Humanities desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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.

December 4[edit]

The Screaming Skull of Bettiscombe Manor[edit]

Is the screaming skull still at Bettiscombe Manor? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Manor was sold in 2016 for £3,300,000 and is now on the market again at an asking price of £4,010,000. You might be able to find the answer from one of the agents involved in the sale. Or if you happen to have in excess of 3¹/₂ million quid spare . . . . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.66 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article the original skull has been swapped for another, hopefully a more passive one, which suggests the original was eventually repatriated.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the legend (of it being the skull of a male Jamaican ex-slave) was never true in the first place, and perhaps even invented to explain the presence of the skull (of a European woman) that was (at least until recently) there. {The poster formerly known as 7.81.230.195} 90.208.90.66 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, the article does not say it was swapped. And also, the first response is mistake, that's a valuation site, not a for sale. So we've so far established nothing. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misinterpretation: I am not very familiar with the world of multi-million pound estate agenting. As to the legend, I harbour a suspicion that the whole thing arose from a noisy fox (perhaps unfamiliar to recent immigrants from Nevis) in the cemetery, and the willingness of local villagers to wind up the gentry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.66 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult to find sources that can unambiguously state the current whereabouts of the skull, though my guess is that as the skull has such a legend attached to it, it is unlikely to have been moved. This page, which was written by the online parish clerk seemingly around 2015, states that the skull has been kept at the manor "until this day". It might be worth contacting the Dorset County Museum in Dorchester - according to this article, "the skull’s – and the Pinney family’s – journey is well documented throughout the years and is well-researched by the Dorset County Museum" (the article provides a link but it is to an unaccessible page). Incidentally that article states that the skull was/is stored "in the nook of a staircase", whereas this page says it was/is "kept on beam in the attic, near the chimney". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan & emir[edit]

Hi refdesk, I'd like to get a third opinion. I read the Dervish proclamation of independence letter dated 3rd of May 1899 received by James Hayes Sadler as describing the Dervishes as an emirate and a Dhulbahante sultanate.

This letter is sent by all the Dervishes, the Amir, and all the Dolbahanta to the Ruler of Berbera ... We are a Government, we have a Sultan, an Amir, and Chiefs, and subjects. (viewable source)

The reply letter, 6 pages prior dated 4th May might be relevant. Is my reading of the proclamation letter correct? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heracles and Troy[edit]

Given the understandable eagerness of Heinrich Schliemann(and others) to match up discoveries at Hisarlik with Greek myths, I wonder if he(or others) made attempts to identify a layer of the excavation corresponding to a generation or so before that was identified with the Trojan War. Since Schliemann probably identified the wrong layer as the Troy of the myth, and those later archeologists who do think the Trojan War was historical mainly think Level VIIa is the one, have they tried to match a layer previous to VIIa or a sublayer of VIIa itself with any scanty details told of Heracles's attack on Troy?Rich (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Hesione for those less familiar with the more obscure byways of Greek myth. I think the problem is that both myth and actual history are replete with attacks, both reported and not, on strongholds like Troy, so it would be very difficult to correlate any archeological evidence of one such assault with any particular mythologized (or wholly imaginary) event. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.66 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Rich, details on the archaeological thinking on are in Late Bronze Age Troy and Hisarlik. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those archeological articles do have details on closely related issues that are somewhat helpful, thanks. But not on exactly the question I was asking, about archeological study or speculation specifically on Heracles's attack on Troy.Rich (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yesterday I couldn’t find any, which made me think archaeologists don’t think in this way any more. But today, found this unpublished dissertation which might suggest some sources in French: Four conferences specifically on Heracles in past 25 years have yielded published compilations of papers… addressing Heracles from the perspectives of archaeology, art history,… The sources are given as: Corinne Bonnet and Colette Jourdain-Annequin, eds., Héraclès: d’une rive à l’autre de la Méditerranée: bilan et perspectives: actes de la Table Ronde de Rome, Academia Belgica-Ecole française de Rome, 15-16 septembre 1989, vol. 28, Etudes de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes (Bruxelles: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 1992); Colette Jourdain-Annequin and Corinne Bonnet, eds., Héraclès, les femmes et le féminin: IIe rencontre héracléenne: actes du Colloque de Grenoble, Université des sciences sociales (Grenoble II), 22-23 octobre 1992, IIe rencontre héracléenne. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost incredibly good reference desk work! thank you!Rich (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA Soldiers with weapons civilians can't have...[edit]

At what point in history did the US Army issue weapons to soldiers that a US civilian who had never been in the military could not legally own? (I'm pretty sure the answer is post 1870 and pre 1940, but I'm fuzzy around world war 1.) Similarly, at what point would it have been illegal for a US civilian to own a clone of a specific newly commissioned US Navy ship? (I'm not honestly sure if this belongs here, RD/Sci or RD/Misc)Naraht (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's illegal to own a clone of a newly commissioned US Navy ship. Any source for that? Anyway, any ship would be amazingly expensive to build and maintain, so maybe no one thought about prohibiting it. --Bumptump (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure much of the equipment would be classified or prohibited, e.g. the radars, Tomahawk and Sea Sparrow missiles. And where would you legitimately buy them? RRRms 'R Us? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Navy Firefangledfeathers 04:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radar was once a secret, but it's now well-known. Civilians use radar guns to detect the speed of a pitched baseball, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military radars are still probably classified. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but isn't it a crime of some sort to have a phony police car? The same would apply, in spades, to a warship. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating a professional is generally illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what I'm talking about. What if you sailed the SS BigFakeroo while dressed as a yachtsman? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are your ship's guns loaded? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the first US legislation restricting weapons ownership was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required owners to register certain types of weapon, including machine guns, guns with a calibre of more than 0.5" and explosive devices. Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of museum ships article includes a large number of ex-US Navy warships that are owned quite legally by various museums and educational trusts; exactly what regulations govern their (deactivated?) weapons, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Own a Tank with a Working Cannon? has the answer (yes, but it's not easy). Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked about the US, but as an aside: In most developed countries there will be different and strikter regulations. The German Tank Museum, for example, is a joint operation of the local municipality and the German armed forces, with the vehicles being formally controlled by the military. This causes occasional administrative difficulties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But requiring registration doesn't seem to prevent US civilians who'd never been in the military from legally owning them, it just makes it more difficult. Our article suggest there was also a tax of $200 which was quite a bit at the time although still not preventing a rich civilian from owning them. In 1968 the importation of most NFA for civilian purpose was banned although I'm not sure whether it was theoretically possible for the government to sell them to civilians. I'm not sure it was particularly common for the military to issue imported weapons to soldiers anyway. In 1986 the domestic manufacture of new machine guns for civilians was banned. Interesting our article seems to suggest that the government can't transfer them to civilians either. I wondered whether this was just poorly worded and the reality is it wasn't illegal but would never happen but it suggests an amendment was needed to allow contractors to possess machine guns when providing security relating to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so guess it isn't. So it seems definitely by 1986, maybe by 1968. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland - Proclamation of Dominion status[edit]

I am looking for the proclamation of Dominion Status for Newfoundland in 1907. According to our article Dominion of Newfoundland it was on 26 January 1907. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: "Proclamation, Dominion Day 26 Sep 1907; 26.09.1907; WY.1989.362". eHive. --2603:6081:1C00:1187:EDBB:F3B3:CAF4:4F4F (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text linked above relates to New Zealand, whose dominion status was proclaimed by King Edward VII on the same day as Newfoiundland. I can't find the Newfoundland text online, but you could ask the folks at the Centre for Newfoundland Studies. Xuxl (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. January 26 seems to be an error. Everywhere this is mentioned, the date is given as 26 September 1907. Xuxl (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxl: Yes, my fingers ran away from me. The 26th of January is both India's Republic Day and a day of significance in my family, which explains why they typed what they did. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 1907 Imperial Conference it says that "The conference decided to cease referring to self-governing British colonies as colonies and conferred upon them dominion status. Canada and Australia were referred to as dominions in the conferences statements while Newfoundland Colony and the Colony of New Zealand were granted dominion status by royal proclamation on 26 September." But while my search for the actual proclamation(s) found the one for New Zealand here, I could not find one for Newfoundland. --184.144.99.241 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador has an article on From ‘Colony of Newfoundland’ to the ‘Dominion of Newfoundland’ but they can only offer links to a 1933 Royal Commission report or the Terms of Union with Canada. Perhaps it has fallen down the back of a filing cabinet somewhere? Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not fallen into the back of a closet, but Dominion status did not go well for Newfoundland: it went bankrupt during the Great Depression in the 1930s and petitioned to have the status revoked in order to become a colony once again (the only dominion to ever do so), then joined Canada in 1949 after a controversial referendum. So that particular proclamation was quietly forgotten, it seems. I also found a lot of other stuff digging around such as a trove of documents on the dispute about the border of Labrador [1], but not that one proclamation. Xuxl (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]