they really are).

this is how it should be. no one should get their panties in a bunch over human biodiversity, neither the facts of nor especially not speculations about hbd, which is what i mostly engage in around here. whether or not some individuals have a certain set of traits while others different sets, or whether or not one group is characterized by an average set of traits while others possess some other ones, is nothing to take personally. these things are just the result of evolution! and, frankly, imho, that’s just cool and nothing to get worked up about.

i do, however, confess that sometimes i let my own biases slip out. for various reasons, i happen to prefer anglo/anglo-american society (which is a product of the nature(s) of anglos/my “core europeans”, i think). that’s just how it is, even though i’m (probably) not anglo myself. (guess some of my people would say i’m suffering from stockholm syndrome. (~_^) )

despite what i’ve been telling my husband for the past twenty years, my opinion doesn’t count for diddly-squat. (please don’t tell him i admitted to that.) i am not the final arbiter on which society is the best or worst or whatever. in fact, it doesn’t matter at all what sort of society i or you or anybody else happens to like. all that matters is what works from an evolutionary point of view. so just ignore my own personal partialities. really.

the most important thing to remember is to not take (genuine) discussions about human biodiversity personally. to paraphrase the mobsters: it’s nothing personal, it’s just human biodiversity.

previously: know thyself and you and me and hbd
_____

when i’m up to it, my very next post will be my response to kevin macdonald’s comments from january(!). and then, i swear to god, come h*ll or high water, i will start on that manorialism series!

(note: comments do not require an email. it’s not personal…)

first of all, let me apologize for the lack of posting over the last few weeks. annoyingly, i have been unwell since just before easter. the family curse has finally caught up with me! =/ (dr*t! i thought i was going to get through this life without experiencing it, but it was not to be.) you do *not* want to know any details, trust me. but suffice it to say that the d*mned condition often leaves me with only enough energy to lay on the sofa and press the retweet button on twitter or to binge watch stupid tv shows.**

the good news is: i’m all caught up on mad men! the bad news is: i’m all caught up on mad men! (>.<)

steve sailer had a run of posts recently on how one of matt weiner's major personal drives in creating mad men has been his grudge over what he perceived as discrimination against jews by wasps when he was growing up in los angeles in the 1970s and 1980s. (see here and here here, for examples.) here’s weiner himself:

“I’ve always said this is a show about becoming white. That’s the definition of success in America—becoming a WASP. A WASP male. The driving question for the series is, Who are we? When we talk about ‘we,’ who is that? In the pilot, Pete Campbell has this line, ‘Adding money and education doesn’t take the rude edge out of people.’ Sophisticated anti-Semitism. I overheard that line when I was a schoolteacher. The person, of course, didn’t know they were in the presence of a Jew. I was a ghost.”

i have to say that steve’s posts (and weiner’s own revelations) certainly make the show much more understandable. i honestly couldn’t make head nor tail of it before learning about weiner’s hang-ups (the clothes were fun to look at, though!).

[SPOILER ALERT!]

one scene from the final season (in “Time & Life”, s07e11) really makes sense now! it’s not available on youtube, so i’ve transcribed the dialogue for you. in it, pete campbell — a wasp (at least his mother was) — and his ex-wife, trudy, meet with the principal of a school — the school in their area — when their application for their five year old daughter is rejected. i should say that, for the audience, this whole scene comes right out of the blue. we haven’t heard before that the campbells are having difficulties getting their daughter into the best of schools, and we don’t hear what they decide to do instead either when their application is once again firmly rejected, although their big ending [they move to another state] changes all the possibilities for them anyway. still, when i saw this episode, i thought it odd that this is really a stand alone scene that has no bearing on the rest of the storylines. it’s like a play within the play.

so, here it is. pete campbell and his ex-wife, trudy, go to the school to meet with principal macdonald. here’s what happens:

pete campbell: well, i assume you know why we’re here, mr. macdonald. we feel there’s been a mistake regarding our daughter, tammy. it’s a campbell family tradition to receive the inimitable education of greenwich country day.

mr. macdonald: but you didn’t go here.

pete: no. but a campbell has been in attendance since…it was a barn! (laughs. pete’s attempting to use his best accounts man/sales persona here.)

macd: i’m sorry, but our decision is final.

