Humanities desk
< September 2	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 3

Earliest British queen consort to have worn a crown

Wo was the earliest known queen consort in the British Isles to have worn a crown (either through historical inventories or depictions, etc.)? -- 04:52, 3 September 2013‎ The Emperor's New Spy

Medieval depictions are unrealiable as the illustrators were never present.
Sleigh (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Spy is asking about depictions, right? Matilda of Scotland (Queen of England as wife of Henry I 1100-1118) wears a crown on her seal (shown). I can't find a contemporary image of Matilda of Flanders. The Bayeux tapestry (c. 1070) does not put a crown on Harold's wife Edith. [1] And the image you have above of Canute and Ælfgifu is dated 1031 and shows the queen without a crown. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for known physical crowns, we know of a crown belonging to Edward the Confessor's wife Edith of Wessex (which Oliver Cromwell destroyed) [2]. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can plastic surgery substantially alter someone's appearance?

A standard trope in espionage thrillers is for someone to have extensive plastic surgery so that they are no longer recognizable. I had always thought this was just fiction, but our article on Sammy_the_bull notes that he had plastic surgery while in the Witness Protection Program to change his appearance. Is this type of thing common, and does it work (he doesn't really look all that different to me)? Thanks! OldTimeNESter (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can substantially alter your appearance, to the point where somebody who knows you may not recognize you (then again, dyeing your hair, changing your hairstyle, growing a beard, and wearing sunglasses can do that, too). However, the trope of one person having their appearance altered to match another is less likely to work. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any Australian cricket fan would nominate Shane Warne as a perfect example of this. It's a shame our article on him doesn't contain any early photos. Maybe comparing the one at the start of his article with something from here might give the idea. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the person on the right in this picture from 1977 with the person on the right in this picture from many years later. Repeated plastic surgeries radically altered Michael Jackson's appearance over 30 years or so. More about this in the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article. Astronaut (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can. I have undergone plastic surgery and weight loss and know I am unrecognizable from ten years ago. I have since run into several people I knew before the appearance change and they had no idea who I was, even after speaking to them in my same voice. It's a pretty impressive feeling, actually. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I have a doubt. In Spain, Cuba, Brazil and other countries, people usually give kisses on other people's cheeks as a way to say hello, but then I've noticed that people form UK or USA usually doesn't do the same, but they just shake hands. Why? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cultural thing. Latins (southern European origin) are generally more demonstrative than northern Europeans. And East Asians are even less demonstrative, hence the stereotypical bowing rather than handshaking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Cheek kissing that may be helpful. Kissing has become more widespread as a greeting here in the UK in recent years, particularly among younger people and metropolitan society. However, "to kiss or not to kiss" can still provide a moment of awkwardness in many greeting situations, with people we don't know well; we are a quite a formal bunch here compared to some nations - as Bugs says, it's a cultural thing. I am female and can mentally divide my acquaintance list into people I kiss when I meet them, and people I don't. The latter list is much bigger than the former.

May I ask you a question in return? I believe you're a native Spanish speaker and I was very interested to see how you phrased your question. On the Language desk we've discussed the well-established use of "doubt" as a synonym for "question" by Indian English speakers, but I just wanted to ask whether you're translating the Spanish phrase tengo una duda when you say "I have a doubt". Many thanks! - Ka renjc 14:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karen and Baseball Bugs, thank you both for your answers. I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Are you asking how do I ask when I have a doubt (I have a question or I have a doubt?) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply, if you had written the first sentence in Spanish, how would you have said it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I expressed myself poorly. I meant that, to a standard British or American English speaker, I have a doubt and I have a question mean slightly different things, although in Indian English they are interchangeable and there is good etymological reason for this. Here's an old RefDesk discussion about it. I was interested to see you, as a Spanish speaker, using this construction, and I wondered whether it is because of the similarity between doubt and duda. But I don't want to distract attention from your question about cheek-kissing, which is the point of this thread, and I was not criticising your English in any way - just hoping you might help me understand a usage that I find interesting. -Ka renjc 18:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh Karen, I didn't know it wasn't correct to say I have a doubt. I don't use that word so often, I prefer saying I have a question. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your preferred way would be Yo tengo una pregunta, right? And about "I have a doubt", it's something I've often heard Indian colleagues say, so it's not massively incorrect, it just kind of labels someone as an "Indian English" speaker - like this funny word "prepone", the opposite of "postpone", which we don't say in America. Also, "I have a doubt" may be deliberately ambiguous - a cultural device for challenging something without challenging it - saying "I don't understand" rather than "I think you've got it wrong." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, "people" is plural, exactly the opposite of la gente. People do. People don't. But people never doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found 940,000 ghits for "this people doesn't". If you look through them all, I'm sure you'll find one or even two that would sound natural to a native speaker. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"People" can be singular, as in "They are a proud people, proud mainly of the volume of their farts." StuRat (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard both U2 are a band and U2 is a band Miss Bono^[zootalk] 15:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Jack's perverse need to be contrary here, the first 100 hits for "this people doesn't" appear to be illiterate ranting. But hey, who doesn't want to teach Miss Bono how to be a ghetto chick as a grand international bad joke? μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I am a little lost here. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the jokers. I salute your quest for knowledge and self-improvement. You might like English plurals, particularly the section on singluar forms used with collective meaning. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far from perverse or contrary, Medeis, I was actually agreeing with you in my own special way. The point of mentioning "one or even two that would sound natural to a native speaker" (out of 940,000) was that, while your statement (people never doesn't) may not have been literally true, it's as good as literally true. Irony has many faces. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Spartacus (TV series) represents the reality?

