Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 15

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.

November 15

Why did Western Europe take over the world?

For the record, I have read Guns, Germs and Steel and think that it does a decent job of explaining why the masters of Planet Earth were determined to come from somewhere on Eurasia. However, it falls short at explaining the takeover of Western Europe rather than, say, Arabia or China, both of which were much larger, organized, and advanced (culturally and scientifically) than any of the fledgling feudal European kingdoms during the Middle Ages. Both areas had basically all of the advantages to civilization described in Guns, Germs and Steel that Europe had, so why are Europeans and their descendents doing so much better than either modern Arabs or modern Chinese? Was it geographical factors, cultural differences, or are there distinct historical events that influenced this? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Islam as a "unified force" that would take over the world was hampered largely by 2 factors, neither of which had much to do with Western Europe. First was that it was beset by political and doctrinal infighting; after a while various Islamic successors states to the Caliphate became more concerned with fighting each other than spreading the faith. Secondly, the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 by Mongol forces had a devestating effect on the Islamic empire; it was the equivalent of the loss of Rome to the Roman empire, and the Islamic world went into rapid political decline shortly thereafter. While Islam as a faith would continue to spread for a long time, Islam as a geo-political force was effectively done.

China's sense of superiority was also probably the source of its own downfall. Rather than seeing its superior technology as an advantage to be pressed in conquering the world, it saw other, lesser, cultures as unworthy of themselves, and this led to a long period of isolationism and inward turning. Even when there was a strong, centralized, chinese state, it was MUCH more concerned with keeping ferners OUT than in conquering other lands. Plus, China for large patches of history was FAR from a unified state, like Islam, it was often reduced to a bunch of squabbling infighting fiefdoms, more concerned with infighting than with conquest.

How do those reasons sound? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Another classic argument about the decline of the Islamic world (which I'm not sure I agree with) is that religious philosophies became increasingly anti-science, which stifled their status as a technical power. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that geography can explain Western European predominance, except that Europe's fragmentation into islands, peninsulas, and watersheds divided by the Alps facilitated its political fragmentation. That fragmentation promoted a competition among European states that did not exist in the same way in China, where a single, central empire was idealized and existed for much of Chinese history. Even when China was fragmented, technology was seen as something rather grubby and beneath the interest of warriors and scholars. Science and technological advance occurred under the Umayyad and especially the Abbasid Caliphates, but they were not harnessed to extending the caliphate's power, perhaps because religious fervor and military prowess had been so successful at extending that power without technological enhancement. Also, Islam frowns upon the killing of Muslims by other Muslims, and this may have stymied military competition among the Islamic states that followed the devastation of the Mongol conquest. On the other hand, by the late Middle Ages, an intense rivalry had developed among the states of Western Europe. Furthermore, Western European rulers aligned themselves with the urban merchant class in a quest not only for military but also for economic predominance. This rivalry spurred Western European states and entrepreneurs to develop and adopt technologies that would give them an advantage over their rivals. It was this rivalry that spurred the development of the increasingly effective weaponry, shipbuilding technologies, and navigation skills, as well as accounting, bureaucratic, and managerial innovations that made European enterprise and civil administration more effective and efficient than its Asian counterparts. The rivalry of Spain and Portugal first with Genoa and Venice and then with each other led both to develop colonial and mercantile empires. The rivalry of the northern European states first with their Iberian counterparts and then with each other led to further technological and entrepreneurial advances, to further world conquest, and ultimately to the Industrial Revolution, which then gave Western Europe (and the United States) a vast advantage over other parts of the world. That advantage, however, has narrowed considerably over the past quarter century. Marco polo (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Europe became dominant only recently. In the thousands of years of mankind, Europe became dominant around 1500, which is when colonization really started happening. So that's only 500 years, and already we are seeing the beginnings of that being changed. Before Europe became dominant, India, the Arab world, East Asia were the most sophisticated and advanced cultures in the world at different points of time. As for how Europe became dominant, it's because of a few reasons. One was the establishment of unified states that warred against other unified states. This constant struggle meant that each unified state tried to advance their technology and defeat the other unified state which was doing the same thing. As a result, all of Europe advanced tremendously. Europe did not invent the gun (China did), but their acquisition of it, and their utilization of it against other European states meant that all European states would start to field their own gunpowder weapons in full force. Unified states also meant that people could perform trades to earn money to buy food instead of hunting or foraging for food in order to survive. Since they didn't have to hunt for their own food, they could focus their attention on education, which in turn helped advance their civilization even further. These advances improved their power projection in the form of sea going vessels. They then traveled to far away lands and brought with them all of the advanced weapons and technology they acquired due to incessant fighting amongst each other. The Americas and Australia were relatively isolated from the Old World and did not have access to the advances in weapons and technology made there, like the gun. They also were not exposed to Old World diseases, so they were annihilated when Europeans made contact with them. European colonization was most successful in these lands because of it, and sure enough, we see the results of that still to this day. European diaspora make up the majority in these countries. Europeans colonized other lands in the Old World like India and parts of the African continent, but they were not nearly as successful because India and Africa populations were already exposed to Old World diseases, and in the case of India, was also advanced in technology, weapons, and social structure. ScienceApe (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a long and complicated answer to these questions, but I've always been of the opinion that a big part of the reason why Western Europe and America dominates geopolitics today is the steam engine. Europe was the first to enter the Industrial Revolution, which massively increased production and GDP and thus came to dominate other cultures. Certainly, people might argue that Europe was important before that, and it was, but not necessarily much greater than, say, China. The Industrial Revolution sealed the deal, IMHO. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution happened in the late 1800s though. Colonization started around 1500s. If anything the Industrial Revolution accelerated Japan's industrial growth. Decolonization occurred just 50 or so years after the Industrial Revolution. The 1500s was when Europe really started to become dominant, so really the Renaissance was what did it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the industrial revolution started in the late 1800s, the article on the subject itself states that it started in the late 1700s. As I said, I've no special qualifications or advanced reasoning behind it (read as "Feel free to ignore anything I'm saying, because it's very possible that I'm wrong"), but while Europe was certainly a big power before it (quite possibly the biggest), it wasn't as head and shoulders above the rest of the world that we might imagine. I've always seen that as a kind of eurocentric perspective. Certainly, very few, if any, European powers was as important as China was in the 1700s. But then the Industrial Revolution happened, and BAM!, Europe and the US were absolutely dominant.

