Humanities desk
< August 20	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 22 >

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.

August 21

Why do runners from Kenya always dominate running races?

Why do runners from Kenya always seem to dominate running races? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly the Kalenjin people of Kenya (see the Athletic prowess subsection). The NPR article "How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners" suggests one genetic possibility - thin ankles and calves - or their high-starch diet, altitude at which they live or socioeconomics (whatever that means). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Usain Bolt is not Kenyan and dominates the 100 metres.--Phil Holmes (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyans dominate at certain distances, mostly 1,500 metres and up. Sprinters like Bolt need a completely different morphology to excel, and those distances are dominated by Caribbean and African-American runners whose origins are in West Africa. --Xuxl (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do runners from Kenya always seem to dominate running races?"—they don't. Taking the mens' distance events at the last Olympics as a reasonable baseline, the top three at the 1500m were Algerian, American and Moroccan; the top three at the 5000m were British, Ethiopian and Kenyan; the top three at the 10,000m were British, American and Ethiopian. It's only when you get to the marathon that you get more than one Kenyan in the top three, and even then it wasn't a Kenyan who won. (A Kenyan did win the men's 3000 metres steeplechase, but as our article correctly points out that's primarily because Kenya is one of the few countries in which steeplechasing is a significant sport, and runners in Europe, the US and other parts of Africa tend to train for different events.) ‑ iridescent 12:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude is very significant. Training at high altitude forces the development of a denser network of capillaries, which in turn strengthens stamina. Socioeconomics and culture are probably even more significant. Kalenjin society has a (modern) tradition of training for runners and therefore some expertise. In addition, since the Kalenjin have few competing opportunities for professional success, talented runners who might have pursued careers in, say, medicine or finance in Europe or North America are instead much more likely to exploit their talent for running if they are Kenyan Kalenjin. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See nature vs. nurture and understand it is both genetics and environment. Some people have a genetic predisposition towards having body types suited for long-distance running, for example the difference between fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles, or how muscles process glucose, or other biochemical or physiological factors that have a genetic basis. However, there's also training: people still need to train to run a marathon, and a well-trained runner with bad genetics will still beat the couch potato with the perfect genetics. That's where socioeconomics comes into play: People without job prospects in other domains of life will be more likely to go into athletics, as it provides the only path they have to bettering themselves, thus are more likely to train for such events. --Jayron 32 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Kenya and Ethiopia share an enormous land border, some research has taken the two nationalities together: see Eight Reasons for Kenyan and Ethiopian Dominance which quotes research published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance undertaken by scientists from the United States Olympic Committee Athlete Performance Lab and the University of Glasgow. The findings are summarised in the linked report:

1. genetic predisposition;

2. development of a high maximal oxygen uptake as a result of extensive walking and running at an early age;

3. relatively high hemoglobin and hematocrit;

4. development of good metabolic “economy/efficiency” based on somatotype and lower limb characteristics;

5. favorable skeletal-muscle-fiber composition and oxidative enzyme profile;

6. traditional Kenyan/Ethiopian diet;

7. living and training at altitude;

8. motivation to achieve economic success.

That's what they say anyhow. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to confirm East African domination of long distance running events; in the 10,000 metres final at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics in Beijing just a couple of hours ago, the finishing order was Great Britain (originally from Somalia), Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, USA, Eritrea, Turkey, Uganda, Uganda, Ethiopia. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I lived in Boston a TV broadcast on Patriots Day, the day of the Boston marathon, suggested this theory: In Kenya, when a couple marries, the groom buys the bride from her father, and the price is livestock, i.e. cattle and sometimes goats. A man with many cattle can have many wives simultaneously, and thus many children. The traditional means of getting rich in Kenya is stealing your neighbors' cattle, and success at that endeavor requires an ability to outrun one's pursuers. Hence in that country, fast long-distance runners have more children than others have. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Currency Post-Elizabeth II

What will happen to British currency once the Queen pops her clogs? Her face is on all of it. Will it all be phased out and changed to pictures of Charles (who is already quite old, so it would only be a few years before it has to be changed to William's once again). Assuming it does have to change, how much would all this cost, in terms of minting new money and getting rid of the old cash? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 13:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly certain that it wouldn't cost anything significant. Banknotes in circulation have a fairly short lifetime and when too worn are withdrawn on an individual basis as they pass through banks, and replaced by the Bank of England with newly printed notes.

When Charles ascends the throne, new notes from that date onward will begin to be issued. Obviously the redesign and new printing plates will cost something, but printing plates themselves wear out quite quickly, and there have already been several redesigns of the Queen's portrait as well as other design elements, both to reflect Her Majesty's appearance as she ages and to incorporate new security feature, etc.

