Humanities desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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.

November 4

Early Soviet union republics

I'm trying to figure out what was going on in Central Asia in the 1920s. For example: Khorezm People's Soviet Republic says it was the "Khorezm SSR" on 20 October 1923. This is one of few instances where there was an "SSR" that was not independent, and not a union republic. I don't think it was part of the Russian SFSR, so my question is: Was it a separate republic in the Soviet Union, but not a union republic, so kind of the same relationship a map might give to the difference between a full U.S. state and a territory?

Similar question but possibly more confusing: The Uzbek SSR. Sources agree it was established on 27 October 1924. Sources also agree it became a union republic on 5 December 1924. What was its status for the time in between? Part of the USSR outside the Russian SFSR, but not a union republic? Though now I'm finding a source (Statoids.com) that says it was the Uzbek ASSR for that time, meaning it was still part of the Russian SFSR.

Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are questions of nomenclature and obscure points of Leninist/Trotskyite and local Marxist and nationalist dogma and pragmatics. Can you restate this in one clear singular question, perhaps in separate threads if you want to address separate issues? Otherwise you might need to read several scores of articles to cover the ground you've prospected. You can also specifically address @Soman: our resident expert on such matters. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Khorezm, the Russian-language article is a bit clearer: it was recognized by the Russian SFSR as an independent state on March 4, 1921. On October 30, 1923 it joined the Union as a constituent republic, then on October 27, 1924, it was split between Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the Karakalpakstan autonomous region of the RSFSR. On Uzbekistan, the Russian-language article states that it was formed in 1924 by grouping various bits of territories from elsewhere, but it does not give precise dates, so more research will be needed to answer your question, which is quite clear, by the way. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think this interview with Stalin clarifies the POV of Soviet histiography: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1922/11/18.htm . Khorezm by 1922 was not considered a socialist state, but a nominally independent state which was clearly tied to the Soviet Union. Between the name change to Khorezm SSR in 1923 and the bifurcation into of Khorezm SSR and merger into into Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs in 1924, the Khorezm SSR remained outside of the USSR proper. The national delimitation process was gradual over a few months, so it is not strange that the exact constitutional status of some territories would be in limbo. At no stage did the USSR relinquish territorial claims over Central Asia whilst the Turkestan ASSR transitioned into the Uzbek and Turkmen SSRs. I find some online mentions of a 'Uzbek ASSR', but this seems to be mainly the result of typos. So whilst the Uzbek SSR was founded in 1924, it was recognized a constituent republic of USSR at the Third Congress of Soviets of the USSR held in Moscow, May 13-20, 1925. But I'd consider it as part of the territory of the USSR the the entire period between 27 October 1924 and May 1925, as the area remained under USSR laws and sovereignty (but presumably outside of the RSFSR proper). What changed in May 1925 is that the Uzbek SSR would have gained representation in all-union institutions. --Soman (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This map http://minchanin.esmasoft.com/maps/hist1970/hist10-11.jpg , the bottom right box, should clarify how the borders looked like between RSFSR, Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR as of 27 October 1924. --Soman (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the responses; I may be coming back to you if I continue this project. :) (It's Territorial evolution of the United States, but for the Soviet Union) --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Harrington