Lets make a thought experiment: suppose that China would've been the first ones to go through the Industrial revolution, and that the steam engine was invented there. Do you really think Europe would still have remained dominant? Personally, I've no doubt that the concept of "the West" as the most important place in the world would have been a historical relic, like the Roman Empire or Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire 83.250.202.208 (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayron's answer is well-considered, but it begs the question: if the Islamic expansion and the Chinese empire(s) were spoiled by in-fighting, what exactly do we make of western Europe, which was at least as divided politically and religiously? Catholics v. Protestants, French v. English, Spanish v. Moors, Vikings v. everyone, etc. House arrest for scientists, mountains running through the continent, islands and peninsulas keeping even close neighbours from integrating meaningfully, a church that thinks of the Dark Ages as the Good ol' Days. I don't know that the schisms facing China and Arabia were so much worse. Sometimes I think Europeans expanded outward so successfully because they were so desperate to get away from one another. Matt Deres (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a place

As I saw in Miracle Landing, one of the passengers who boarded that fateful flight claimed he entertained at the Liki-Liki. Is there really a place called the Liki-Liki somewhere in Hawaii?72.229.139.171 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a Drive in, but that is spelled Like Like. Apart from that it appears to be as real as Podunk. (The word means "tight" if you trust a dictionary. I suspect that one colloquial use describes a "red light district" establishment.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These folks may disagree... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What does a Native American language have to do with whether a place in Hawaii is real or not?72.229.139.171 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? 122.161.173.212 (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Something defines itself against the nothing. Both are cousins of everything which, depending on your view, may include nothing or exclude it. But nothing is quite something, even having its own article. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to philosophy, while I didn't really understand that, answering all those tons of questions on the refdesk is surely giving you splendid karma, Julia 122.161.173.212 (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Whereas there is an artile about nothing there doesn't seem to any article about something (disambiguation) in the sense you seem to mean. So I have come to the conclusion that nothing exists whereas something doesn't. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily a valid conclusion, Dmcq. WP does not yet and never will have an article on everything (even if it does have an article on everything). -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because if there is nothing (rather then something), then you would NOT be here asking these sorts of questions. The fact that you are here asking these questions, means that there must be something rather than nothing. 122.107.203.230 (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