The same does and will apply to coins, though they have a longer lifetime. As a child in the 1960's before decimalisation I used occasionally to find Queen Victoria pennies in my change. {The [poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Actually, per Banknotes of the pound sterling#The monarch on banknotes, her face isn't on all of it since Scottish and Northern Irish banknotes don't have it. Anyway this source [2] does suggest new currency for those notes with her replacements face will be produced ASAP. It seems to imply the old notes will simply be removed from circulation the same way they normally are. The UK is fairly odd in the modern world in having several retail banks making the currency, but the Bank of England at least seems to follow most other central banks in producing a new series of notes (for security and other reasons) roughly every 10-20 years, so the actually production will only be ~0-20 years in advance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the IP's point, we're only talking about the production of a new series of notes. In reality the notes themselves have to be replaced fairly often, although probably a bit less so if they do move to polymer bank notes ([http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-plastic-banknotes-launched-britain-5385378 suggests 2.5 times longer). Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I were a lad in the 1960s, a pocketful of copper change would be a history lesson, in which you could see the faces of Elizabeth II, George VI, George V, Edward VII and (very worn) Victoria. It was only the introduction of that new-fangled Decimal currency in the 1970s that consigned all the old coppers to the smelting pot. So I'm certain that when Her Majesty (whom God preserve) eventually passes to higher service, her coins will outlive her for many decades. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even decimalisation didn't put an end to pre-Elizabeth II coins. The pre-decimal shilling and florin were of equal value to the decimal five pence and ten pence and the new coins were the same size and colour as the old. George VI shillings and florins continued to be widely in circulation until the early 90s when the 5p and 10p were reduced in size. I seem to recall seeing earlier monarchs too, but rarely, as prior to 1947 silver coins contained some actual silver so pre-1947 coins were taken out of circulation if they were spotted [3]. Valiantis (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right; I thought I remembered seeing George V shillings, but having Googled some images of them, I now realise that they were early George VI ones. Don't forget the sixpence which stayed in circulation as a useful 2½p coin until 1980, according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly here in Canada, in the 1960s I used to frequently see coins with George VI on them, occasionally with George V, very rarely Edward VII. They pretty much never appear any more now that pennies are no longer made and the other coins have changed to cheaper metals than before.

When Edward VIII took the throne in early 1936 they continued issuing coins with George V while working on the dies for Edward VIII coins, but when Edward abdicated late the same year, it created a problem. They had to start over with new dies for George VI and could not issue any coins dated 1937 until these were ready! To avert a coin shortage, they finally decided to cheat and issue George V coins dated 1936 even into 1937, but with a dot under the date, meaning "not really that year". Curiously, in two denominations the 1936-dot coins are now rare: I've seen it suggested that the dots wore off (but I don't have a source to cite for that). Incidentally, the independence of India created a similar problem as George VI was identified at the time on our coins (in abbreviated Latin) as "king, and emperor of India". Coins dated 1948 had to be made without the latter phrase, and the dies weren't ready in time, so coins with the phrase dated 1947 were issued in 1948. Instead of a dot, these have a little maple leaf under the date. See Coins of the Canadian dollar#1936 dot coinage and Coins of the Canadian dollar#1947 maple leaf coinage.

I don't know if the UK had the same problems on these occasions, or how they resolved it if they did. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google shows that the British coins for 1948 continued to bear the IND:IMP (Indiae Imperator) title, whereas the coins for 1949 did not. According to our Emperor of India article, the title was not officially renounced until 22 June 1948, so perhaps the Canadians were jumping the gun somewhat. Alansplodge (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen George VI coins fairly recently in Canada, usually pennies, before we got rid of pennies anyway. I remember seeing 1945 "victory nickels" in circulation too, at least as late as the 1990s and probably in the 2000s as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the final part of the question. When coins with Chuck start getting printed, the ones with Lizzy will not become obsolete or worthless - they won't be "getting rid of" the old coins and notes any more than they do when new designs come out. However, you do need to use them up by the expiration year printed on all currency; if you find any expired bank notes or coins in your possession, please forward them on to me for proper disposal. :) 99.235.223.170 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you find an expiration date printed on currency - you certainly don't find them in the UK. All Bank of England notes ever issued, back to the originals in 1695, can be exchanged for current notes of the same face value by taking or posting them to the Bank's head office. Notes get taken out of circulation periodically, and cease to be legal tender, but they can always be redeemed (unlike, say, Swiss franc banknotes which lose all their value 20 years after withdrawal). There's a new Bank of England £5 note scheduled to be introduced sometime in 2016 (a polymer note, with Winston Churchill on the back), and going by previous experience about a year later I'd expect the Bank to announce a date around 3 months in the future after which the current Elizabeth Fry £5's will cease to be legal tender; there will be announcements in the newspapers, on TV, and possibly some notices in shops, and after the date the commercial banks may still accept the old notes for deposit into accounts for a few more months, but after that, that's it for the old notes unless you take them to Threadneedle Street. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, all US money is legal tender forever except for trade dollars from 1876 to 1965. And maybe gold and silver certificates? It's a waste of money to use US currency more than very roughly a century old as legal tender though, or any with silver or gold in it (our 1964 silver coins are only worth 3.2 to 64 pence as fiat money, lol). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a stab at 99.235.223.170's comment. I suspect that it's a joke, and the expiration date is just whatever date happens to be on the money. This would then suggest that all money in OP's possession is "expired" and should be sent forthwith to 99.235.223.170. Mingmingla (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We used to use smileys on the internet to show humour; I guess that's gone out of fashion...? Almost all currency around the world has at least a year stamped on it - the year it was issued. I figured that the kind of person who thinks money becomes junk because of a change of portrait would get suckered into thinking the issue date was a best-before. If you're not sure whether your money has an issue date or an expiration date, please send it to me for proper checking. :) <-this is a smiley face to denote humour. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identify portrait of a 16th-century Maghrebinian ruler

