Humanities desk
< July 28	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 30 >

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.

July 29

Earliest Greek settlements in italy

When was the earliest known Greek settlement in Italy? Uncle dan is home (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some information is in Magna Graecia#Antiquity, though I don't think it gives a specific answer, and it lacks references. Loraof (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Second Greek colonisation, "The first to colonise Southern Italy were the Euboeans, who with the move to Pithecusae (on the isle of Ischia), founded a series of cities in that region. The second city that they founded was Cumae, nearly opposite Ischia." --Jayron 32 03:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cumae is famous in some circles as the place where the Greek alphabet was transferred to non-Greeks in Italy. The Cumae alphabet was the ancestor of the Latin alphabet... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comon of Pasture, turbery and feeding

One for the historians among you. A 17th century indenture of a conveyance of land contains the phrase 'comon of Pasture, turbery and feeding'. The meaning of common of pasture and common of turbery are easily found (one refers to the right to graze stock on common land, the other to the right to cut turf for fuel) but what is common of 'feeding'? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might help, as it involved a similar question [1] - it suggests it is probably the right to cut hay for winter feed (while pasture is just about grazing stock on the common). One answer gives a long list of the various common rights. Wymspen (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the White House the only kind of tied cottage in the USA?

A tied cottage is essentially a dwelling that is tied to the person's occupation. If that person leaves the position, then he will also leave the dwelling. This sounds really like how the White House is used by the President and his family. But I am wondering if it's the only kind. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, I don't believe the POTUS pays rent, so the White House wouldn't be a tied cottage. However, I'm sure the residences in a company town would fit the bill, if there are any left. Based on my viewing of The Grapes of Wrath, sharecroppers would qualify as well. Back to rent-free places, see List of governors' residences in the United States or Clergy house (aka rectory). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also in Washington, there's Blair House and the Vice President’s residence. I suppose a case could be made for Camp David and other facilities that are available for presidential use. And many universities and colleges provide housing for their presidents or provosts or masters. - Nunh-huh 12:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many rectories and manses are tied to the minister's post. Matt's talk 13:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers at boarding schools are given housing (often apartments attached to the dormitoris). Would that qualify? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Official residences in the United States. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many colleges and universities have an official "President's Residence". There are some here: President's House. Staecker (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Commons:Category:Sheriffs' houses in the United States. It was once common that a county would maintain an official residence for its sheriff; many of these were physically attached to the jail, so the sheriff could easily supervise that as well. Nowadays, most of these places have been converted into additional office space, whether for the county in general or for the sheriff's office. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In remote units administered by the National Park Service, many protection rangers (law enforcement/paramedic/firefighter) are required to live in housing within the park they serve, so that they can respond to emergencies in a timely fashion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, the housing is government-owned and rented to the ranger; if the ranger leaves the position, they also have to leave that housing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In apartment buildings, there's an occasional arrangement where the "super" (maintenance person) receives their apartment, or a discount on it, as part of their pay.

Note that mayors of many major cities also have an official residence. See Gracie Mansion and Manoogian Mansion. ("Ewww, I stepped in manoogian !") StuRat (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the US but in Canada The North West Company and the Nunavut government still operate tied cottages. Some other employers will also provide housing. I could see this happening in small isolated communities in the US as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managers at KOA campgrounds often live onsite in a residence above the general store/check-in location. Such residences are tied to the job. Other camping facilities may have similar arrangements as well.

Lighthouse keepers were formerly provided with adjacent housing. Not sure if any of those arrangements remain, though. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a dispute at Lick Observatory some years back: seems the groundskeeper gets to live in a cottage on the mountaintop, in part because the drive up and down is hassle enough to make commuting impractical. This worked fine until one of the groundskeepers decided to install a hot tub in the cottage's backyard, and insisted it was his prerogative to do so even though steam from the tub messed up the telescope seeing, and property/rental law was at least partly on his side. I don't know how it was resolved but I'm sure they eventually got rid of the hot tub. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the official residence of the UN Secretary-General at 3 Sutton Place. --Viennese Waltz 08:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Resident assistant, a dorm supervisor frequently paid in both money and lodging.DOR (HK) (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Christie was in the news recently over some kind of beach house owned by New Jersey used as a perk by the governor - I don't know if it's a gubernatorial mansion or a gubernatorial summer home or what you call it. The news seems more interested in vilifying him for using it, though, then vilifying whoever set the thing up in the first place. [2] Wnt (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many universities provide staff housing (aka faculty accommodation). Eg at UCSC. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Areoi and Arioi

I'm not an expert of ethnic things. So before I start an article merger discussion between Areoi and Ariol, I want to determine if the both are the same thing. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inescapable that they're the same thing. The first and older of the two articles was taken directly from the out-of-copyright 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (as were many articles at Wikipedia's inception) in 2002 and has seen only one significant expansion in 2010, though without aditional references; the second was translated from the entirely independent and more recently constructed German Wikipedia's article in 2009, sourced from a healthy variety of English, French and German texts; hence the variant spelling.

[A minor point, though your titular Wikilink to Arioi is correct, your corresponding textual link is to Ariol, a different topic.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.182.36 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 02:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged both articles for merger just now. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of people did not immigrate to the United States?