Hello I watched the the TV series Spartacus and I wonder if it presents really the story of Spartacus. There many sex scenes and violence. Is true that romaines live like that (They like violence, nobles people organize parties with slaves fucking around, Strap-on really exists? ...etc and others many things I forget). Do the expression By Jupiter Cock really exists? I searched the net and I have found nothing. The story between Spartacus and his wife and Crixus and Neveia are really true?. Thanks.

When in Rome, lettuce spell "Romans" as the Romans did. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

How many Romans? --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

(Please sign your posts by hitting the tilde key four times. Thank you.) For some clues as to the reality of everyday life in the Roman Empire, please see our article Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Jupiter's bits, Juglans seems to be a rather old name; make of that what you will. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Spartacus (the historical figure) covers what the ancient sources say happened pretty well, with links to translations of those sources in the footnotes. The TV series is obviously going to be fictionalised. The setting and background are hopefully going to be based on historical and archaeological research, but if specific events depicted go beyond what the sources say, that's just dramatic licence. The sources only go into so much detail, and to write a dramatically satisfying screenplay the writer is going to have to invent scenes and dialogue to convey information that's conveyed in a different way in the sources, fill in gaps from his or her imagination, and invent stuff to make the characters and action more interesting. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hoping Julius Caesar's comeuppance was based in history, but alas, I found no evidence for it... Wnt (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They did stick it to him, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happens to Caesar in the show, but as far as I know there's no evidence that he had anything to do with Spartacus' rebellion at all. He would have been elected military tribune around that time, but if he played any part in the campaigns against Spartacus, it's not recorded. Nicknack009 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch I, Claudius. Nay, in fact, you must watch I, Claudius. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, when it first ran. They got their points across to Caligula pretty well too. He bloated so badly afterward that they starting calling him the Elephant Man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for anyone who didn't get the point, John Hurt played both of those roles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus died almost 30 years before Julie was gang-knifed, and Claudius was born about 30 years after that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Spartacus series Todd Lasance, much improved by what one blogger called a "Point-Break-Patrick-Swayze-Julius-Caesar" look, is stabbed with a far more appropriate implement than a knife. :) Wnt (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do schoolchildren in the developed world, 21st century, learn how to write letters or send e-mail or both?

Do schoolchildren in the developed world learn how to write letters or send e-mail or both? Are they taught how to type out or write out a formal/business letter and a casual/friendly letter at a young age, adding a postage stamp, finding a mail box, checking the address to make sure that the mail gets to the right place, looking for typographical errors in the e-mail, etc.? How often would the average schoolchild use electronics to send a message to another person? 164.107.102.38 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My son is 10 and goes to school in a "developed" country. He's certainly never been taught how to write a letter in the way you describe and somehow I doubt he ever will now. --Viennese Waltz 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then, can you be a little specific in how he writes the letter? 164.107.102.38 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My daughters, now 22 and 16 and schooled in the UK, were both taught the elements of letter writing at primary school (layout, content, register, etc.) It wa a required part of the National Curriculum. This article from 2007 confirms that children were taught this skill in or around Year 3, Term 3, ie at the age of about 8. Central diktats on what is in the curriculum change with every administration, but I doubt very much that this requirement has been abandoned. Primary age children also learn to write and send email as part of their Information Technology education. They have logins and email addresses within the school's learning platform and learn to compose and send emails to teachers and each other within a safe walled garden environment. -Ka renjc 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In England, "The Primary National Curriculum until 2014" National English: En3 Writing doesn't specify letter writing as such, but children do have to "learn the main rules and conventions of written English" and specifically "choose form and content to suit a particular purpose" (1a). This BBC lesson plan suggests that letter writing is an obvious means of fulfilling the requirement. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of "Computer Studies", I taught children how to send an e-mail, but these days they all seem to learn to e-mail and text without needing to be taught. (E-mail is now considered old-fashioned, of course, for casual communication. It's all texting, and writing on walls, and the past tense of "to text" seems to be "tex'd" rather than "texted". </rant>) Dbfirs 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer what I call the "good old days" of e-mailing and letter-writing. Letter-writing and e-mail, especially in formal situations, take some time to think, plan, and write out, minimizing thoughtless comments. I'm not saying that people cannot show bad manners in letter-writing and e-mailing; they can, but I would think that being impolite or hurtful would be intentional. 140.254.213.99 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter is 11 and we live in Ontario. She was taught last year how to write a semi-formal style letter (salutations, stuff like that) and practiced a few between classmates. I don't think they talked about stuff like where to get stamps, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viking boat launching

