Humanities desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

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.

March 23

where did they find gold in ancient times

where was the best place that people found gold (gold mines and things like this) in thousands of years ago? I mean which places had the MOST gold mining not just a little gold here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Gold_mining#History. --PlanetEditor (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look at that already. it just says this place had some gold and this place had some gold and we found some remains of gold mine here and there. I want to know which places had A LOT of gold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There goes the internet (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere had a LOT of gold. That's why it was so sought-after. --ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for places that historically had lots of gold, I would suggest looking to Egypt/Nubia, Las Médulas, Roșia Montană, Mali Empire, Inca, and Aztec Empire. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i wish i had some gold :-(--There goes the internet (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do, on the contacts for the components of your PC. StuRat (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

List of countries by gold production is a modern list, but it should give some ideas as to what parts of the world gold is found in. The gold, after all, was still there in ancient times. If the OP can indicate for what purpose they want to know the information, or for what parts of the world, we may be able to provide more tailored and useful responses. --Jayron32 01:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little info at this webpage, [1], and a lot more in Google Books if you search around. If I understand right, in very ancient times most gold was acquired by placer mining (ie, gold panning, sluicing, etc—not really "mining" as such), and so was done in streams where gold washed down from deposits upstream. Apparently there is some evidence of near-surface veins being worked in a few places. That page I linked points out that we don't really know much about exactly where ancient civilizations got gold from. It might be easier to determine what places had little gold instead of which had some. It seems that Mesopotamia was rather poor in "indigenous" gold. On the other hand, some places are known for having been sources of gold, such as Nubia. According to this book, [2], ancient India had gold "in abundance", but was poor in silver. This page, [3] gives some general info on ancient gold sources, specifically the "Upper Nile near the Red Sea and in the Nubian Desert area", "possibly in Yemen and southern Africa", Arabia (the Mahd adh Dhahab being an area specifically known as an ancient source). Mesoamerican and Inca gold is "believed to have come from Colombia", but not exclusively. There's a Gold Museum in Colombia with lots of pre-Columbia pieces. It seems northeastern Colombia was, and is a major gold source. The "Cauca Belt" comes up in searches (Valle del Cauca department mentions gold history). I tried to find some maps of this stuff but couldn't in a quick search. You'd think there would be some. In short, for major gold sources "thousands of years ago", it looks like good bets include the Nubia region (perhaps reaching into Ethiopia, a gold producing country), Arabia (specially western Arabia areas like Hejaz and Yemen), possibly areas near the other side of the Red Sea (today's Eritrea and Sudan), and "India" (probably many places in India, a known site is the Kolar Gold Fields). Placer gold was likely found in widespread places in smaller amounts. Pfly (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the gold standard and real wage growth

my teacher said that the reason why there has been no wage growth in the united states is that we went off THE GOLD STANDARD and we print to much money. what are some arguments AGAINST this view. in other words, are there some ppl who thing this would have happened if we stayed on the gold standaed. this is not homework btw i just want to know what the other side of the argument is. also, how can we restore real wage growth in the United States becuase i would like to make some more money in 10 yrs then i make now (assuming i dont get a better job or things like this).--There goes the internet (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he said back in the olden days wages grew faster then inflation.--There goes the internet (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are studying at the same time as working Good for you but if you really want to make a go of it you should invest some time in figuring how to search for things yourself. What work have you done to find an answer for your homework besides asking here? Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i said this wasnt homework and i dont appreciate being called a liar. it was a class discussion, and i was just thinking about what he said during the discussion.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being offended by what some random person on the internet says is irrational. Also what you say is evidence not truth as far as I am concerned, I try and assume the best in accordance with Wikipedia policy but that does not include assuming everything someone says is true. In this case I have advised you whilst assuming are attending a class and wish to learn. If a question arises during a class then you should treat it as an opportunity for learning rather than just reaching to the internet for some instant answer. Particularly if you have chosen to go and study at the same time as working. You could also have asked during class. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My class has over 9999 ppl in it, if you dont want to help me you don't have to. i dont see what the big deal is.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to help you. Dmcq (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See fiat currency, Bretton-Woods Agreement, Triffin dilemma, and Nixon Shock for the history of (and reasons for) the USA's last departure from the gold standard. Tevildo (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Churchill's Gold Standard Mistake (yes - that Churchill - he was rubbish at economics). Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First your premise is incorrect, there has been real wage growth, just not for the bottom 80% of Americans, for the richest Americans, wage growth has been the greatest ever seen. Wage growth is normally tied to productivity, if a worker can create twice as much in the same time, or create twice as much using the same amount of raw material, his wages will double minus the cost of whatever it was that made him more productive (education, new technology, increased capital, etc). Productivity has been increasing over the last few decades, though the wages paid to workers is not increasing mostly due to the rich owners demanding all the profit from the increase in productivity and the workers just accepting this. If you want to see higher real wages in the future then become more productive and demand your fair share or your labour's value. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we should get together and seize the property of the boozwazeeee. it is the fault of greedy 1 percenter, that is what i will tell my teacher, but i think he will laugh at me. he doesnt think much of marx and socialism and things like this.--There goes the internet (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that all the threads started by this OP be closed as trolling/pre-teen nonsense. 69.157.30.181 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