I have read somewhere - probably Wikipedia - that the younger sons of the English gentry couldn't inherit the property, so they went to America and started plantations. In the New England part, religious dissenters from England settled there. In the West, Chinese immigrants came as merchants and tradesmen and participated in the gold rush. Mexico was much larger than today, so Mexicans became Americans simply by living there? There were also Native American tribes in the Southeast who were forced to go on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. Somehow, they became American just by living there. I don't want to know about the immigrants in America, but about their origins in their native countries. It seems to me that the upper class elites and serfs were the only type of people who stayed on their native soil, while the people who came were free working class people. So, does that mean that modern-day Europeans are mostly descended from peasants and lords, while the non-agricultural laborers' descendants and religious people went to America? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, most middle class Europeans had little reason to leave home. It usually took some form of desperation (economic, religious, etc) to convince someone that they might be better off crossing the Atlantic and resettling in America. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was typically the poor who came here, in hopes of something better than what they had back home. That's still true, except now they're Latin Americans instead of Europeans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the majority of early immigrants from Europe may have come from particular social groups, the number who emigrated was quite small and there was no way that any class emigrated in its entirety. Your statement that "modern-day Europeans are mostly descended from peasants and lords" has no factual basis: emigration did not significantly change the social balance within European societies. Wymspen (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The world population is about 7,500,000,000. There are about 43,000,000 foreign-born people in the U.S. according to Immigration to the United States. So, that leaves about 7,457,000,000 people who never migrated to the U.S. --Jayron 32 22:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was talking about early immigrants and their place in their former/native countries. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the article titled Immigration to the United States would be where to start your research; the answer to your question would be "not those people". --Jayron 32 22:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.254 -- traditionally Virginians prided themselves on their quasi-aristocratic origins in Britain, while the New England colonies/states were open in embracing the more humble origins of the majority of early colonists there (identifying as "Cavaliers" and "Roundheads" respectively in terms of the 17th-century English Civil War), but it seems that the majority of settlers to Virginia were in fact not all that aristocratic in terms of British social categories, since true aristocrats would have had little incentive to migrate (as has been pointed out above). Most younger sons of British noblemen went into the church or the military, became lawyers, etc. As for Indians, they eventually became U.S. citizens when the United States came to them. For a time there was a category of so-called "Indians not taxed", who were governed for most purposes by their own local governments (not fully U.S. citizens or subject to U.S. taxes), but that category was declared defunct in 1924... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the 19th century, not many black Africans came to the US for obvious reasons, nor did many Muslims or South/South-East Asians, although they were not excluded. The Chinese notoriously were later excluded see Yellow_Peril#United_States after originally being recruited as a source of cheap labor. The Immigration Act of 1924 put limits on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe and was aimed at excluding mainly Jews and Italians. The Know-Nothing party was largely anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, but after German ethnicity, those of Irish descent are the largest proportion of the US population currently. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asiatic Barred Zone.png

To contain the Yellow Peril, the Immigration Act of 1917 established the Asiatic Barred Zone, from which the U.S. admitted no immigrants.

User:StuRat posted the image to the right at Miscellaneous. It's relevance is obvious, and qualifies my claim made in ignorance of this law. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

serfdom and slavery were already dead quite a while ago in their countries when Europeans begin to move into America, so serfs indeed never moved because they were none of them. However, would-be slavers and ruthless people found an opportunity in America (as evidenced by Valladolid debate).

upper class elites obviously provided the highest rank of administration, so some of them had to move in America for their duty

Also, USA was use as an escape way from all kind of trouble: crime, bad fortune in business, debts, (e.g. : John Sutter), political trouble (e.g. Éleuthère_Irénée_du_Pont), family trouble. It was also used as a deportation place for some convicts, whores and the like (Penal colony, Indentured servitude) ; after 1783 UK would turn to Australia for that purpose. Also, soldiers and sailors were send to america and some settled.

Bottom line: America was not very different from any other settlements; people happy in their land had few reason to move, basically most settlers were adventurers, felons, outcasts (for a variety of reasons : crime, politics, religion...) and poor, except for few high ranking officials and soldiers. Gem fr (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "serfdom ... already dead quite a while ago in their countries when Europeans begin to move into America". I disagree. From our article: "In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. In the Austrian Empire serfdom was abolished by the 1781 Serfdom Patent; corvée continued to exist until 1848. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in the 1860s. ... serfdom-like institutions did exist in both Denmark (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its vassal Iceland (the more restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until 1894)." So, quite a few continued after the US was formed, and you didn't even restrict your statement to then. If you start at the earliest colonization of the Americas, there were quite a few more cases. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, few people emigrated to America from those Eastern Europen nations during the 1700s and early 1800s. The majority of Eastern European immigrants came to the US well after serfdom was abolished. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar read carefully my sentence, which didn't implies that serfdom and slavery had disappeared everywhere at that time, only in the homeland part of countries that provided settlers in Americas (Spain, Portugal, UK, France, Holland). The very same countries still upheld slavery in most part of their Empires at that time. Gem fr (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the map is a little misleading, since it shows the shoreline of China as unaffected -- I take it from the article that the Chinese Exclusion Act was in force at the time, so the zone shown is actually an extension of a banned zone in China? Wnt (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an excellent analysis. [3]81.148.156.245 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]