pete: now, trudy explained to me that you said it’s a question of space, and i say tammy would make it worth your while. she wouldn’t feel extra at all.

macd: it’s not a question of space. your little girl scored very low on her draw-a-man test.

pete: well, that’s news to us. and i find it hard to believe.

macd: your ex-wife and i discussed this. children had to draw a man, and their development is assessed based on the volume of details: eyes, nose, ears, ten fingers, ten toes, etc. your daughter had only a head, moustache, and necktie.

pete: moustache? (looking suspiciously at his ex-wife. pete doesn’t have a moustache.)

trudy campbell: she didn’t understand what you wanted, and i’ve been told anything beyond a stick figure is considered advanced for her age.

pete: albert einstein didn’t speak until he was four years old.

macd: this is not about your little girl.

(pete and trudy looked puzzled.)

mcd: the real problem is that your former wife failed to submit applications to other schools. that was careless and arrogant.

trudy: what?!

pete: how dare you!

macd: i think we’ve said all there is to say. (getting up.)

pete: we’re not leaving until you apologize to trudy!

trudy: (to her ex-husband.) peter, it doesn’t matter.

macd: (shaking his head.) heh. einstein.

pete: would you like to step outside?!

macd: are you sure you wouldn’t rather get me while i’m sleeping like a real campbell?!

pete: are you kidding me?!

macd: no macdonald will ever mix with a campbell!

trudy: what are you talking about?!

pete: it’s some stupid story! it’s three hundred years old! he’s obviously nuts!

macd: (addressing trudy) you should know that his clan took advantage of the gift of hospitality and murdered my ancestors while they slept!

pete: the king ordered it!!

macd: (still addressing trudy) just be grateful you can remarry and get rid of that name.

trudy: (shocked, raising her hand to her mouth.) oh!

pete punches macdonald.

pete: come on, trudy. (escorts her out.)

macd: (rubbing his chin.) another sucker punch from the campbells! coward!!

so, here we have it, i think — matt weiner fiiiinally getting a chance to show wasps — and not just any wasp, but the very guy who made the snide comment about “the rude edge out of people” — how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. pete campbell can’t get his daughter into an exclusive school simply because of who they are — campbells! so there!

the scene plays out as a comic one — principal macdonald comes off as a complete loon (once he reveals his true motive for rejecting tammy’s application) — but it’s a lesson for us all: there are crazy people out there in the world who hold grudges for a loooong time (like members of the macdonald clan…and some weiners?), and if they have any power, they will exclude people that they don’t like.

the most fun for me was just getting to see a heeland clan skirmish on tv. that’s always a good time! (~_^)

edit: see also “Mad Men” Trolls HBD Chick: Clan War in Connecticut from steve sailer. (^_^)
_____

**never fear! i have every confidence that i’ll get this thing under control eventually (with diet, etc.) and will feel better once again! (^_^)

(note: comments do not require an email. the king ordered it!)

via everyone on twitter today:

“ISIS fighters complain they are not being chosen to blow themselves up on suicide missions because leaders’ friends and family get put to the top of the waiting list”

“- Chechen militant angry that Saudis are snubbing them for bombing runs
– Jihadi complains that they are ‘letting their relatives go to front of the line’
– Said ISIS leader Bakr al-Baghdadi’s brother had carried out suicide attack

“Islamic State fighters claim they are not getting the chance to blow themselves up because they are being bumped down the suicide-bomber waiting list by nepotistic leaders.

“A Chechen militant has complained that Saudi jihadis are favouring their own friends and family for bombing missions.

“Kamil Abu Sultan ad-Daghestani said fighters were becoming increasingly angry after being left languishing on the waiting list for months.

“Ironically, he said some militants were dying on the battlefield before getting the chance to carry out a bombing.

“Abu Sultan’s complaint, was posted on a new website named Qonah which is said to be linked to a group connected with Akhmed Chatayev (Akhmad al-Shishani), a Chechen militant in charge of the Yarmouk Battalion of ISIS.

“‘Amir [Leader] Akhmed al-Shishani told me about a young lad who went to Iraq for a suicide mission and he went there because in Sham [Syria] there is a veeeeery long queue [of several thousand people],’ he wrote.

