Humanities desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Painting samples?

What are the wallet-sized samples of original artwork called? I used to know this because I used to own some, and I was thinking I might go write/improve the wiki article on the concept...but I can't even remember...AMightierHeart (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miniatures match your description, but they come in various sizes, not just wallets, since they're a centuries-old concept. Is this right, or are you looking for something specifically tailored to today's wallets? Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, I found it, it was ACEO that I was looking for, apparently there's an article already at Artist trading cards. Thanks for the effort! AMightierHeart (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape trials and compensation? in Roman Judea

This question is inspired via perhaps excessively creative combinations of Jesus in the Talmud and Biblical Magi: basically, suppose a Jewish woman in Judea had been raped by a Roman soldier and gave birth, which I'd suggest actually could truly count as a virgin birth.

1) Would the Romans have cared if one of their soldiers raped local populace, and investigated it?

2) Would the Romans, upon proof of guilt, have offered compensation to a rape victim? (Perhaps even in the form of gold, frankincense, and myrrh?)

3) Would the Jews, Romans, or anyone else in ancient Judea have attempted to prosecute a pregnant unmarried woman for some kind of fornication charge, causing men to question whether she was a rape victim or not?

4) Would travelling to view a newborn baby's features potentially have been used as a means of evidence gathering?

As you can tell from these questions, I really have no idea if there was very much or very little law and order in that time and place. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that too much detail is known, but it seems plausible that local Jewish authorities (ultimately under the Sadducee high priest of the Jerusalem temple) were basically allowed by the Romans to administer Jewish law in disputes among Jews. They were not allowed to inflict the death penalty, and had much less jurisdiction over non-Jews than over Jews. In any case those who were Roman citizens could always appeal directly to the Emperor... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point the Jewish penalty was ... not in line with modern notions of justice at all. [1] But presuming (per most versions AFAIK) that Panthera was a Roman soldier, I wonder if he would not have been forced to marry. I assume the fifty shekel fine would be in the ceremonial shekels used by the Temple moneychangers that the Romans did not allow to be circulated anywhere else, so paying it in kind seems plausible. I have no idea if Roman soldiers had any kind of tax or trade advantages that would let them buy frankincense and such at lower prices abroad then count them at full value for purposes of paying fines in Judea. The last issue reconciling those two versions is that the Deuteronomy fine was to be paid to the father, though I'm not sure if her intended relationship with Joseph could have given him some kind of "wali" like status. Obviously I know much too little and could fit any two pieces together with the glue of imagination at this point. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is currently an argument that rape doesn't count as losing one's virginity, would that have been the case in Judea 2,000 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is just a scenario; I'm not trying to defend that bit here, just to demarcate the direction of my interest. Wnt (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But presuming (per most versions AFAIK) that Panthera was a Roman soldier, I wonder if he would not have been forced to marry. "

Assuming that this Roman soldier was not already married to someone else. Unlike the polygamous marriages of Jews, Egyptians, etc, Roman law only allowed one wife at a time. Per Marriage in ancient Rome: "Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture." ... "In order for the union of a man and woman to be legitimate, there needed to be consent legally and morally. Both parties had to be willing and intend to marry, and both needed their fathers' consent. If all other legal conditions were met, a marriage was made."

Romans typically married during their teenage years: "The age of lawful consent to a marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Most Roman women seem to have married in their late teens to early twenties, but noble women married younger than those of the lower classes, and an aristocratic girl was expected to be virgin until her first marriage."

If married, the soldier could be considered guilty of adultery and face consequences.: "A married man committed adultery mainly when his female partner was another man's wife or unmarried daughter. The punishment varied at different periods of Roman history and depending on the circumstances." Dimadick (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was there not a rule, at least in the earlier periods, that Roman soldiers were not allowed to marry until they had completed their military service? Wymspen (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Valentine was known for blocking military service by early marriage around this period, true. However, Pandera is often taken to be a Teutonic name, which means this might be someone with the Auxilia. Which would imply, perhaps, not a Roman citizen, mooting (perhaps) the first point but also the second ... alright, I admit, have admitted, I am so clueless about this. How do you reconstruct another era? Wnt (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on a Roman soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, whose unusual name and career have attracted some interest. According to it: "The name Pantera is Greek, although it appears in Latin in the inscription. It was perhaps his last name, and means panther. ... "Prior to the end of the 19th century, at various times in history scholars had hypothesized that the name Pantera was an uncommon or even a fabricated name, but in 1891 French archeologist C. S. Clermont-Ganneau showed that it was a name that was in use in Iudaea by other people and Adolf Deissmann later showed with certainty that it was a common name at the time, and that it was especially common among Roman soldiers." The average Roman soldier of the time served 25 years in the army, but Pantera's grave describes a service of 40 years and he likely died while still in service. His name seems to indicate that he was granted Roman citizenship as a reward for his military service, and that he acquired the family name of the emperor he served, likely Tiberius Julius Caesar. Dimadick (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this . . .