See anthropic principle. --Tango (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As always, Google (with a little help), provides the answer. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes 122.161 *blushes* though, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there is a "something"? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember that this question was posed by Stephen Hawking in Brief History of Time. I read that book at a young age, and so I think it became a big part of me. I always assumed that it was one of those questions that, by definition, science couldn't ever answer; science relies an awful lot on "being." Because whatever there would be, there wouldn't be matter and energy or the stuff that our brain is made of. Also, as the very concept of "being" is just a human construct that helps us solve problems, I don't think we really have a concept of "not being." That makes this one of those philosophical questions that exist only because of the limitations of the human mind.NByz (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mu. — DanielLC 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy class covered this last year. This is evidently a question which science can never answer. (Leave it to Wikipedia to try though. :) There is a proof for why this is true. I don’t want to misguide you with a half remembered paraphrase, but if you’re really interested in the question get a hold of Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings ($3 used from Amizon.com). The relevant proof should be in the first few chapters. Hope that helps. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

White Horses

Iranian Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speech in America. He mentioned " WHITE HORSES ". Please provide any references you have. Are the white horses part of Iranian mythology / religion, or perhaps ancient Hindu mythology / religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snodgrass3 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that followers of the Mahdi believe him (?) to arrive riding a white horse. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The white horse has a long history, rich in mythology. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to add some mythology to that article! It doesn't include any yet, and the horse worship article is exclusively Western European. Try these perhaps:

For Persian mythology: Rakhsh the hero Rostam's white horse, Tishtrya the rain god/star Sirius who took the form of a white stallion for an epic battle, Mithra the god who rides a chariot pulled by white horses (that part is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article). The four horses of goddess Anahita's chariot are also described as white. Saoshyant is sometimes described as riding a white horse, just as Kalki.

For Hindu mythology: Ashvamedha the sacred sacrifice of a white horse (our article doesn't mention the white part but see the images), Kalki the final world saviour who rides a white horse and Uchaishravas the white horse of Indra. (Indra liked to steal the white sacrificial horses, btw; this is a theme of many stories, see Sagara.)

For Islam, maybe see Sirat al-Mustaqim the straight path of God (again, though, you need an outside source for the white horse reference: the souls of the virtuous are helped to navigate it because their good deeds turn into a white horse they can ride to the end.)

As BrainyBabe says, several other cultures have white horse myths and symbolism as well. Cheers, WikiJedits (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's so interesting – any chance of a White horse (mythology) article? Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure - have started it, but would love more help :) WikiJedits (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments made against womens' and blacks' rights in U.S. History

I am looking for newspaper articles or other things written before women and blacks had civil rights in the U.S.A. arguing that they should not be given those rights. I don't want paraphrased quotes or anything; I actually want to see things which were written in that time with (as detailed as possible) arguments against racial and sex equality. Are there any such documents available online? - 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) User: Nightvid (unregistered)

You could do worse than starting with the Cornerstone Speech. Also, the New York Times, in a magnificent move, has made all of its articles back to 1851 available online. Just go here and search for "suffrage" in June of 1919 or "civil rights" in the Sixties. This one has some choice words on why the women of Alabama should not suffer the dangers and humiliation of being permitted to vote. Then, as now, states' rights, are a frequent high ground for anti-equal-rights folks. --Sean 17:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There must also be anthologies that collected these, after the battle was (mostly) won. Any historians or librarians around? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plessy v. Ferguson is a famous court case about rights for blacks. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There was this thing about a good wife being able to influence how her husband and sons voted, I think. Or maybe it was that the husband also represents the wife. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