maybe u should be closed.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question admits a reasonable interpretation: does the gold standard was better for employees? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During most of the 19th century, economies with gold-backed currencies showed a long-term overall deflationary trend, partially counteracted at irregular intervals by major gold finds. This state of affairs could be considered good for workers if it inhibited currency instabilities and runaway inflation, but also bad for workers insofar as deflation was creditor-friendly and debtor-unfriendly. In the United States at the end of the 19th century, many farmers and workers (especially in western states) were strongly in favor of supplementing gold with silver ("bimetallism") -- see William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! i remember this from my history class. there was like this period for like 20-30 years where there was a whole slew of candidates who ran on silver-related platform. that was like the most boring and repetitive part of the whole history book. i'm glad it's over.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's incredibly boring for you, but in late 19th century America, it was just about the only politically-realistic way to argue for non-long-term-deflationary non-creditor-friendly monetary policies, so it was of vital interest to many. It was one of the few ways of trying to smooth some of the harsh edges of unrestrained "robber baron" capitalism that was not widely perceived to be politically radical. Of course, owners of silver mines favored bimetallism for different reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason why increased productivity is not reflected in increased wages is globalization, and, in particular, China. Anyone who doesn't accept low wages can just be replaced by a Chinese worker (with a few exceptions). StuRat (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all this depends on how you calculate buying power. Yes, a dollar today buys less gold than a dollar 100 years ago. But it buys a hell of a lot more cellular service, or computing power, or antiretroviral drugs, or antibiotics, or high-precision watches, or air travel, or free online encyclopedias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but i bet if those things were around in the olden days i could have bought more of them.--There goes the internet (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least computing power (in the form of Human computers) and air travel were available in principle, but much more expensive than today, especially relative to income. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First British powered flight

I thought I'd have a go at our stub article for Stanley Spencer, who designed and built the first British airship in 1902. I'm having trouble establishing a date for the first flight. Many sources, such as this one go for 22 September 1902, with a 3 hour flight from Crystal Palace, London. However, the New York Times says 20 September and the The Nevada Daily Mail says 19 Sep. The Reading Eagle (apparently Reading, Pennsylvania) reports a trial on 11 July which broke a propeller blade and was eventually flown without the engine. The Manawatu Times in New Zealand reported that Spencer's wife flew the airship at Crystal Palace on 14 July, with or without the engine isn't clear. So does anyone have a reliable date for the first flight? Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary sources quoted can be reconciled - a first unpowered flight from Ranelagh to Ongar on the 11th, a flight (presumably powered) by Mrs Specner within the grounds of "Baystal" [sic] Palace on the 13th (presumably - 14th July 1903 was a Tuesday, and I think "13" for "14" is more likely than "Tuesday" for "Monday"), and a powered flight from Crystal Palace to Eastcote on the 19th. Note that the Nevada Daily Mail and New York Times articles seem to be based on the same copy, and the Daily Mail says "today" with a dateline of the 19th, while the Times says "yesterday" with a dateline of the 20th. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mis-read the dates. The Reading Eagle report is for 1903 (not 1902), so we have two flights for 1902 - Mrs Spencer (Crystal Palace only) on Monday 14th July, Mr Spencer (Crystal Palace to Eastcote) on Saturday 19th July, and one flight for 1903 (Saturday 11th July), unpowered, from Ranelagh to Ongar. Tevildo (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I misread the "Reading Eagle" date too. Spencer built a second, larger airship in 1903 called "Number 2", so it must have been that one. I'm a bit puzzled as to why he would let his wife make the first flight - perhaps she had a good insurance policy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "scratch monkey" comes to mind... Tevildo (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or guinea pig. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is she the first woman to pilot a powered aircraft? Alansplodge (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, based on the above. The books say that it was Aida de Acosta (27 June 1903), but it seems that Mrs Spencer beat her by nearly a year. Assuming the Crystal Palace flight was under power, which the article doesn't actually say. Tevildo (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. The article does imply powered flight; "navigated around" and "under perfect control" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that is possible in a drifting balloon. Can anyone find a better source than a provincial newspaper from New Zealand? Alansplodge (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from a provincial American newspaper (second column, second from bottom), which cites the "London News" (the Illustrated London News?) (Note advert for "Ironbrew", as well - should we tell A G Barr's lawyers)? I'll see what else I can find. Tevildo (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Mrs Spencer's history, and a cite (the W G Grace / Conan Doyle copy) to "Motoring Illustrated". It's out there somewhere! Tevildo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a trip to Beaulieu is indicated. We have a definite publication and date, and they should have a copy of the magazine. Expect a definite answer some time next week! Tevildo (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wait with bated breath (whatever that is). Many thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With your breath held, as in "abated". μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be taking that literally then. Alansplodge (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the "Motoring Illustrated" article is in the can - I'll do some proper writing-up tomorrow. It's dated 2nd August 1902, and says that Mrs Spencer flew the airship "recently" (presumably 14th July). However, although she was at the controls, she was accompanied by her husband. Ms de Acosta doesn't lose her position as the first _solo_ female aviator (aviatrix?), but Mrs Spencer seems to have been the first woman to fly a powered aircraft. Tevildo (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article text is available at User:Tevildo/MotoringIllustrated. Reading it again, it looks like she _did_ acheive the first solo flight, after all. Photos from article to follow shortly. Tevildo (talk)

