In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

March 2004 · Historically Speaking requires a great deal of time, expertise, and travel to collections, not to mention mastery ofmultiple languages. Yetthese obstacles may appear less formidable as multi-sited research becomes more accepted by funding agencies and as the boundaries of regional subdisciplines continue to be eroded by the circulationists . Despite these and other obstacles, there are compelling intellectual reasons for making comparative history atleast as common as circulationist projects in world history. The approach lends itself to the study of a wide range of social, cultural, and political conflicts and their local-global interconnections. This translates into an opportunityto expand world historical inquiryfrom its more established base in economic history and its more recent, sometimes disturbingly seductive move toward biological-environmental narratives . Institutions should also be objects of study forworld historians—notjust transnational institutions, which operated fitfullyifat all in mosthistorical periods, butglobal institutional regimes that have emerged out of common cultural practices and patterned political conflicts. And for those who think institutions are a bore no matter how they are discussed, there are plenty ofother topics that do not always lend themselves to fruitful studythrough a circulationistapproach. Aesthetic practices and sensibilities, for example, may be widespread without having come to be so through processes ofdiffusion. I anticipate—and hope—that the betterestablished methods ofworld history-writing will stay with us. We need more well crafted studies analyzing specific local-global interconnections and also more research into the circulation ofpeople, commodities, ideas, discourse, and, yes, microbes. I also hope that these effortswill be joined bythe multiplication ofstudies that build on the best kinds of comparative analysis, moving beyond questions about different developmental trajectories and probingunlikelyelements ofglobal order and disorder. Unlike Borges's mapmaker, we will not have to cover the world with a map in order to understand it. Nor will we be limited to other mapping exercises, such as projecting smallscale studies onto a global plane. Instead of cartography, the relevant scientific analogy might turn out to be contemporary astrophysics . Its preoccupation with multiple, unseen dimensions in universes we can only imagine offers the combination of precise analysis and broad conjecture to which world historians mightnow aspire. And then there's the lure, however remote, ofa grand, unified theory—nothingless thana theoreticallycompelling history ofthe world. Lauren Benton isprofessor ofhistory atNew York University. Her Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History , 1400-1900 (Cambridge University Press, 2002) has received the WorldHistory Association s 2003 Book Prize as well as the Law and SocietyAssociations 2003James WillardHurstPrizefor the bestbook in legal history. Islam: History's First Shot at a Global Culture? Michael Cook Collecting coins is a bad habit, but recently I decided to acquire a few Islamic ones. Unfortunatelyit's a little late in the day to be entering this particular market: too manypeople in the Persian Gulf (and not on the Persian side of it) have the same idea. ButI'mnot competingforthe rarities . While it's true that I get a mild glow from being the proud owner of an unusual coin, myreal satisfaction is the kickI get from putting coins in front ofmy students. The idea is to take abstract historical points and dramatize them in a concrete way. Recently, I came by two silver coins that lend themselves admirablyto this purpose. As can be seen from the illustration (p. 9), the most obvious thing about them is how similar they are to each other. Both are covered with Arabic inscriptions, and nothing else— and with one exception, the inscriptions are identical. The exception is a sentence beginning "In the name of God" that says where and when the coin was minted—though the formula is the same for both coins (itappears on the left in the illustration, around the margin ). As to date, the difference is only a few years: one coin (shown at the top) dates from theMuslimyear 107 (725-26A.D.), the other (shown at the bottom) from the year 115 (733-34 A.D.). The drama lies in the geography . The first coin was minted in alAndalus , as the Arabs called Spain—most likelyin Cordoba, since by theyear 107 itwas alreadythe provincial capital. The second coin was minted in Balkh, a little...

pdf

Share