Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 2

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

April 2

Civil rights

Not what a reference desk is for. Matt Deres (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm writing a novel centred around an individual who walks between good and evil fighting for good purposes mainly centring around civil rights. If any one can give me some cool character names that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7427:6B00:E8E0:CB24:9732:4AF0 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC) To my understanding, the Reference Desk is primarily intended for those doing research or asking questions with objective answers, so you might have more luck asking somewhere else. (But Johnathon Lasket has always struck me as an interesting name.) — TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 03:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC) What about "Jake Bullet"? That sounds like the kind of hard-living flat foot who gets the job done by cutting corners and bucking authority. And if those pen-pushers up at City Hall don't like it, well they can park their overpaid, fat asses on this mid-digit and swivel – swivel 'til they squeal like pigs on a honeymoon. Iapetus (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

1776 Horses

What breed of horses did the Americans use (for example, the 2nd Continental Light Dragoons) in the 1700's/American Revolutionary War? I can't seem to find an answer anywhere I look on the wiki. –MJL -Talk-^{WikiProject Connecticut} 18:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but you could try What horse for the cavalry?, Spencer Borden (Massachusetts, 1912). Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

One of the breeds mentioned by Borden above (the bit I did read) is the American Saddlebred, which is "Descended from riding-type horses bred at the time of the American Revolution"; that article has a few details of its origin. Alansplodge (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that Washington's Continental Army probably lacked the logistic chain or financial resources required to procure horses en masse and it seems likely that volunteers for cavalry regiments would have to bring their own horse with them. This was the case in the Civil War, [1] and in Britain, the home-defence militia Yeomanry Cavalry also hade to provide their own mounts. I can't find a reference to support that, but a bit more digging might yield results. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably many of them would have been farm-horses, since most in the colonies couldn't afford to maintain horses that weren't economically useful. This doesn't apply to George Washington, of course --- we have articles on Blueskin (horse) and Nelson (horse)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020‎ (UTC)

@AnonMoos and Alansplodge: Ah, thank you both! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The definition of this image...

"Hetaira playing kottabos - Greek Getty Villa Collection" ... or is that an adequate and qualified description?

(Moved from another talkpage)

It is claimed this image, File:Hetaira playing kottabos - Greek Getty Villa Collection.jpg, depicts a prostitute, but the claims source is unqualified and there are no obvious indications except the nakedness of the subject. Also, this finger is not flicking anything, but is hooked into the handle of a container too large for flicking dregs out of. If this was part of a game of kottabos, this would seem not to be a participant but a target/holder. ~ R.T.G 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This image is being used a lot, inessentially, for prostitution and kottabos. Please discuss, ~ R.T.G 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This depiction matches the standard pose of other figures identified as playing kottabos—see more under that article, and in Commons. Even if the vessel has been drawn larger than others in similar pictures, perhaps unrealistically so, it seems unlikely that it was meant to depict a different activity. After all, the entire depiction is symbolic, and not intended to be as realistic as humanly possible. In the absence of some statement of authority that it's not a woman playing kottabos, I'd say it almost certainly is. As for it being a hetaira—I would translate that as "courtesan", not "prostitute", as the latter word would be misleading due to its modern association—we can also probably take that for granted. Kottabos, our article says, was played at symposia (drinking parties). And in the Greek world, "respectable" women were not permitted in such gatherings—but hetairai would have been. If the painting were Etruscan, it might be different. Etruscan women held a much higher status than women elsewhere in the classical world—but then she would probably not be naked. So the image title seems to be an accurate description of the painting. P Aculeius (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not unusual at all. There are many depictions of this type of vessel, including in comparison to the smaller hand-sized drinking vessel, one in either hand [2], [3]... It is a spitton, I will contend, and it was used to some extent to abuse women (warning: this next image is NSF polite company) [4]. Some depictions of kottabos clearly show this larger type in the background, as the target for the dregs [5], [6].

And beyond that, if this woman is a hetaira being honoured, and not a slave being abused, why is she naked, and holding the spitton up in the air at symposium?

Beside this, can anyone put a name to this endlessly repeated version of a female playing flute at symposium? [7], [8], [9], [10]. ~ R.T.G 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're denying is "unusual". I don't recall asserting that something about the painting was "unusual". The images you linked fail to show anything other than that the vessel you're concerned about is depicted proportionally larger than those in other images—which doesn't prove that it's a spittoon or target of any kind. They show handled cups/bowls being held in one hand above the holder's head, and apparently flicked, just as this one is. The large vessels identified as targets in these images seem to be basket-shaped, handleless vessels suspended from the ceiling—not at all what's being depicted in this image. I'm confused by your assertion that such vessels were used "to abuse women"—in part because it's not clear what you mean by "abuse women"—the image you linked for this doesn't obviously depict a woman "being abused". Are you generalizing about a practice based on your own interpretation of a single image?

I never claimed that the hetaira was being honoured—merely that the image depicts a hetaira at a symposium. There's no evidence that she's being honoured, and even less that she's being abused. Your only basis for asserting so seems to be your belief that the vessel she's holding is a spittoon, and that she's not playing kottabos—which is what the pose and the position of the bowl seems to indicate. She's naked because she's a hetaira at a drinking party—this image seems to be of a Grecian party girl, not the punishment of a slave—for which there's simply no evidence apart from the size of the bowl in the painting. Is it so hard to believe that the artist simply painted the vessel too large?