Photos have been uploaded. Over to you! Tevildo (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; that's marvellous. I can't believe that a milestone like that has escaped everybody's notice. I'll do my best to put it right. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the UN anti-Israel?

Trolling by defacto banned sockpuppeter Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The only supporters of Israel are the U.S., Canada and the island nations of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Nauru and the Marshall Islands. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.74.219 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to numbers. There are far more Muslims, Muslim nations, and those who want to trade with or otherwise be on good terms with Muslim nations than Jews, Jewish nations, and those who want to trade with Jewish nations. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say here "with the Jewish nation", since besides Israel, there are no other.

No, the United Nations itself as an organisaion, has no position on the matter at all, the the individual member countries have a variety of attitudes towards Israel. Roger (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palau & others vote according to the US vote. This is not an independent opinion.

Consider too that voting according to the Palestine wishes doesn't mean being anti-Israel. A good part of the world really would like to see peace in that region, in the same way that a good part of Israel indeed is against the decisions of their own government. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Palau and others" I take it the other three island nations, or for you Canada is also influenced by the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.130.74.219 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torture

A few years back, I remember reading a news story about a girl who lead a protest in China, or maybe some other country. She was arrested, and police tortured her by pumping cold water up her vagina every day. She died a month later. Does anyone know what story this is? Unfortunately, when I try to Google it, I find few actual news sites. Thanks. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could start your search at Category:Torture victims (there are subcategories by nationality as well) and see if there is a Wikipedia article about her. --Jayron32 20:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i am in one problem.

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Sorry, we can't give any legal advice at Wikipedia. Please find a lawyer instead. --Jayron32 21:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

office of infirmarer

In our article on John of Wallingford (writer) it says John "serviced the office of infirmarer". What is this office and what is an infirmarer ?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An infirmarer is a monk who looks after the infirmary of a monestary. Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., now I get it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Posh & Becks

A few years ago, a cartoon appeared in one of the British papers of Victoria and David Beckham on the balcony at Buckingham Palace , could you please tell me who the cartoonist was and in what paper it appeared. I have tried searching on line with no luck. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.131.240 (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this in the Guardian? 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posh & Becks ARE a cartoon already surely.

Secular arguments against same-sex marriage

I could not find an article that described secular arguments against same-sex marriage such as the common procreation argument. Is this type of material not suitable for Wikipedia? Should it be added? Where? Same-sex marriage is already quite large. --beefyt (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nowhere. Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments, it's the place to write encyclopedia articles. --Jayron32 01:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if an argument on a topic has been aired in reliable sources, it may merit a mention in an article about the topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've very frequently seen economic arguments used, i.e. that extending marriage increases cost of Social Security and other benefits. While I do not condone bigotry, there is good reason to question why society should disburse its benefits based solely on who is registered as having sex. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're implicitly raising some of the constitutional issues which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide. Equal protection under the law, full faith and credit, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are, of course, arguments against marriage, not arguments against same-sex marriage. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We only write about notable topics. I don't think the distinction between secular and non-secular arguments against same-sex marriage is a particularly meaningful one. Pretty much all the arguments are religiously motivated, but most of them are presented in a secular way (particularly when presenting them in US courts, since US courts aren't allowed to make decisions based on openly religious arguments). Therefore, there is no separate topic to have an article on. --Tango (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if the topic is notable, it should be arguments against same-sex marriage? --beefyt (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other articles about specific arguments:

--beefyt (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a litany of articles on the subject, starting with the article on same sex marriage, and including List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States, and others. The links you provide above probably could be comfortably merged into some other articles. For instance, we have a dozen versions of gun politics articles. Splitting up topics into scarcely different headings dilutes the effort on any one article and creates divides where either POV issues or accuracy issues can fester, let alone the duplicated effort. There's other stuff but that's not a good reason to add to the problem. If you want a concise set of arguments on that point, try to improve on what's already there, or alternatively, if you must branch something out, do so in a broad rather than narrow way. That is, keep the topics broad, and only split them off into narrower ones if the original grows too large. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Is it best to leave things as they are? Or would it be better to move all the material to a single article? Currently several articles have much to say on the topic and only differ by some perspective, e.g., families, economics. Much of the current material is redundant. When I started, I was hoping to find a snapshot of the current debate, at least as it pertains to the United States. Instead I found bits and pieces spread out in multiple articles. It seems to me like a prime candidate for a new article. The same-sex marriage article (136K) is already turning into a very long list so I worry about adding any more to it. --beefyt (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian aristocracy

Does Sumer have landlords? Also, do the landlords live in the central city? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not now. Assyriously though, according to "God and King in Sumeria", "the temples owned vast tracts of land, profiting as landlords from the rents paid to them by farmers." The later Assyrians had landlord-tenant laws, and "the landlord of a pub is written as lú" by the Akkadians. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Revere;s actual words regarding the British regulars being out (on the night of his famous ride.

I would like confirmation of what I was told by a Massachusets Park ranger, to wit, that Revere actually called out on his unfinished ride that "The Regulars are out!" This distinction would give credence to the notion that we Americans still kept somewhat in mind that we were (technically) British and/or perhaps distinguished between the British "Regulars" and other British forces. Along the same line, I would like to know when we Americans spoke with an accent that distinguished our speech from British accents. This would most likely be sometime after 1812 and the impressment of American seamen by British naval forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.6.54 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article (Paul Revere), what he said was "The Regulars are coming out." Tevildo (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the American accent hasn't changed much since that time - it's the British pronunciations that've changed. Around 1776, lower-class Brits and lower-class Americans (ie most people) spoke pretty much the same, but with time more and more Brits adopted the different, upper-class accent. There's more discussion of this here. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very silly article. American accents have changed in some respects, British accents in others. Unless you think Scots, Welsh, Irish and northern English sound 'American', the fact that rhotic accents were then more common in southern England does not mean that they sounded 'American' either. Henry ^Flower 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Colonist considered themselves British for a very long time... arguably many did up til around the time of Independence. They considered themselves "American" too, but that doesn't have the same meaning it does now in their context. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: it's surprising how much it varies in the U.S. Near the coastline in the East, there are lots of people who don't seem to pronounce "r" in anything. But go a few hundred miles inland and you'll find something very different, even pockets of people who still pronounce "warsh" with an r, something 'rhotic' speakers don't even do. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been a lot of variation in English accents. There was almost certainly even more variation among English accents (by which I mean the accents of England) 200 or 300 years ago than there is now. English accents have tended to become more similar since the early 20th century due mainly to radio and television but also to greater labor mobility and the effects of the world wars in moving people around and exposing them to different accents. In effect, the speech of London has increasingly dominated English speech, though areas outside Southeast England maintain (decreasingly) distinct regional variants. The same process has happened in the United States, with General American, a Midwestern-derived variety, gaining ground against regional variants. The American colonies were settled by people from different parts of England, as well as lots of people from what is now Northern Ireland and smaller numbers from Scotland, Wales, and the rest of Ireland. Some American colonies were mainly settled by people from a particular part of the British Isles and hence had similar accents to those parts of the British Isles. For example, eastern New England was settled mainly by people from East Anglia, where non-rhotic speech probably predated the arrival of the Puritans in the 1630s. As a result, eastern New Englanders probably already had an early precursor of the Boston and Maine accents at the time of the Revolution. Coastal parts of the South may have adopted the speech of upper middle class London, which was probably also non-rhotic by the 18th century. By contrast, the interior of New England and most other American colonies were settled mainly by people from the West Country of England and by people from what is now Northern Ireland speaking Ulster Scots dialects. The result was a hybrid accent combining elements of West Country speech and Ulster Scots that later evolved toward General American. Now, the people of New England had been separated from their East Anglian cousins for some six generations by the time of the Revolution, so it is likely that they would have sounded odd to each other, but more similar to each other than to other English speakers. A speaker of a rhotic variety of English might not have been able to distinguish an eastern New Englander from an East Anglian or a Tidewater Virginian planter from a well-to-do Londoner. On the other hand, the hybrid West Country-Ulster accent of the American interior might well have been distinctive even by the late 18th-century. Here is a source supporting much of the above. Marco polo (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]