(a) a man called Pantera (or, strictly, Pentheros) was interred in Palestine in a characteristically 1st-century CE Jewish tomb and ossuary (naming him and his son Josepos/Joseph) which Charles Clermont-Ganneau excavated just north of Jerusalem in 1891, showing that some Jews bore the name (given the prior centuries of Hellenistic occupation this is not very surprising);

(b) the name Abdes suggest that Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera was Jewish or at least Semitic (his gravestone states that he came from the formerly Phoenician city of Sidon, which is only some 40 miles – a couple of days' walk – from Nazareth). Mark 7:24–31 is interesting in this context;

(c) it has been suggested (can't find the reference for the moment) that the 'Tiberius Julius' might instead indicate that he was a freed slave; and

(d) if he died aged 62 in CE 40 and had served 40 years, he presumably joined up at age 20 around 1 BCE or CE 1, but the relevant birth in question is generally thought to have been around 6–4 BCE (which is why I'm not using BC/AD here – I hate the explicit contradiction), so he might have been as young as 14 at the time of the conception, and of course not yet a soldier (my calculations): these factors would presumably have a bearing on the legalities involved.

Pace Wnt's assumed scenario, we need also not assume that a rape as we understand it was definitely involved – two Jewish teenagers (not, of course, a concept then current) having consensual sex some time prior to the marriage of one of them (to a traditionally much older man) is not so very unlikely, but being consensual would not have made it licit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number and Amount of Merit Scholarships awarded by the Hammond School (SC)

I added some statistics about merit scholarships to the article on the Hammond School. I used the IRS form 990 filings for the information [2]. Another editor pointed out that I needed a secondary source and removed the information. See Talk:Hammond_School_(South_Carolina)#Scholarships.

According to the 990, the school awards about $1.6 USD million in scholarships to about 25% of students. For a school of this type (former segregation academy), these are unusually large amounts, so I think there is a good chance that it may have been mentioned in secondary sources. I've tried, but can't find any good references.

I suspect that there may be some references in the archives of The State. This newspaper is available through newsbank [3], but my university does not subscribe to this collection.

Billhpike (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter, peacher skin in winter

Fact or myth: white people have lighter and peacher skins during the winter? I don't pay attention to potential differences of people's skin tones between winter and summer. I went to Black Friday shopping and saw numerous people having light, peachy skins rather than blushed reddish skins, though I saw some that have reddish skins. When I go out during the summer, there could be more people having darker, redder skins but I don't compare it with winter just by judgement. Does anyone tell the difference in the proportion of darker and redder skins and lighter and peacher skins between winter and summer just by judgement alone? Planet Star 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-skinned people who have gotten a tan in summertime tend to see their tan fade in the winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday? Maybe ask Missy Higgins. (Bruce). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not talking about the song, talking about the day during the time of the year when maybe more people have lighter and peacher skins. Planet Star 01:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a myth or wrong assumption. White and colored humans, each have similar, different skin types as subsets. These skin types are genetically predetermined independent from the genes for the color tone. Some black people get sunburns faster than some white people and that skin type is usually also associated with freckles, which allot of black people actually have tho its not as obvious and visible as freckles on pale white skin appear. ~~I think only asians never have freckles but im not shure.~~ There are some differences, like the Irish people more often develop freckles and red hair, but all the variations of Homo sapiens, no matter if you want to categorize them by skin color or ethnic group or not at all, additionally have multiple skin type subsets which usually only dermatologists know and care about. --Kharon (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you claiming as a myth? Alan's linked article explains the mechanism. Dbfirs 11:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That "sunburn" or tan is a specific issue for white people. Besides you can catch a sunburn in winter too, if you decide to take an exessive "sunbath", but most people stay inside their home much more. --Kharon (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the bottom line is that everyone, regardless of race, will tend to get lighter in the winter, because they have less exposure to the sun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the effect is more noticeable in some skin types. Dbfirs 16:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]