When the Vikings built their ships in medieval times, how did they launch them into the sea after construction? Is it similar to this picture? In other words, how did they get the big ship off the launch structure and into the sea?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viking longships were much smaller than the ship in your picture. It was quite possible to manhandle a longship in and out of the sea; Scapa Flow in Orkney gets it's name from the Norse word "Skálpeiðflói, (which) was given to it by the Vikings and means ‘the bay of the ship isthmus’, as longships were dragged the short distance overland from Kirkwall Bay to Scapa to avoid the long sea journey."[3] Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a pic of a life size Viking ship replica being launched. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answers.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viking ship gargoyle

I notice on a lot of Viking ships there is a gargoyle on the front. What purpose did it serve?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Figurehead (object), the theory is that "[t]he menacing appearance of toothy and bug-eyed figureheads on Viking ships also had the protective function of warding off evil spirits". The statement is sourced to the British Museum website. - Ka renjc 22:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more details in Sea; perhaps we should add to that figurehead article. "James Hornell studied traditional, indigenous watercraft and considered the significance of the "oculi" or eyes painted on the prows of boats which may have represented the watchful gaze of a god or goddess protecting the vessel. The Vikings portrayed fierce heads with open jaws and bulging eyes at bow and stern of their longships to ward off evil spirits, and the figureheads on the prows of sailing ships were regarded with affection my mariners and represented the belief that the vessel needed to find its way. The Egyptians placed figures of holy birds on the prow while the Phoenicians used horses representing speed. The Ancient Greeks used boars' heads to symbolise acute vision and ferocity while Roman boats often mounted a carving of a centurion representing valour in battle. In northern Europe, serpents, bulls, dolphins and dragons were customary and by the 13th Century, the swan was used representing grace and mobility." 184.147.119.141 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "gargoyle" is unfortunate, though it is understandable why you made the connection. In Denmark, they are referred to commonly as "dragehoveder" (dragons' heads), but interestingly, a "dragon" only appeared on few ships. The Ladby Ship from Funen is one example of a ship that featured an actual "dragon", but we should probably see the figures as (sea) serpents. A famous Norwegian Viking ship was called "Ormen Lange" (The Long Serpent) and in Viking Scandinavia, an "ormr" could refer to a serpent, notably related to the sea, e.g. Midgarðsormr, Níðhöggr and the lindorm. Both the option that they should scare off evil or that they simply should look intimidating seem possible. Interestingly, Denmark has a number of runestones with so-called "masks", which are believed to be repellents of evil spirits, so it is not impossible that the "dragon heads" were believed to have the same function.

The Ladby Museum in Denmark has a bit more on the topic (my translation, quote) "Many people expect that the bow of a Viking ship must feature a dragon's head. But in fact only a few contemporary examples are known of dragon or animal heads in ship bows. The Ladby ship, with its iron curls found in the front part of the bow, belongs to a small and exclusive group, as long as we refer to actual Viking ship finds where the ship featured both a dragon's head and tail. In Normandy, at Ile de Groix, a ship's grave has been found with a similar bow ornament, and boat graves of smaller boats are known from Sweden from the 9th century; apparently they also show "curls" near the bow. In addition, we have a few images of dragon's heads from the Viking ear. On the Gotland image stones dated to the 8th-10th centuries, a number of ships are displayed featuring dragon heds, some of these with an open mouth. Often the ships have a curled tail. Some ships have heads both at bow and stern. An image stone from Sweden shows a ship's stern with indications of tail spikes. Some examples exist of graffitti inscribed on pieces of bone or similar, where a ship's stern features an animal head. Finally, the famous Bayeux tapestry features ships with dragon's heads in their sterns. The dragon that appears during the pre-Christian time in the Nordic countries is rather a serpent or a giant worm. It has no legs or wings, both are common for the Christian dragons. The [Viking] dragon's poison is lethal, and it is often associated with the collection and guarding of gold. Its role is always evil. It is filled with magic - toxic blood and enchanted organs. But at the same time, it is a cosmic being, which like an eternal orbit forms a circle around the world. If the circle is broken, the balance between chaos and cosmos collapses. This happens at Ragnarök." (unquote)[4] Valentinian ^{T / C} 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nose on the mask to the left looks like the ancestor of Kilroy. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen for the answers.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]