“He said the fighter eventually gave up after three months and returned to Syria, it was reported by Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.

“The young militant complained that he would only be able to secure a bombing mission through a ‘blat’ with the Saudi leaders – a Russian slang term meaning connections.

“Abu Sultan wrote that the boy said: ‘Those Saudis have got things sewn up, they won’t let anyone in, they are letting their relatives go to the front of the line using blat.’

“He said the only to deal with the ‘corruption’ was to make a direct appeal to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“He recently noted on another site that Baghdadi’s own brother and the son of his second-in-command had carried out suicide bombings.

“The leader’s cousin also reportedly blew himself up at a checkpoint in Iraq in April….”

heh! (~_^)

see also A Boratesque story from ISIS-land: Chechen ISIS fighters being cheated out of paradise by Saudi nepotism from ed west.

btw, buy ed’s latest kindle single!: 1215 and All That: A very, very short history of Magna Carta and King John (and @amazon.co.uk).

(note: comments do not require an email. the people’s front.)

heh. no, not really, but…right…here’s what i’ve got. u.k. electoral map on the left taken from here, via anatoly — genetic ancestry map on the right which appeared in this previous post. [click on image for LARGER view.]:

uk-electoral-map-2015-bbc

any patterns that match?

well, obviously, there’s the english vs. scottish divide — the two groups are genetically distinct-ish, and now they’re electorally very distinct. up in scotland, it’s funny that the orkney islanders didn’t follow the lead of most of the rest of scotland — they stuck to the lib dems rather than go with the scottish national party — and they are genetically their own little unique viking group. and they’ve been sticking to liberals or liberal democrats since 1950, thank you very much.

there’s also the english vs. welsh divide — the farther west you go in wales, where the population is more genetically welsh, the less they went for conservatives (like the english in england did). until you get to pembrokeshire, that is, where the population of “little england beyond wales” — which is genetically distinct-ish from the rest of the population in wales (see the upside-down yellow triangles labeled “s. pembrokeshire”) — voted conservative like the rest of the english.

northern ireland? northern ireland is its own story, which i hope you can figure out on your own.

ignoring london (’cause all sorts of people/s have moved to london, from all over the u.k. and the world), i find it very tempting to match the pattern of the labour regions — up in the northeast and northwest and in yorkshire and even southern wales — with the northumbrians, cumbrians, w yorkshire, and s pembrokeshire/welsh border populations on the genetic ancestry map. to be honest, though, the labour regions really match up much better with the former coal-mining/industrial regions of britain (as well as with several large contemporary urban areas, obviously — manchester, liverpool, newcastle, etc.):

uk-electoral-map-2015-bbc-coalfields

this coal-mining-labour pattern is even more pronounced if you look at the election results from 2010 and see the regions of scotland which voted in labour mps back then. the only outlier, really, is anglesey. dunno why they like labour so much. mind you, even though they won in anglesey, labour did get only 31% of the vote there this time ’round. plaid cymru (the welsh nationalist party) got 30%.

so, regional labour party voters = the descendants of miners/industrial workers? the ones that didn’t leave for greener pastures? maybe. and/or this pattern reflects the highland-lowland/tees-exe line divide in britain, and what we’re seeing is a divide between the more manorialized english of the lowlands versus the not-very-manorialized subpopulations of the highlands — and the fact that there was coal in the highland regions is just a coincidence. dunno!

from the bbc, the share of the vote won by the conservatives in each constituency:

uk-electoral-map-2015-conservatives 02

rural areas voted for the conservative party more than urban areas in england. in fact, the spread is fairly even right across the country, just like the even spread of the ethnic english on the genetic ancestry map above. this isn’t the case in either wales or scotland — or northern ireland for that matter. there’s more support for the conservatives in the welsh border regions, where greater numbers of english (including normans, of course) settled. in scotland, there’s greater support for the conservatives in the lowlands rather than in the highlands.