State of nations

Um, this is quite some question, but I thought this would be the best place to ask it as it has the most knowledgeable people who could answer it or at least guide me in the right direction. (Also please note that in formulating this question, my intention is not to sound racist or culturally insensitive, but to explore, and possibly rule out, all scientific possibilities) The question is - why are the different countries of the world in such different stages of development - economically, socially and culturally? Is there any basic set of principles that can be used to explain why, for instance, Europe and North America are economically advanced, law abiding societies with a vibrant intellectual discourse? Why virtually all of Africa is mired in poverty and warfare and has nothing much to show by way of civilizational development? Why Indians, after expounding the deepest philosophical principles in ancient times that still leave us struggling for comprehension, suddenly decided to take it easy and whithered away in a morass of apathy? What factors do we ascribe these differences to - race, climate, pure luck? And how do we take into account the apparent paradoxes - like North and South korea which share a common history and culture but the contrast between them could not be more stark. Please note that I don't want the answer in terms of historical developments ("North Korea became communist - that's why") - but what laid the foundation for those historical events - what was in the temperament of the people that precipitated or allowed the historical events to take place. I am sorry this is a very long question, but I will be deeply indebted for any clues which may help me investigate this further. Any books or literature which deals with the subject shall also be appreciated. Best regards -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, lots of people have written extensively on the subject, but I would recommend a book to get you started: Guns, Germs, and Steel is probably the most recent and best known book to tackle the subject, and is a great read. Many people would recommend it as an introduction to the topic. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous response. Much of what makes one country succeed and another fail boils down simply to geography. In the North and South Korea example, it's due to the difference between the strict Marxist communism of NK versus the capitalism in SK, but geography explains why Korea was split in two. The North is simply closer to China, which means the Chinese reinforcements were operating closer to their home bases and were thus able to stave off US/UN forces in the Korean War. Had Korea been attached to China at the southern end, I'm sure NK would be the successful capitalist nation and SK would be the miserable failure of a communist nation. For another example, the geographic location of the US provided relative protection from the destruction of WW2, thus leaving the US in a good position to sell goods around the world to countries which had their factories and infrastructure destroyed in WW2. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David S. Landes is another great read on this front. People who take a serious interest in this area study development economics. This field tries to answer these questions by using all the normal economic methods. They hypothesize about what factors make an area rich or poor, gather data (often back through time as well), and perform regression analysis to see if they were on the right track. There are lots of insights that this branch of economics offers about how to form policies that encourage capital accumulation, optimal public finance (providing public goods etc.) and how important human development is.NByz (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to amend what StuRat said about Korea. Korea was split in two after WWII because Japan had been occupying it, and after the war had ended America and the Soviet Union wanted to come to some sort of agreement about the "spoils" (the Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan only just before Hiroshima, but they'd already started rolling in tanks in South-East Asia, so you couldn't ignore them). The US thought that the 38th parallel was as decent a border as any, as it cuts the country approximately in half. Kremlin agreed, and thus North and South Korea was born. At the end of the Korean war the armistice line was very close to the old border (the 38th parallel), where it remains today. The boundary between North and South Korea is thus not the result of some innate advantage to geography, it's more the result of a rather arbitrary decision made by a US official, and agreement from the Kremlin. It's entirely plausible that the US could have wound up controlling the northern part, or the whole thing, had they dropped the bomb a month earlier. 90.235.1.241 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "The boundary between North and South Korea is thus not the result of some innate advantage to geography, it's more the result of a rather arbitrary decision made by a US official, and agreement from the Kremlin". The only reason both sides would agree to such an arbitrary line was if it was close to the armistice line. If not, whichever party would give up the most land would have refused, and the 38th parallel would just have been a footnote in history. Why was this the armistice line, then ? Because, as I said, the North, being attached to China, could be easily resupplied, while the South could not. If the entire length of Korea was attached to China, the result of the Korean War might have been a completely communist Korea, whereas, if Korea had been an island, it might well have been entirely a capitalist nation after the war. In fact, if we look at the Vietnam War, the nation did become entirely communist, because the entire length of the country could be resupplied by communists from adjacent China, Laos and Cambodia. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I've moved your question to the Languages reference desk, where many knowledgeable volunteers hang out. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Bangladesh.

The Satanic Verses published in Urdu?

Per VRTS ticket # 2008111510013913, is Rushdie's book available in Urdu? The closest I've found is in Persian. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:19z, -- Jeandré, 2008-11-15t21:26z

culture/art as oppression

Hi, Can we consider culture, and art in particular as a form of oppression, leading to a cultivated class dominating a non-cultivated class ?

Mass culture makes people more intelligent, and in the same time more stupid. Can we push further and say the same thing about culture as whole ?

