Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 25

Roman Senate tenure

Roman Senate says the following:

When the Republic began, the Senate functioned as an advisory council. It consisted of 300–500 senators, who were initially patrician and served for life.

When did senators lose life tenure, and did this change apply to all of them or just to some? The rest of the article doesn't talk about the concept. I suppose one could be deposed, especially after the beginning of the Imperial period, and maybe the Senate had the ability to expel members, but extraordinary or extralegal means of removal don't generally count against the idea that such-and-such office has tenure for such-and-such period of time. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that senators ever lost life tenure. I think the phrase you quoted is phrased in a vague way so it can accidentally read as though "they were initially patrician, and initially served for life", as opposed to the actual meaning of "they served for life, and were initially patrician". It is the patrician part that changed, as, per the article, "Before long, plebeians were also admitted, although they were denied the senior magistracies for a longer period", but not the part where they served for life. I believe that remained unchanged throughout the duration of the senate, hence why it never mentions a time when they ceased to serve for life. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding and I cannot find any sources to contradict that. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They could loose tenure by being evicted, though, like happened to P. Lentulus Sura (for "immorality"). What changed during the times of the Empire is that the Senate ceased to serve as a serious advisory body and became a group of yes men, applauding any decision made by the Emperor. --Lambiam 06:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct. Originally only patricians could hold state offices and hence be members of the Senate. Once someone held an office, they became a Senator and remained one for life. The thing to understand is that formally the Senate only advised the magistrates and, in extremis, appointed a dictator. Originally it was a body that advised the king and elected a new king when one died. The idea was, after the monarchy was no more, the powers of the king were divided among the magistrates, and in times of peril, the Senate elected a dictator as "temporary king". --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a detail, even the senatus consultum appointing a dictator was technically just a suggestion from the Senate to the consuls. This again follows the precedent from the monarchy, where the king was technically nominated by the Senate and actually given power by the lex curiata de imperio. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend AmbivalentUnequivocalityRecent scholarship on the subject (see notably the works of Tim Cornell), suggest that senators were initially a hundred and could be plebeians. They were picked every year by the consuls to serve as their advisory council, and so their tenure lasted only one year, albeit some could be appointed several times. They only obtained life tenure with the reforms of Appius Claudius Caecus in 312 BC, who transferred the power to appoint senators from the consuls to the censors. Caecus also increased their number to 300 senators (on Caecus, cf. Michel Humm's Appius Claudius Caecus, La République accomplie, and Francis Ryan's Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate). Articles on Roman institutions sadly use outdated references. T8612 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing! Thanks for the input. I was of course going off our articles. Is there any idea of how often early Senators were plebians? Though it might not have been de jure a requirement that Senators be patricians, I imagine most likely were. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids

Did the pyramids really have traos like seen in the movies? If not where did this concept come from? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.96 (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "traos" is a typo for "traps", then my understanding is that no pyramid anywhere in the world has yet been found to have, or have had, definite traps as seen in, for example, Indiana Jones: it would indeed be interesting to track down the origin of this myth. Various media articles have discussed the idea, such as this one – simply the first hit on a google search of "traps in pyramids". Note that the haematite powder mentioned there as a possible theft deterrent may well have had a completely different motivation. However, it's hard to prove a negative, so perhaps some sort of trap in some pyramid will be found some time in the future. The as-yet unopened Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor might be one to watch.

Egyptian pyramids or other tombs sometimes had curses written at entrances, but these do not seem to have deterred Ancient Egyptian (or later) tomb robbers, as most such tombs were indeed robbed, often within a few months of being sealed {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although pyramids often had ingenious systems for irrevocably blocking the access tunnels after the body was inside. Huge blocks of granite or other hard stone, weighing up to 20 tons, were lowered by gravity and locked into place; they were impossible to remove except by chiselling through the block, which was exactly what later robbers did, or they worked around through softer walls. See Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry (pp. 218-228) by Dieter Arnold. Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is The Straight Dope's take on the question. Matt Deres (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Hawaii During WWII, Especially related to the Big Five Plantation Companies

Hi y'all,

I'm doing a report on, literally, the economy of Hawaii during WWII especially related to the Big Five Plantation Companies. Any sources that you guys can find would be very much appreciated. I've already gone through ebsco and US history in context and what have you -- does anybody have any ideas?

Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.95.68 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's some info here : Kelli Y. Nakamura. "Plantations | Densho Encyclopedia". encyclopedia.densho.org. —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hearings Before the Joint Committee on the Pearl Harbor Attack (Washington, 1946), pp. 3353-3372 has a deposition from the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association giving wartime production figures and manpower assistance to the military etc. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And some information about workforce ethnicity in Hawaii in Americans First: Chinese Americans and the Second World War by Kevin Scott Wong (annoyingly lots of pages missing from the preview). Alansplodge (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something of interest in Land Tenure in the Pacific edited by R. G. Crocombe. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Details of the wartime restrictions placed on workers in History of Labor in Hawai‘i

A SWEET DEAL: SUGAR PLANTATIONS IN THE HAWAIIAN ECONOMY

Martial Law in Hawaii: December 7, 1941 - April 4, 1943

WWII brought paradigm shift for Hawaii life By Nelson Daranciang

HAWAI‘I, THE MILITARY, AND THE NATIONAL PARK: WORLD WAR II AND ITS IMPACTS ON CULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT by William Chapman

Tracing the History of WWII Hawaii Currency

Happy reading! Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]