Kit Harrington is NOT a descendant of Robert Catesby 1605. There are No descendants from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.28.254 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint about the accuracy of Kit Harington or Robert Catesby, you should discuss it at talk:Kit Harington or talk:Robert Catesby respectively. Or, if you have references supporting your assertions, you can just fix it yourself, as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was unreferenced, so I've added a citation needed tag. Harrington may well be descended from William Catesby? Dbfirs 21:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It IS referenced, in the BBC link in the article.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That website just says "Did you know?". I feel that the claim on the genealogy reference is safer. Dbfirs 21:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Kit Harrington thinks he is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby. Obviously, that don't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the research by TheGenealogist in any way related to what Kit Harrington thinks? Well other then the fact it was perhaps inspired by the public claims. (As said below, I don't quite understand parts of the pedigree and in particular don't quite see how the direct connection is made between the son of Robert Catesby probably Robert, and John Catesby the ancestor of Kit Harrington and nor do I see where the text makes this direct connection, but none of it seems to relate to what Kit Harrington thinks.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, our article on Robert Catesby is still unreferenced in terms of him having any children. I found some non RS which suggest his son who survived birth was Robert who married the daughter of Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot) and Martha Wright, but couldn't find any RS directly commenting on his children. It's possible the RS you added does, I couldn't quite work out parts of it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see Thomas Percy does say "Percy's daughter by Martha may have been betrothed that year to Catesby's eight-year-old son, creating a family connection between the two men" with a ref.Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This item[2] makes contradictory claims about whether Harrington is directly descended or is only a cousin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um but this only has a little to do with whether Robert Catesby had any children. I mean sure, if Harrington is a direct descendant of Robert Catesby then clearly he did, but as I indicated above it would be much better if we can find stuff which directly deals with the children of Robert Catesby for the article on him. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand TheGenealogist pedigree a bit better now, and see it does confirm an only son of Robert Catesby who married a daughter of Thomas Percy. But still don't know if confirms the name of the son. Does the four periods/dots indicate the son was given the same name as his father, or rather that his name is unknown? Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the name of his son has been expunged from that record, as if it was too shameful to mention. I do know a member of staff at the Society of Genealogists, and I will ask her if she can shed any further light on this. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now have this comment from her: " the pedigree shown in the Visitation of Northampton shows that Robert Catesby’s son (name unknown at the time the Visitation was taken in 1618) married the daughter (also name unknown) of fellow conspirator Thomas Percy. I had a quick look at this in office last week but didn’t have time to verify it or follow up if the names have been filled in. Nor can I at present see how the jump from the Suffolk Catesby family (ie Kit’s) which seems to go back to mid 1600s links to the Northamptonshire/Warwickshire families, other than the assertion that all do. Needs further work" --TammyMoet (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little off-topic aside — the name is Harington, with just one r. Everyone who has used it in this discussion has spelled it wrong, except for me, and the only reason I spelled it right is that talk:Kit Harrington came up red. I don't recall that I had ever heard of him before, so it was certainly no merit of mine. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Using trees to conserve archaeological sites

I have been reading about Carl Patsch's methods of conserving the remnants of the Mogorjelo villa rustica. Among other things, he planted a thicket of Mediterranean cypresses, pines and shrubs. The idea was to lower the negative impact of rain (especially rain + insolation) and wind on the newly excavated ruins. Where can I read more about this method? Was it used by anyone else? Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything helpful at the moment, most results that Google threw up are focused on preserving archaeology by removing trees, such as Mapping the risk of damage from tree roots for the conservation of archaeological sites: the case of the Domus Aurea, Rome. I'll have a more thorough look later, unless anybody finds anything in the interim. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(O/R alert) Sorry, I don't have an answer for you, but, as Alansplodge mentioned, trees are usually a problem to be gotten rid of rather than a solution. As the roots delve into the earth, they play havoc with the stratigraphy of the site, whether it's pushing stuff downwards or otherwise just muddying the lines of demarcation between levels. They can also simply destroy the artifacts as well. My supposition would be that the bushes being planted were meant to form a barrier around the site, or at least to not be directly on top of the sensitive areas. Matt Deres (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here I find "Ironically, it is arguable that the soil conditions resulting from compaction, (with impeded root penetration, reduced aeration and drainage), may create conditions that favour the preservation of any deeper buried archaeological remains." Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a thorough report on UK forestry and archaeology, including the damage forestry does to ancient sites. When I did a forestry MSc a whole module was devoted to the topic, as the damage to ancient unscheduled monuments has been extensive, eg in Snowdonia and Dartmoor. To answer your question, section 3.3 of the PDF has some interesting observations. Ericoides (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Alansplodge and Matt Deres, I should have mentioned that Patsch purposely selected species of trees without strong lateral roots. For example, the vast majority of the trees he planted were Italian cypresses, e noted for their non-invasive roots. Most of the trees do indeed form a barrier around the site, but many were planted inside the complex too. Here is an aerial view. Spontaneous vegetation, including invasive tree seedlings, is regularly removed for the very reasons you mentioned.
Ericoides, I found that file myself but did not go past the summary. Thanks for bringing 3.3 to my attention! Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]