labour:

uk-electoral-map-2015-labour 02

again, most support in those former mining/industrial urbanized regions. plus london. (also: this. (~_^) )

ukip:

uk-electoral-map-2015-ukip 02

a fair amount of support quite evenly spread across england, wales, and even northern ireland. what’d they get? thirteen percent of the vote? less overall support in scotland. and not so much in london, of course. they only got one seat in parliament, though — an mp from clacton — ukip got 44% of the vote there. i dunno anything about clacton-on-sea, so you tell me why there. the party got 30% of the vote in rotherham, which makes plenty of sense. there’s a hotspot of ukip support up there judging by the map. there’s another hotspot to the east there — 34% of the vote went to ukip in the boston & skegness constituency. lot of eastern european immigrants in that area of the country. lot of locales along the thames estuary also with rather high support for ukip. just outside london (where there’s a lot of immigrants).

lib dems:

uk-electoral-map-2015-libdem 02

the orkney islanders, again. and quite a lot of support from the scottish highlanders! that was a surprise to me. and the northern lowlanders. is this some viking trend? and where is that in cumbria? westmorland and lonsdale? i dunno anything about that area of the country, except i hear they got a lot of lakes.

snp:

uk-electoral-map-2015-snp

quite a lot of support across the board in scotland. over 40% of the vote almost everywhere (38% in the orkneys & shetland). lower support in some of the border regions toward northumbria.

green party:

uk-electoral-map-2015-green party

generally low support everywhere, but fairly evenly spread (low) support. the people of dál riata aren’t interested, though. (~_^) more support in the south of england? maybe?

plaid cymru:

plaid cymru

again, more support for the welsh national party in the west where people are more welsh — except for in pembrokeshire where they’re not so welsh.

any other patterns?

previously: free cornwall now! and random notes: 07/30/13

(note: comments do not require an email. dunno how the monster raving loony party did….)

when it comes to casting, my mother’s pet peeve is that “newborn” babies in movies or television shows are almost always too old. it’s a guarantee: if you’re watching a tv show with my mom, and they trot out what’s supposed to be a newborn child, she’ll eventually shriek, “THAT’S not a newborn! that baby is at least a month old!” it’s become a bit of a joke in the family, actually, as everybody…waits for it…. =P

MY one and only pet peeve is when the casting directors fail to match the ethnicity of the actor to the character. and when family members (like siblings) in shows or movies don’t look like each other.

ok. my TWO pet peeves are: failing to match the ethnicities and supposed familiy members that look like random people plucked off the street.

wrt the first one — failing to match the ethnicity — i’m not even talking about politically correct casting like idris elba as heimdall. i’m just talking about baaaad casting.

take the new-ish tv show gotham (which is pretty okay, btw!). there are two characters — two mob bosses, heads of italian “families” — sal maroni (played by david zayas, on the left below) and carmine “the roman” falcone (played by john doman, on the right):

maroni and falcone

what? am i the last person on the planet to know what a southern italian looks like? you want an actor to play a mob boss, you get somebody resembling james gandolfini or al pacino, not a puerto rican guy just ’cause he’s a bit swarthy. (>.<)

zayas is an old spanish family, and david zayas looks almost completely spanish to me (perhaps with a little irish thrown in there? he’s puerto rican — could be!). the only way he could possibly pass for italian is if you (or the casting director) can’t tell your southern europeans apart. and, as much as i love david zayas, his nuyorican accent really gives it away. he doesn’t sound AT ALL like he’s from little italy!

and john doman? doman’s originally from pennsylvania, so he’s likely some sort of northern european mix — english? scots-irish? german? doman is an old anglo-saxon name meaning “judge” (doom-man, like the domesday book), so he’s probably part english anyway. he sure ain’t sicilian! no matter how good he looks in those suits. (~_^)

i very much like both zayas and doman in whatever they do, but i find it very distracting when obviously non-italians play mob bosses. but maybe that’s just me.

the kid playing the young bruce wayne — david mazouz — is sephardic jewish, and that certainly doesn’t fit that old english surname (“wayne” as in “wain,” as in a wagon), but he’s a cute kid, so it’s hard to complain. (^_^) and anyway, batman’s creators were jewish, so maybe he ought to be played by a jewish actor! (~_^)

like i said, the show’s not bad! pretty solid performances from most of the cast — ben mckenzie as jim gordon and donal logue as harvey bullock, for instance. the sets and locations are pretty gothic, which is nice. and the cars are AWESOME!