Do you know any thinkers who wrote about that ?

thanks

79.87.251.15 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When's your homework due in? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.251.15 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to argue that culture limits free will, which is oppression. Consider the recent election. There was a black guy who got some minor publicity for publicly announcing he was voting for McCain. Because his choice opposed that of the assumed "black culture", he claimed to receive death threats. Similarly, it is possible to argue that pride is equivalent to hate and, when applied to culture, pride in culture is equivalent to hate for other cultures. Therefore, having pride in one's culture equates to oppression of other cultures. These are, of course, extreme views and are, in my opinion, distortions of reality. -- kainaw™ 22:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all of such assertions require a great simplification of terms... "culture" is a complicated concept. I'm not even sure one can say that "mass culture" makes people both intelligent and stupid. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel like society forces us to have a certain amount of culture, to know the major artists and writers. Otherwise, we are not respected. Like a class struggle, not between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, but between a cultivated class, and an non-cultivated class

What you are talking about is not "culture", writ large, but a specific canon. They are not the same thing. People who know nothing of Shakespeare still have a "culture". A canon, by contrast, is a specific subset of culture understood to be mandatory of a "cultured" person ("cultured" here meaning something quite different than "culture"), which is not the same thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stepping outside of a more intellectual frame for a moment, it is possible to influence the way people think through mass-market communication. Propaganda, for example, can work through posters and billboards, but also through celebrity endorsement, television shows (cartoons, talk shows, soap operas, etc.), movies, radio, and in general, art and even word-of-mouth (rumor-mongering). Aside from deliberate propaganda, unintentional influence happens when writers, celebrities and others involved in mass-communication include their thoughts and values in the way they communicate. In the past, otherwise well-intentioned communication reinforced ideas that are now considered offensive. Enid Blyton's Noddy books were thought to be ill-considered because of the use of golliwogs as naughty characters, even though she was continuing a tradition of their use in that fashion. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two uses of "culture" here. Yes your "culture" in the sense of your sociological environment can be oppressive, but I think the questioner meant "culture" in the sense of art, theatre, etc. For myself, I don't see that culture can be oppressive any more than anything where some people can do (or appreciate) it and some can't. Sport could be considered oppressive to the same extent; so could community activism (some people are good at it and some aren't). DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Theological Libraries in the Northwest

Does anybody have any information about theological libaries in the northwest (or in North America)? I'm looking the largest theological libraries in the different regions of our countries. I need a list or information about the number of volumes in said libraries (perferibly the number of volumes in the 200 collection). Any info on the size of theological libraries would be appreciated as it would give a number for comparison. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) may be an option. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York says its Burke Theological Library has the largest theological collection in the western hemisphere, but then Princeton Theological Seminary claims theirs is the biggest in the US. Harvard Divinity School also seems to be pretty large. We have a Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in the United States that you could look through, although it is not further categorized by region and not all the articles have info about the library. But it's a start I suppose. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

English

What is the term for the "Basement garden", you know, the space outside on the basement level... Gridge (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

Um, huh? Wouldn't it be "solid dirt"... A basement is at least partially underground, so right outside the basement would be, you know, a big chunk of solid earth... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be a sunken garden - dug down to basement level with containing walls all around it but open to the sky. --Tango (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant. But what is the term? Gridge (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Ah. I am an idiot. Of course I have seen such things. I did a google search and a google image search for the term "basement garden". While it returns an occasional picture or discussion of what you describe above, most of them are about gardens IN the basement (i.e. indoor gardens with grow-lights). Its a good question, and I feel silly for misunderstanding it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. English is my second language, and I am still learning how to express myself better. Gridge (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

The OP may be referring to the light well (plus steps) which you find on the entrance side of some Victorian (and other) terraced houses in the UK or Down Under. This generally goes across the full length of the house but isn´t wider than two metres. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the proper term would be. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I know two answers to this in British English, based on the form of architecture known as a terraced house (American English: town houses are sort of equivalent). The space in front of the house was the entrance to the kitchen in the basement, and was called the "area" (hence, "area steps" and "area railings" -- the latter removed in WWII, leading to many deaths at night time). It was always concreted, and used to be used for coal storage and deliveries. Nowadays these may have been covered over and the interior extended, or conversely festooned with hanging baskets and large potted plants to give visual appeal when looking from inside. The space behind the house may be a proper garden, in which case the dwelling on that level is referred to as a "garden flat", or it may likewise be concreted and treated as a patio, whereas previously it was for rubish bins and laundry hung out to dry. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And whaddayaknow, we have an article: Area_(architecture). But strangely not light well (though I don't think areas are solely or mainly for light). BrainyBabe (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Gridge (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC).