Humanities desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8[edit]

Was there ever a colony in New England called West Hampshire Colony?[edit]

I heard that name in fictitious novel but did such a place ever exist? Venustar84 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the results that Google found relate to a series of books called the Cataluna Chronicles by R L Stine. So the answer seems to be no. Alansplodge (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the name, but you might look at the disputes between New York and New Hampshire, etc., in the History of Vermont which delayed its statehood. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical wear[edit]

Can anybody tell if this Catholic priestly wear or Evangelical/Anglican costume? Are the clerical dress of the two denominations distinct enough to be differentiated?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biretta worn by the guy on our right is probably evidence of his Catholicity, although Anglican priests do sometimes wear them. -- Jack of Oz

^{[pleasantries]} 07:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the biretta is either Catholic or Anglo Catholic, but more likely to be the former. The priest on the left is wearing a surplice in the Anglican style. Alansplodge (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News headline I'd like to see: Spelling-challenged arms dealer caught selling surplice biretta to secret agent. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a Catholic funeral, or at any rate certainly a Catholic funeral mass, I would expect that any priests would be wearing the chasuble. As far as I can see all the priests are wearing only surplices and stoles which makes them look Anglican to me. Sadly I can't (on a quick Google) identify any clear information on what vestments must be worn at funerals and funeral masses (or funerals with the eucharist as the case may be) by Catholics and Anglicans respectively and it's also quite possible that styles and/or requirements have changed in the last 100 years. Valiantis (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man behind and to the right of the priest in the biretta is wearing a Canterbury cap. If I'm reading our article correctly, that definitively marks this event as Anglican. I think it very unlikely that at such a date, and in such an obviously ritual context as this, clergy from more than one denomination would be pictured 'in action' as it were. This would also be consistent with the prince having received an Episcopalian (Anglican) education. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture says it is the funeral of Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole so it's fairly easy from there to work out what's going on. We might even be able to identify some of those in the picture.

The Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii (the resting place of Prince Kūhiō) was dedicated by Anglican bishop Thomas Nettleship Staley in the 1860s. In 1898, the Anglican church (as the "Church of Hawaii) was dissolved and became the Episcopal Diocese of Hawaii. John Dominique LaMothe, then-bishop of Hawaii, is said to have presided over the funeral (picture right). St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think he might be the gentleman in the Canterbury cap? I think he might, but I'm not sure. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like him to me, but I'm not sure there's any way to be sure without further images of the procession. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess's pregnancy = possible changes to the Constitution of Monaco?[edit]

The Constitution of Monaco had to be amended in 2002 because of the looming succession crisis. Prince Rainier III's son Albert was a 44-year-old bachelor, with no apparent intention to marry, while the crown could pass only to the reigning monarch's descendants; his or her siblings were excluded. Tthe succession rules were changed to allow Albert's sisters, nephews and nieces to retain their places in the line after his accession, so that the line of succession would not be empty.

Twelve years later, the 36-year-old wife of the 56-year-old Albert II is expecting a child. Should that be their only child, which seems quite possible if not likely, wouldn't the 2002 problem resurface? Albert's sisters, nephews and nieces will drop out of the line of succession once he's gone, and his child will probably be childless upon accession. Are new constitutional amendments likely to take place, or am I missing something? Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It likely will. I'm not sure why they didn't go back one generation and limit the line of succession to descendants of the previous reigning prince. On the other hand, if the rumour of twins turns out to be true, it might not be necessary. --NellieBly (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chakana - fakelore?[edit]

I have found no primary sources supporting the existence of the "chakana" - a two-tiered cross - as a component of Inca or Pre-Inca Andean folklore or mythology, and wonder if it is an artifact of contemporary invention, "fakelore." The Wikipedia article seems to consist of sources whose references go back no further than the 1990's. Can you shed light on this topic? Below is the url of the Wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakana

Thank youCzypcamayoc (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks hokey to me, too. Want me to start a case for deletion? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is crap, but a quick Google search confirms it's the correct name for the symbol and that the symbol is widely used, at least in conteporary South America/Central America. Maybe a re-write is preferable? Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google Books advanced search for mentions of the word "chakana" published before 1995. There were a few false hits in old books (place names, something in Polish, etc.); then there was a hit a 1935 book, The Magic Presence by the occultist Guy Ballard, but Google Books would not show me any part of the page to verify it. The next hit after that was dated 1993 and was in Spanish: something called ¿Desarrollo o descolonización en los Andes?. Google Books showed me snippets referring to "la Chakana o Cruz Andina" and "la Chakana o cruz cuadrada o Cruz Andina": "the chakana or square cross or Andean cross".

The next hit after that was dated 1994 and is also in Spanish, and has that last phrase right in the title: La cruz escalonada andina, i.e. "the staggered Andean cross" or "the Andean staggered cross". The snippets from this book show the same three names as in the other book. And this book came from the "Centro de Cultura, Arquitectura y Arte Taipinquiri", which is the sort of name that a legitimate foundation for art and archeology would have, so it sounds as if

So next I did a plain google search on "Andean cross" and several pages mentioned "chakara" as a Quechua word. If so, it would seem possible that this word only entered use in English and Spanish in the 1990s. But I went back to Google Books advanced search and looked for "Andean cross" "staggered cross", "cruz andina", and "cruz escalonada" before 1995, and I found only one hit on any of them—an 18th century Spanish-French dictionary of the arts and sciences that gave the translation of "cruz escalonada" as "croix à degré" in one place and "croix à degrés" in another.

Matt's "quick search" showed that the symbol is widely used today, but was it widely used by the Incas? I haven't seen anything to say so, but I have never studied pictures of Incan artifacts either. I think the best way to evaluate this would be to find an actual copy of La cruz escalonada andina and see what it has to say. Anyone speak Spanish and have access to it in some library? --69.158.92.137 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]