Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 1

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.

October 1

who were the slaves in Rome?

A while ago, in a context that doesn't matter, I wrote "there were black slaves in ancient Rome but, I imagine, not many." Finding that in my archives, I wonder — and Slavery in ancient Rome doesn't tell me — do estimates exist of the ethnic breakdown of the slave population? How many Gauls, how many Greeks, how many Germans,...? If the answer is "no solid answer is possible" that's fine too. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that there are no real solid statistics, but there are some indications of the main regions from which slaves originated (though this could temporarily shift depending on the military victories of the moment). AnonMoos (talk)

And incoming trade with neighboring empires/kingdoms/colonies as well. "Nubians", for example, could have been bought from slave markets in Egypt or Carthage. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A paper called "The Roman Slave Supply" by Walter Scheidel tends to confirm everything that's been said so far, especially about the extent of the uncertainties involved. Scheidel thinks North Africa was one of the major sources of Roman slaves in the 2nd century BC (p. 13), but he doesn't otherwise mention Africa very much. His main conclusion on their origins (p. 14) is:

The Black Sea region and the Caucasus had been well established as a major source of slaves since the archaic Greek period...and this tradition continued into late antiquity. Together with free Germany, that northeastern periphery must have accounted for most imports once the Roman empire had reached its maximum extension. Black slaves from as far away as Somalia and the occasional import from India made for comparatively rare but consequently high-prestige retainers.

--Antiquary (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Livy 26.47 talks of turning 2000 Spanish artisans (also in Polybius 10.17) into slaves and other able-bodied population (I assume he means Spanish) into slaves for rowers. All this happened in 209 BC at the capture of New Carthage in Spain.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

While there was a steady but limited commercial supply of slaves from the Black Sea region, and perhaps the rare import from the upper Nile, most slaves would have come from wherever Rome had been engaged in hostilities during the preceding 50 years or so from a given date, since most were war captives. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of them could have been Romans. This site says; "abandoned children could also be brought up as slaves. The law also stated that fathers could sell their older children if they were in need of money." More information here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Romans enslaved the conquered peoples: Jew, Greek, German, Persian, Nubian, Briton, Egyptian. I do not believe the Romans had any race distinction in terms of who would be slaves. They also enslaved children. I do not believe there was any off limits in terms of Roman slavery. The Romans did allow the masters to free their slaves or slaves were allowed to purchase their freedom. With all this said, I believe the Romans and slavery issue has been completely understudied and needs to be studied. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an insightful verse in the Bible (Matthew 27:32 KJV) that stated during Christ's crucifixion, the Romans compelled a Cyrene named Simon to carry Christ's cross. This meant, in my opinion, the Romans could enslave anyone at anytime for any purpose. If this is the case, then the whole world conquered by Romans were slaves to the Romans. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A central issue, I believe, is whether Roman citizenship exempted that person from slavery. If so, then I would say that anyone who was not a citizen of Rome and conquered by Rome was a slave to Rome. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kissing prostitutes

Is it true that prostitutes doesn´t kiss their clientes? In the gossip press it is said that some soccer managers pay prostitutes in order to get rival players tired. But with the kissing limitation it should be very easy to figure out if a girl is a prostitute, isn't it?--90.165.114.196 (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If actors in hardcore porn can kiss, I don't see why prostitutes can't. 92.80.43.98 (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Julia Roberts's character in Pretty Woman made it a rule, apparently shared by her colleagues, not to kiss the client on the mouth, so as to avoid emotional involvement. I would not assume that the film is a documentary. On the other hand I wouldn't take the "gossip press" as a particularly reliable source either. By the way, am I the only one who really really hated that movie? Not out of moral objections. I just thought Gere's character was so shallow and worthless, and yet somehow he was the one lifting her up where she belonged. Thought it was revolting. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In gay porn, this is even more pronounced in "gay4pay" guys. i.e. Heterosexual guys who star in gay porn films for the money and will do anything but kiss another guy. It's weird, but kissing is apparently the most intimate thing during sex. As long as they don't cross that line, they're "safe from the gay germs". lulz.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the : German ebay for sex-workers (use google translate if needed): there are several there who offer their services with mouth kissing included. Quest09 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

LMAO at the top three auctions. "My first time" "MY LAST TIME" "My first time". -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak German. Do the auctions really say buyer has to pay for the 'shipping expenses' and that the seller doesn't 'ship' internationally? Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I only speak Google-German as well, but yep seems like it. :P -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) According to the article, and not particularly surprising, the Girlfriend experience also often includes kissing. In terms of the original question, while there may be some sex workers who will refuse to kiss their clients, if you are trying to set someone up logically you'll just make sure you choose one for which that (and any other 'test') isn't an issue. (If the people really believe a prostitute isn't going to kiss them then they've fallen for a sort of a reverse 'are you a cop' [1] [2] [3] [4]) Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Given where their mouths have likely been, kissing prostitutes doesn't seem all that appealing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But their other orifices are pristine and virginal? Hmm ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you feel like putting your own mouth on, I reckon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, this varies entirely by individual. Some prostitutes won't kiss, some will only have sex on top of the bed instead of between the sheets, etc. Or so I've heard. 75.71.64.74 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

non-member status in United Nations  : what's the difference from being member stae at UN?