I came across this portrait, apparently a part of the Giovio Series, a series of copies made in the second half of the 16th century of a collection of portraits from some time earlier in the century, painted by Cristofano dell'Altissimo and held in the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. Catalog entries on the web, based apparently on a museum inventory of 1890 [4], describe it as "Ritratto di Achmet sceriffo di Mauritania", i.e. "portrait of Ahmed, sharif of Mauritania", and date it to "1552-1568". According to less cropped copies seen elsewhere on the web, the painting bears an inscription of "...SCERIFFVS M:RE:MAV..." above.

Can anybody help identify this person? I'm assuming we are dealing with somebody from the List of rulers of Morocco. The title "sharif" might point to the Saadi dynasty. There was a person called Ahmad al-Araj from that dynasty in the mid-16th century, though apparently not a prominent independent ruler, and a more prominent Ahmad al-Mansur later in the century, but his time of rule would not fit with the dating of 1552-1568 (he was only born in 1549 and assumed power in 1578).

I'd like to get this identification cleared up, because the painting has also been widely circulating on the web with a totally different (and entirely unsourced) attribution, as allegedly intended to portray 8th-century Tariq ibn Ziyad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Heh, interesting. Here is another print version, evidently loosely based on the same original (same winning smile!), titled "Effigie di Mulay Ahmed detto Sceriffo Re Marocco Xilografia da Paolo Giovio 1575". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is getting funnier and funnier. Here [5] is another print version, and the German verse underneath it is just too hilarious to omit:

Muleameth von angesicht

Ausserhalb vast schön ist nicht,

Hett aber innerliche gaben,

Die wol des Hannibals gleich traben

Was krieg füren belangt, zu dem

Warn ihm die Frey künst angenem.

("Mulay Ahmed wasn't exactly good-looking outwardly, but he had inner gifts comparable to Hannibal in military prowess, and he also liked the liberal arts.") Cool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More and more fun. Here is yet another version about "Muleamethes", in an German-language book from 1586. The biography (in early modern German) seems to point to our Ahmad al-Araj. Mystery solved? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's another version of the painting in the Museum of Art History in Vienna [6], under the title of "Muleamethes, Beherrscher v. Fez u. Marokko". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Mulay/Mule part of the name (and the M in the catalog inscription rather than A, are you sure it is not his brother? 184.147.128.46 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a part of his brother's actual name, but it's also a title meaning "lord" or "master" (mawlah), so conceivably Ahmad al-Araj could also have been called mulay as well. "Mulay Ahmed" would produce "Muleamethes" more easily than "Mulay Mohammed". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the biographical sketch in Paolo Giovio's Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium [7], which all these portraits ultimately all go back to, is explicit about the two brothers and that the one he's talking about is Ahmed, not Mohammed (hi erant Mahometes & hic Scyriffus nomine Amethes). I am wondering though, because he seems to be going on telling about his "Mulamethes" finishing off his brother as well as the rival sultan of the older dynasty, both of which being feats that according to our article Mohammed did, not Ahmed. Maybe Giovio (and after him all those other European copyists) mixed the two brothers up at some point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This [8] source explicitly identifies Giovio's "Muleamethes" with the "Sa'iden-Scherif Mulai (Mawla) Ahmed al-Aradi"; that's certainly our Ahmad al-Araj. (BTW, Adam is right, Giovio treats "Mule-" as a routine title for all these rulers, and "Muleamethes" is clearly meant as a contraction of "Mulay Ahmed". Actually he calls the other sultan who was getting overthrown by the Saadi brothers "Muleamethes" too; he was another "Ahmed".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's been a pleasure to watch your detective work, glad you resolved it. And thank you Adam for the explanation. 184.147.128.46 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was good at geography, but where's Maghrebinia? —Tamfang (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]