I'm not sure why you're confused by the image of a girl playing a flute. It's a standard depiction, not of any particular person, but of the kind of entertainment that men at a drinking party might hire. A musician. She's no more "endlessly repeated" than the men reclining and playing kottabos behind her are—they're in almost all of the images, including the ones without a flute player. I think you're reading too much into standard conventions of Greek painting. P Aculeius (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do focused contributors appear to need tablets every time they try to communicate with me about their hobby. P Aculeius, not unusual, as in commonplace, recognisable. The fact that she is holding the target dish for kottabos draws suspicion that she was getting dregs from wine glasses splattered over her for an extended part of an evening. It's not polite entertainment. The larger, totally commonplace size and shape vessel, is used in many studies, to indicate the target for the kottabos "game". I was not able to find this particular vessel used in this particular way elsewhere, though it is often in the other hand of a person drinking. It is a holding vessel for wine, and the prostitute is sitting in the middle with an empty one, begging for the dregs, which she pays for by being naked and getting splattered impolitely by drunken sods. It is not mentioned openly, because hetaerism is a taboo for discussion among monogamous men. One of the depictions I sourced clearly, shows a male masturbating at the dream of pouring the dregs jar all over, the lady of the symposium I suppose. I would call lusting at pouring the dregs over, and splatting them on anybody like that, a form of abuse. I promise you, there is no confusion here. I reserve that I may be incorrect, and we do not really know, but I am, sadly, following a definite line of enquiry. I am concluding on what I have found through searching, a range of imagery all in the same undeniable style, focusing on the ones featuring symposium, to be definitive of social relationships, as they are intended to be. They are repeated so closely for a reason. Because they tell a tale. They are too Bart Simpson to be mistaken for masterpieces in a world which produced some of the most beautiful masterpieces ever known in the world, so they are repeated so exactly because they tell a tell of some sort. This realisation has illicited in me a range of suspicions about the past. This line of suspicion is like, one of the most exciting things... After computer gaming... this sort of thing is the reason I look at the internet at all.

I'm sorry P Aculeius, at the point where you imagine I have mistaken your assumptions, I find that I illicit cognitive dissonance naturally in this sort of situation. I'm not confused at all. I'm going to drop this conversation right here. An intelligent person can study these artifacts for themselves insofar as I have been able to. There is no point in me taking a personal note with other Wikipedians here. Sure, the accuracy of the captions and use of File:Hetaira playing kottabos - Greek Getty Villa Collection.jpg might as well not be important. They aren't going to change. They are going to remain buried in this manner as they are classic and the accepted assumptions on them are defacto sacred.

Indeed, if you cannot see how the repeated images are repeated, copies after copies after copies of the exact same image, of which I have only produced a sample of their number, well... Good luck with that but thanks for the input. ~ R.T.G 01:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Next time, if you're going to ignore all logic and common sense in order to see exactly what you want to see, irrespective of anybody else's opinion, don't waste people's time by posting here. This isn't a forum for original research, patronizing retorts, condescension, and petty insults. The internet is full of places to post fringe theories, and people who are all too happy to gobble them up. This isn't one of them. P Aculeius (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Look, of course the image I linked and marked as NSFW suggests abusive overtones to some degree. You complain that I rely on personal assumption, yet you demand that the only significant thing is that you cannot see, a difficulty with her being a contestant, on the basis of holding what is blatantly obviously, undeniably, the recepticle at a food fight, in a culture of slavery. It is no measure of "fringe theory" to enquire if the obvious has been suggested before. It is instead an obvious, humanly understandable "concern". These images may appear cartoonish to our senses, but they certainly are not immature, exhibiting fine craft and knowledge to produce, purposely made in this style, so symbolisation as you refer to, is deliberate. So what is with the claims of seeing what I want to see? Who stands the insult here? Examples of kottabos, [11], [12], and the form and size of the vessel is widely repeated, often in conjunction with the standard drinking dish, as shown. The use of the image as it is currently, is inaccurate, or depicts more than it is credited for. Go, and project, a movie. ~ R.T.G 04:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the Getty Museum,[13] the depicted woman playing kottabos could be either a Hetaira or a prostitute hired for the symposium. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That is disappointing, but revealing, thanks. ~ R.T.G 01:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, participants in playing kottabos did not flick the sediments with their fingers but with the cup.  --Lambiam 09:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a fantasy image, intended to amuse. Behind it there lie assumptions about the roles of real men and real women in real symposia in early 5th century BC Athens. Any source that starts from a position such as that has a chance of being reliable. Andrew Dalby 12:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The only indication of fantasy is in the appraisal. To Lambiam, well that's just stuff and nonsense. The cup does not move by itself. The last two links I left above are youtube videos, the only ones on that site it seems, of people getting together to play kottabos. And the "hetaira" image is not, in relative terms, a rare image. If the intention was to depict someone playing the drinking vessel "game", that's what would be depicted, and rejection of what is before our eyes may simply be rejection of what is before our eyes. To deny that possibility is clearly denial itself. These are obvious arguments you are making. An argument against argument, rather than an address of the enquiry. It's been discussed before or it hasn't. ~ R.T.G 17:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)