Dear friends, I have following query regarding UN: 1.Whats the difference between member and non-member states? 2.why Palestine is requesting for "non Member status at UN"? 3.what is the proceedure to accept a nation as "non-member or member"?how much of vote(1/3rd or 2/3rd) is needed?whether only permanent members have their say in accepting a nation at UN as "non-member or member"? or even all members have a say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For (1), see the introduction to our article on member states of the United Nations.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For (2), it's about getting access to international help. If they get "non Member status at UN" they can get access to the International Criminal Court, [5]. They can take Israel, who is militarily occupying Palestine and moving/moved over 300,000 Israelis onto Palestine land against international law, to court over it.

(3), member statehood requires 9/15 votes at the United Nations Security Council and that no permanent member vetos it, if this vote fails, they than plan to go to the United Nations General Assembly, to get non-member status, and this only requires 51% of votes, which they should be able to easily get. Public awareness (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch)

Apparently there are references to Petrarch's De Viris Illustribus, other than his Secretum that are in his works of Rhymes, De otio religiosorum, and Triumphs. Does anybody have an idea where these may be? Apparently these references were over a forty year period of these Petrarch writings.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Brownfield project v/s Greenfield project

Dear friends, Can anyone explain me what a greenfield project is and how its different from brownfield project?I went thru link of "brownfield land" and "greenfield land" in this website..but could not get enough information. Recently talks regarding easing FDI norms in pharmaceutical sector of "BROWNFIELD PROJECT" is going on? can u pls explain in what context it is benefit for India? -Navneeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain me what a greenfield project is and how its different from brownfield project? I went thru link of "brownfield land" and "greenfield land" in this website..but could not get enough information.Recently talks regarding easing FDI norms in pharmaceutical sector of "BROWNFIELD PROJECT" is going on?can u pls explain in what context it is benefit for India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially old chap, a "greenfield" project is one where it's built on land that's never been built on before such as farmland or forest, hence the "green" part of the name. A "brownfield" project is built on land that's previously been built on and has been reclaimed for the new project - waste ground, demolition sites, old buildings that will be demolished and built over - that kind of thing. Hope this helps old boy. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed by your failure to say anything about India. I was under the impression you were a time traveller from the Raj era.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) [Fixed your formatting, Navneeth, unless QBG beat me to it] In current UK usage (where the general topic is frequently discussed in the media and generally), a brownfield project would be (as you probably already realise) one involving the building on, or industrial development of, land that had previously been built on for housing or commercial uses, or used for industrial purposes, and might or might not be contaminated with industrial waste products.

By contrast, a greenfield project would be one involving the building on, or industrial development of, land that had previously only been used for agricultural purposes, or had long been left to nature. The UK has fairly rigorous laws and planning regulations that prevent unauthorised building on greenfield sites, as part of maintaining what is called the green belt - undeveloped or agricultural land between urban/industrial areas - in order to prevent the latter from joining up in "urban sprawl", and preserving "the countryside" for people to enjoy either as a place to visit from their more built-up living environment, or to continue living in in its current rural or semi-rural state. Industrial development and house building is therefore preferentially directed by the regulations to brownfield sites, and even where greenfield development is a candidate for authorisation by the relevant authorities, public protests against it are almost inevitable, and often succeed.

Developers may prefer to use greenfield sites for several reasons: because it is cheaper to buy; because they want to build houses in a more pleasant setting (which will therefore command higher prices); because decontamination costs are likely to be lower or absent. There is in consequence tension between the need to build more housing and new industrial facilities, and desire to preserve greenfield areas.

I cannot speak directly to the situation in India, or the specific issue you mention, but I imagine some of the above considerations may be applicable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.221 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"FDI norms" refers to foreign direct investment. [6] Liberalising this would benefit India through extra construction (and so extra employment and extra business). It might also harm India, if the regulations on FDI were in place for some good reason, such as to prevent some kind of unscrupulous business practice which I can only guess at.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

U.S. property values of all religious groups

I found information that all religious property values in the U.S. in 1926 were about $4 billion, but I cannot find any article that says what the estimated value of all religious, tax free, property is the in U.S. today. I've searched Wiki and Google. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.50.93.127 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A Latin ex libris

In my personal library I have an English book dated 1732 which has an ex libris in Latin. The ex libris reads: 'Ex libris Viri Venerabilis Gottl. Ern. Schmid, Sacror. Antist. Berol. Regiae Bibliothecae Dono aut minus commendabilium exemplorum Permutationi oblatis MDCCCIII'. As far as I know this type of ex libris is called in German 'Donatorblatt' and shows that the book had been given by its owner as a gift to a public library. I have found out that the owner of my book in late 18th century was a German priest named Gottlieb Ernhard Schmidt who was a fried of the German writers Heinrich von Kleist, Joachim von Arnim, Clemens and Bettina Brentano. This priest had a rich library a portion of wich he presented to the Royal library of Berlin in 1803. The book also has the stamp of that Library and it must have been there as long as 1945 when part of the library was taken as a war trophy by the Red Army and brought to Russia (where I live).

Because of my very poor Latin I could understand little of the text: 'From the books of the venerable Gottlieb Ernhard Schmidt ... a gift to the Royal Library of Berlin ... 1803.' Could you please help me with the exact translation, preferably with an explanation for all the words and abbreviations. I should also be thankful for more information on this type of ex libris; whether they were made by the owner of the book to mark his contribution to a public library, or by the library itself as a sign of gratitude.

Thank in advance! 89.189.138.5 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"sacror. antist." is "sacrorum antistes" (or "antistitis" in the genitive, in this instance), but I'm not sure how exactly to translate it in this context...he's a priest in charge of the all the priestly duties of a church, basically. "Venerable" would probably mean he was an archdeacon, but I don't know that works in a German church, or if this guy was Catholic or Protestant. "Berol." is Berlin, either "Berolini" (of Berlin, as in the "Royal Library of Berlin") or "Berolinensi", as an adjective matching "Regiae Biblithecae" (all in dative case). "Ex libris" matches up with "oblatis", "from the books offered" (i.e. to the Royal Library). "dono" means "as a gift" (also in dative), "aut minus" should mean "or less" but here it seems like it must mean "or instead", meaning the "Permutationi" (also dative, matching "dono"), an "exchange", and "commendabilium exemplorum" means "of praiseworthy examples". So in full, it is "From the books of the venerable priest G.E. Schmidt, [which were] offered to the royal library of Berlin as a gift or rather as an exchange of praiseworthy examples." Hopefully someone else can come up with a better interpretation, but I suppose that means he got some books from the library in return? Sorry, that's kind of vague... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Google and his elves found this page which says (of the same Ex Libris plate), "This probably refers to Gottlieb Ernest Schmid (1727-1814), a Protestant minister in Berlin sympathizing with the enlightenment.... In 1803, Gottlieb Ernest Schmid gives his collection or part of it to the Königliche Bibliothek in Berlin." Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ernest is an English transliteration of the German Ernst. His name should be Gottlieb Ernst Schmid.
Sleigh (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the importance of being Ernst. Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

President of Iran ethnic identity

When was the last time that post Islamic Revolution Iran had a President who was not a Persian? Does the Constitution of Iran say anything aboout ethnic identity of the President like he has to be Persian and Shi'a Muslim and not Azeri, Qashqai, Kurdish, Sunni, Christian, Jew, Baloch, Arab, Armenian, Georgian, Lur, Gilaki, Mazandarani and etc?

I don't think it says anything about ethnicity, but obviously, if it's not forbidden entirely, it would be impossible for a Christian or a Jew to become president (not least because the presidential oath includes upholding Islam as the state religion). Anyway, Ali Khamenei is half-Azeri, according to his article, but apparently the rest have all been Persian. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the President of Iran says:

"According to the constitution of Iran candidates for the presidency must possess the following qualifications:

• Iranian origin;
• Iranian nationality;
• administrative capacity and resourcefulness;
• a good past record;
• trustworthiness and piety; and
• convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official madhhab of the country."

WikiDao ☯ 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

President of Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau religion identity.

I was told that Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone are Muslim nations but they have non-Muslim leaders as President of those nations. Is it their constitution is secular or it is meant to say that President should be Muslim but they ignored it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.136 (talk • contribs)

Burkina Faso and Sierra Leone are majority Islamic; Cote d'Ivoire is not (although part of it is). But the real answer is that none of those countries are fully functioning democracies. Elections, when they occur at all, tend to have grave issues with fairness. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Cote d'Ivoire"? That's called "Ivory Coast" in English, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not. It's Cote d'Ivoire in English now, too. Mingmingla (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not even Cote d'Ivoire, it's Côte d'Ivoire. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times calls it "Ivory Coast", with the French name in parentheses.[7] Oh, but what do they know? Wikipedia is where the real experts hang out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, gentlemen, please answer my question. By the way, I read the article about religion in Côte d'Ivoire that 38% are Muslim, 32% are Christian and the rest are indigenous people, so it proofs that it is a Muslim majority nation. Also, what about Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, they are Muslim majority nations and yet they have a non-Muslim leader as the President? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.136 (talk • contribs)

Please note firstly that 38% is not a majority (there are more non Muslims than Muslims). You seem to be assuming that it is normal for states to have a religion written into the constitution. I think that is quite rare. It is surely more usual for a president to be chosen for their politics than their religion or ethnic group. Many countries have had presidents or prime ministers who come from a minority faith or ethnic group. Sussexonian (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. The only "experts" about a country's name are the people and government of the country in question. Some sources continue to call it "Ivory Coast", but, as our article reports (based on a reliable source), "the government officially discourages this usage, preferring the French name Côte d'Ivoire to be used in all languages". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Soytenly. And that's why we don't call it "Germany" anymore, but "Deutschland", which is what its own citizens call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see any request from a German government for other countries to call it "Deutschland". But we did as we were asked about Beijing, Chennai and various other places, so why not Côte d'Ivoire if they ask nicely? See, what we did there was to translate it to "Ivory Coast", but what right did we have to do that? We don't refer to Casablanca as "White House", or to Giuseppe Verdi as "Joseph Green". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I agree with BB. That's why I always tell people having grown up in Muddy Confluence and now living in New Sea-land, I support East East joining ASEAN just like they joined the ICU and IFAF. For some reason, people seem to avoid me after that.... Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Czech government has asked to be called Czechia in English but we haven't obliged them. Rmhermen (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That needs considerable qualification. I quote: "Following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia at the end of 1992, the Czech part of the former nation found itself without a common single-word name in English. In 1993, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggested the name Czechia as an official alternative in all situations other than formal official documents and the full names of government institutions". So, Czechia was a suggestion, not a request, and it was limited to informal situations. It doesn't have much in the way of euphony to anglo ears, so not many people use it, but some do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Burkina Faso is not a functioning democracy; Blaise Compaoré seized power in a coup, and even though he has held elections, the turnout was very low; nonetheless its constitution (rewritten by Compaoré) forbids discrimination on religion.[8] The constitutions of all the mentioned nations are easily available online if you search the internet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many British people flock to Spain?

Why do they do that? --Belchman (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's cheap, it's close, it's warm, it's not France... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there; well done. One might add that in the early days of package holidays, the Spanish were willing to imitate a British seaside resort albeit with hot weather, rather than frighten the British working classes with any foreign customs. Nobody has to leave their comfort-zone to visit the Costa Brava. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

it's not France... rofl. --Belchman (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And once a week there's an excursion to the local Roman remains to buy cherryade, and melted ice cream, and bleeding Watney's Red Barrel, and one evening you visit the so called typical restaurant with local colour and atmosphere, and you sit next to a party from Rhyl who keep singing "Torremolinos, Torremolinos" and complaining about the food, 'it's so greasy isn't it?'... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone who is NOT of a certain age doesn't understand - see this! Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Spain was willing in the 1970s and 1980s to turn large stretches of their coastline into huge concrete strips of hotels and holiday apartments, producing incredible amounts of cheap holiday accommodation. France would never allow this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead, France has huge concrete strips of expensive holiday accommodation on Côte d'Azur. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Executive officer relieving a Captain

It is my understanding that the executive officer of a naval vessel or airplane has the authority to lawfully remove the captain of vessel from command in certain limited circumstances. I searched around, but neither mutiny or executive officer describes what happens in these types of situations very well. Can anyone (a) describe the circumstances in which an XO has the authority to do this and (b) describe generally what would happen at the time and immediately afterward? NW (Talk) 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Page 94 of the 1990 U.S. Navy Regulations covers "Relief of a Commanding Officer by a Subordinate." Page 61 (of the pdf file) deals with normal "Relieving Procedures." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO this is yet another regulation that needs to be published in the form of a polychotomous key so as to eliminate any confusion on the part of subordinates not trained in procedure or law. --DeeperQA (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But surely all relevant subordinates in this contest will have been trained in these procedures? Is not such training an important component of US Naval Officers' education? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.70 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

...and if those officers that are so trained are deceased or themselves need relieving? --DeeperQA (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

if things get to that stage then nobody has the authority to relieve the hierarchy anyway. So it's a moot point

ALR (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A famous fictional example is the Caine Mutiny, where the 1st officer relieved the captain of his command during a storm, and was tried by court-martial on his return to port. A condition of the use of naval ships in the making of the film was a disclaimer stating that there had never been a mutiny in the US Navy. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Or so they claim (wink wink nudge nudge). As usual, Cecil has the Straight Dope. Anyway, where's my strawberry reward? At least give me some ball bearings. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded! I did some further googling, and it appears that this situation actually comes up far more often in commercial air travel, something I might not have expected. Or perhaps the pilots of Delta, American Airlines, etc. just don't have to sign any non-disclosure agreements. :) NW (Talk) 18:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)