the absolute best, though, are the performances of cory michael smith as edward (“the riddler”) nygma and robin lord taylor as oswald (“the penguin”) cobblepot. taylor IS the penguin! (^_^)

oh, and sean pertwee — son of the third doctor — as alfred is terrific, as well! he can buttle for me anytime. (~_^)

(note: comments do not require an email. alfred pennyworth.)

on christ’s arrest in the garden of gethsemane from the gospel of luke 22:39-51 (the revised standard version):

“Jesus went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him. And when he came to the place, he said to them, ‘Pray that you may not enter into temptation.’ And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed…. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, and he said to them, ‘Why do you sleep? Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation.’ While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?’ And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his [right] ear. But Jesus said: ‘No more of this!’ And he touched his ear and healed him.”

and the same (sorta!) story from the heliand, an old saxon poem from the early 800s commissioned to aid in the conversion of the saxons on the continent to christianity (“Song 57: Christ’s Deep Fear Before Battle, His Last Salute in the Garden” and “Song 58: Christ the Cheiftain is Captured, Peter the Mighty Swordsman Defends Him Boldly”):

“Christ’s warrior companions saw warriors coming up the mountain making a great din, angry armed men. Judas the hate-filled man was showing them the way. The enemy clan, the Jews, were marching behind. The warriors marched forward, the grim Jewish army, until they had come to Christ. There he stood, the famous chieftain. Christ’s followers, wisemen deeply distressed by this hostile action, held their position in front. They spoke to their chieftain: ‘My lord chieftain’ they said, ‘if it should now be your will that we be impaled here on their spearpoints, wounded by their weapons, then nothing would be so good to us as to die here, pale from mortal wounds, for our chieftain.’ Then Simon Peter, the mighty, the noble swordman, flew into a rage. His mind was in such turmoil that he could not speak a single word. His heart became intensely bitter because they wanted to tie up his lord there. So he strode over angrily, that very daring thegn, to stand in front of his commander, right in front of his lord. No doubting in his mind, no fearful hesitation in his chest, he drew his blade and struck straight ahead at the first man of the enemy with all the strength in his hands, so that Malcous was cut and wounded on the right side by the sword. His ear was chopped off. He was so badly wounded in the head that his cheek and ear burst open with the mortal wound. Blood gushed out, pouring from the wound. The men stood back. They were afraid of the slash of the sword.”

(~_^)

pre-christian germanics were clannish. very clannish!

presumably, this is the sort of thing discussed by james russell in his The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, another book which i haven’t read.

here’s jesus the warrior for you, from the stuttgart psalter, also from the early 800s:

Stuttgart_Psalter_fol23

btw, i transcribed those passages from lecture 15 of the Early Middle Ages audio course from The Great Courses. excellent course!

(note: comments do not require an email. jedi jesus.)

there’s been a theory floated for a few years now that there was a sort of apartheid system in early anglo-saxon england in which the angles and saxons and jutes didn’t really mix with the native britons. or vice versa. from thomas, stumpf, and härke:

“Reproductive isolation and differential social status along ethnic lines is a frequent, temporary consequence of conquest and settlement, the best-known modern case being the Apartheid system in South Africa. In the post-Roman period, intermarriage between dominant immigrants and subject natives was banned in Visigothic France and Spain in the late fifth and early sixth century (King 1972). The Normans in eleventh- and twelfth-century England operated a conquest society in which the native English and Welsh had a lower legal status than Normans (Garnett 1985), and intermarriage, where it happened, was predominantly unidirectional, i.e. Norman men marrying English women. In Anglo-Saxon England, elements of an apartheid-like society can also be perceived in a Wessex law code of the seventh century which distinguishes clearly between Saxons and ‘Welsh’ (Britons) and gives the former a significantly higher legal status, some two centuries after the initial immigration (Whitelock 1979). Archaeological and skeletal data (Härke 1990, 1992), as well as textual evidence (Woolf, 2004), have been used to suggest a situation of limited intermarriage between immigrant Anglo-Saxons and native Britons until the seventh century when this distinction began to break down.”

for more on this theory, see: Anglo-Saxon immigration and ethnogenesis.

now it seems as though the recently published genetic study by leslie et al. may back up this idea. from the Supplementary Information [pdf – pg. 18]:

