Humanities desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

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.

January 20

Was the roman god mars ever associated with fire?

Mythology is not my area of expertise. Lionesstiger (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, it seems, but most wars use a lot of fire. For killing, ruining, cooking, warming, lighting, firing, signaling, scaring, melting and the other thing. So if you want to sculpt him surrounded by flames, it'd make sense enough. Nergal, on the other hand, is ~~explicitly~~ possibly associated with both. The Babylonians named a red planet after him. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman god of fire was Vulcan (mythology). Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or look here: List of fire gods#Roman mythology. Mars has always been "the red Planet" and as such associated with war. Seems the romans actually stole the conception from the greek god Ares and just renamed him "Mars". --Kharon (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually several steps involved. The traditional Roman gods tended to be vague entities who were appeased by sacrifices, but mostly didn't have very vivid personalities or elaborate mythologies, so that the process of identifying Greek and Roman gods (interpretatio graeca) inevitably involved a certain enhancement. The systematic identification of all seven classical "planets" with gods was first done by the Babylonians, and other cultures translated the Babylonian system into their own equivalents. So before the influence of Babylonian astrology, the Greek language used non-deity names for the planets -- Venus was phōsphoros or hesperos depending on whether it was sighted as morning or evening star, Mercury was stilbōn, Mars was pyroeis, Jupiter was phaethōn, and Saturn was phainōn.

So the identification of the Latin deity name "Mars" with the 4th planet outward from the sun depends on the Greeks identifying the 4th planet with their god Ares under Babylonian influence (displacing the older name πυροεις), and then the Romans applying their conventional Ares = Mars deity equivalence... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG. The Roman iron-smith god of the forge was Vulcan, most likely of Etruscan origin. The Roman god of the wikt:hearth was the very PIE goddess Vesta. The Latin for fire is wikt:ignis and this root is the name of various gods or personifications of fire. Ignis as such was not venerated in Rome, although the Tungus people blamed Agdi for the Tunguska event. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual story is that the planet was called Mars because it it's "red" - having to do with blood, not with fire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Mars" was applied to the 4th planet because when the Babylonian system was borrowed by the Greeks, they identified the Babylonian god assigned to the 4th planet (apparently Nergal) with their Greek Ares, and then the conventional equivalence Roman Mars = Greek Ares was applied. A little later on, the symbolism was justified by assigning the metal iron to Mars/Ares, the god of war (iron being associated with weapons of war), setting up the equivalence Mars=iron=rust=red (similarly, Venus was assigned the metal copper, a prominent use of which was bronze hand-mirrors, a conventionally feminine item, setting up the equivalence Venus=copper=patina=green) -- see Classical planet#Alchemy (and much much later on Tincture (heraldry)#Gemstone/planet blazoning). However, I'm not sure whether this metallic symbolism is old enough to explain the initial war = 4th planet assignment (probably not)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well before any of our Known Ages, Bronze Age Martians were destroyed by nuclear war. According to one scientist/author, anyway. Even flimsier thinking to believe this could have been observed on Earth, much less remembered till historic times, but something to at least briefly consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that Mars was originally a god of springtime and commencement of the farming season (hence the month of March). The association with war arose because spring was also a good time to begin or resume military campaigns. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to make the same point. Consider also the concept of beating swords into ploughshares. μηδείς (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a dump

I'm looking for coords for Estructural Dump which is supposed to be 12 km from Brazilia's central palace.

Many thanks for any help you can offer.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the satellite images on [1] with Google Maps led me to 15°46′24.8″S 47°59′54.7″W / 15.773556°S 47.998528°W. Google Street View confirmed its dumpiness. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sluzzelin. I can't seem to make heads or tails of those coords. Would you please use this and just refine the numbers? Many many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with those coords? It's perfectly straightforward, you just click on Google Maps, Google Earth or whatever from the link Sluzzelin gave. --Viennese Waltz 09:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I think Anna can't see everything we can because of where she lives). Here's your link, adjusted: [2] I used the same zoom factor you used, but slightly different co-ordinates than the ones I gave above, in order to place you more in the middle of the dump. (here's your link for the same co-ordinates given above). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Viennese Waltz and Sluzzelin! Yes, I'm sorry about the google thing. It's blocked here in China. And not sure why my x=312.11995&y=-15.80376 gets me to nearly the same place as your -47.998528&y=-15.773556, but all's well that ends well. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-47.999 East is 47.999 West. 312 East is the same longitude (47.999 + 312 = 360). LongHairedFop (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me make {{coord|-48.000245|N|-15.771677|W|type:landmark|display=title}} get to the right place!!! Ahhhh! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

48° west of the Greenwich meridian is technically also 312° east of it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.65.22 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you all for your patience. Actually it was the brilliant User:Huon in IRC who spotted my N-S S-N mistake. Cheers and I promise I'll figure out coords better one day. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism

The article relates: "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology. Personification is the related attribution of human form and characteristics to abstract concepts such as nations, emotions and natural forces like seasons and the weather." But is that really the right distinction? Isn't a personification more about rhetoric and arts? And is it really a good idea to put both topics under one and the same lemma?--Siebi (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making a valid point. In some instances this is merely rhetorical while in other cases this is an irresistible urge. We for instance ascribe emotions to animals that may not be correct. We do so because such emotions may be obvious but we know they may not be correct. But when we speak for instance about angry seas we are doing so knowingly, in full confidence that the sea is gripped by no such emotion. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, don't forget that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit". If you can improve an article, please do!

However, before making substantial or potentially controversial changes, it is best to discuss on the article's talk page first (and be sure to include references from reliable sources). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F0CC:271C:322C:389F (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is, I am actually not quite sure about that. On German Wikipedia, for instance, there are two separate articles: Anthropomorphismus and Personifikation. And the introduction of Anthropomorphismus says that a personification is a special case of anthropomorphism with regard to language and arts. However, in Personifikation, there is also a section dealing with religious personification…--Siebi (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present there is a redirect sending the reader from Personification to Anthropomorphism. Are you suggesting there should be two separate articles? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also of course, the concept of Anthropomorphic personification. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's definitely a problem in having a redirect. The statue of Justice, blindfolded, holding scales, and of Mother Russia, depicted bearing a sword in The Motherland Calls, are personifications, and not anthropomorphism in any sense. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]