The Cent./S England inferred admixture date is older, at around 1200 years ago. This is moderately, but significantly, more recent than the historically accepted time of approximately 1400 years ago (around 600) for the Anglo-Saxon migration into England. This discrepancy is unlikely to be explained by errors in our human generation time (we used 28 years) because an unlikely generation time of 33 years or higher would be required to account for this difference. Instead, an important point is that the date of admixture cannot be earlier than the arrival of a group, but can be later if mixing did not occur for some period (e.g. if the Anglo-Saxon community remained distinct for some period after arrival), or if mixing took place gradually, and initially at a relatively slow rate.”

so, they’re saying that intermarriages between the anglo-saxons and the native britons didn’t really get going until the 800s.

both the anglo-saxons and probably the native britons (presuming they were rather like the native irish and scots), like every other pre-christian northern european group, married their cousins to some degree or another. we know for certain that the anglo-saxons did, because augustine of canterbury wrote several frantic letters to pope gregory the great about the problem (he viewed this as a problem since already by this point in the 600s the church had banned marriages to close cousins).

across the channel in the frankish kingdoms, cousin marriage didn’t became socially unacceptable until the 800s, even though there were local bans issued by bishops in the frankish kingdoms as early as the 500s. as i wrote in a previous post:

from “An Unsolved Riddle: Early Medieval Incest Legislation” in Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian Period: An Ethnographic Perspective (1998), a collection of papers from an “historical archaeoethnological” conference [pgs. 109-110]:

“In the course of the eighth century the Frankish campaign against incest gained momentum, aided by papal decrees and letters which began to circulate in the North (De Jong 1989:38-41). When it came to blood relations papal guidelines were more radical than Frankish episcopal and royal decrees, but in other respects — such as spiritual kinship — Rome and the Frankish leadership saw eye to eye right from the beginning. Letters sent from Rome to Boniface reveal an increasingly rigid papal position. Gregory II forbade all unions between blood relations and affinal kin (‘*quamdiu se agnoscunt affinitate propinquos*’), but permitted the recently converted a marriage ‘*post quartam generationem*'; his successor Gregory III withdrew any such privilege, assuring Boniface that marriage within the seventh *generatio* was out of the question….

“In practice…it did not make any difference whether one forbade marriage ‘until the seventh *generatio*’ (Gregory III), or proclaimed an unspecified ban on all kinswomen and affines (Gregory II). Both meant the same: marriage and kindred did not go together. Pope Zachary expressed this clearly in 743, stating that no Christians were permitted to marry if they were in any way related to each other (Werminghoff 1904:19-21). Avoidance of kin-marriage had become one of the defining criteria of Christianity….”

by the 800s [pg. 120]:

By the ninth century, a marriage in the third *generatio* [i.e. second cousins – h.chick] had become scandalous, but the fourth generation remained a viable option, along with a whole range of more distant kin (Le Jan 1995:316-17). This pattern persisted well into the tenth and eleventh centuries.”

i’m not one hundred percent certain, but i think that this shift to the regular avoidance of cousin marriage by the franks probably had something to do with the establishment of parish churches in the 700 and 800s by pepin the short and charlemagne. once there was “a church in every village,” the message that cousin marriage was not permitted would’ve been more readily heard, and, perhaps, more easily enforced (by the local priest).

i don’t know anything about the establishment of parishes in england (yet), but perhaps the english — the anglo-saxons and britons — were on a similar trajectory as the franks with regard to cousin marriage. perhaps they, too, didn’t really start to take the bans seriously until sometime in the 800s, despite there having been some very early laws forbidding cousin marriage in some of the anglo-saxon kingdoms (like in the late 600s in kent). if there was such a delay in avoiding cousin marriage in england in the seventh and eighth centuries, then there wouldn’t have been much intermarriage between the anglo-saxons and britons during those centuries simply because they all would’ve been still mostly marrying their own cousins or other close kin (i.e. fellow clan or kindred members). if so, then genetic exchange between the groups would’ve become much more likely once cousin marriage began to be consistently avoided. maybe it took the church and its bans on cousin marriage to end anglo-saxon apartheid.

just a thought. Further Research is RequiredTM. (^_^)

previously: free cornwall now! and anglo-saxon mating patterns

(note: comments do not require an email. anglo-saxon rings.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers