Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 12

= July 12 =

Mayans and Long Count
I have 2 related questions:

1. How long did the Mayans think a year was? I know they at least got it accurate to 1 day, since their secular calendar has a 360-day cycle + 5 extra days. Some people claim that they knew the difference between a year and 365 days, but I've never seen supporting evidence to back that up.

2. How does the baktun numbering work? Our Mesoamerican Long Count calendar article claims that creation happened on 13.0.0.0.0, followed a few hundred years later by 1.0.0.0.0. This makes me think the cycle starts at 13 and proceeds to 1 (why does it not start at 0?). However, the same article gives the Long Count date for Mar 26, 2407 as 14.0.0.0.0, implying there's more than 13 baktuns. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Mayan mythology consists of multiple creations, and the Long Count calendar was reset with each creation. The Baktun numbering, like every other Long Count unit except the "Winal" (the second digit) is base-20 (the Winal, unlike the others, turns over at a count of 18). --Carnildo (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Co-Monarchs who were twins or triplets
What are some famous co-reigning monarchs who were twins or triplets other than Romulus and Remus and Procles and Eurysthenes?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Johnny and Luther Htoo?... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Amphion and Zethus.
 * Agamemnon and Menelaus are described as twins in the Oresteia.
 * Takalik Abaj Altar 8 (or Monument 5; the text isn't clear) depicts twin kings (unnamed?) per The Rough Guide to Guatemala.
 * Traditionally, Ezana of Axum and his brother Saizana were twin kings. source
 * Ybor and Aio, kings of the Longobards. source 174.88.9.124 (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Trademarks - Acquired distinctiveness
Can anyone give a good example (preferably one that would be internationally recongised) of a trademark which has been registered due to acquired distinctiveness? There are plenty of examples going the other way (Asprin, Escalator), but neither our trademark distinctiveness article or the reference books I have give an example of a mark that has gone from generic to distinctive. MChesterMC (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of "Zero" to describe Coke's low-calorie soft drinks - discussed in this blog. "Windows" for software is widely given as a (slightly dubious) example; "Singer" for sewing machines became genericised, but has since been reclaimed on the grounds of acquired distinctiveness. Warofdreams talk 11:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Under CJEU jurisprudence, a colour, though capable of being a "sign", (almost) never has inherent distinctiveness. Therefore colours are only registrable if they acquire distinctiveness through use. So the colour orange for telecommunications services might become a registrable trade mark through acquired distinctiveness. A recent case where acquired distinctiveness for a colour was upheld was with respect to Cadbury's purple, though only to a limited type of product: see Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

White genocide
White Europeans globally are seeing falling birth rates and greater good incidence of race mixing, is there a conspiracy through immigration, promoting miscegenetion and anti-racism to dilute and wipe out the white race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.175.94 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the non politically correct answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.44.175.94 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Shhh ... it's supposed to be a secret conspiracy. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I heard it from a cab driver. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you sure he was just a cab driver? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Pomeranian architecture


In the context of the USA, what is Pomeranian architecture? The pictured house is an example of the style (according to the NR database), but I don't see what makes it different from other Greek Revival houses. I have a little offline documentation, but none of it mentions anything about being Pomeranian. It's not simply a mistake in this house's entry, because Pomeranian architecture apparently exists in Wisconsin, but I don't know anything more. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look around Google and only found John D. Krugler, Creating Old World Wisconsin: The Struggle to Build an Outdoor History Museum which says that the style was brought to Wisconsin in the mid-19th century by German migrants (page 29). I have posted a link to your question on the talk page at WikiProject Architecture and hopefully somebody who knows what they're talking about may follow it up. Alansplodge (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a chapter in a book at Google books that is about Pomeranian architecture. Perhaps that would help. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down you'll see a blue link to page 936 in the book. That is the beginning of the chapter. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read it, and I'm left thinking that it's basically an Allemanic style of heavy brick construction, and in this case seemingly it represents that heavy brick construction style's influence on the vernacular Greek Revival of rural southeastern Ohio. Do you read it that way or some other way?  Thanks!  Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Palatinate
The article Electoral Palatinate describes the area as a Palatinate, but unfortunately that latter article only discusses the palatinates of England. What was so distinctive about the government of that area within the Empire that singled it out for its distinctive name? Was the Count Palatine more independent than his fellow Electors such as the Duke of Saxony or the Margrave of Brandenburg? Rojomoke (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Originally, counts palatine had a special relationship with the Holy Roman emperor, though when the title became hereditary, it became no more than a title and no longer indicated such a relationship. The title did imply a higher rank than an ordinary count. However, the count palatine (of the Rhine) who happened to be an elector had no more power or status in the Holy Roman Empire's electoral college or the empire than other electors.  Marco polo (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the article Electoral Palatinate describes the area as a palatinate (linked to County palatine), whereas your question links palatinate to Palatinate itself. There is also a detailed explanation given in Count palatine. The importance of the Counts palatine of the Rhine is based on their office of Imperial vicar. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't ware of the vicarate, which renders my earlier answer partly incorrect and therefore confusing, so I've deleted it. My apologies. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical Territorial Purchases
Which other cases have there been of one country purchasing territory from another country besides the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska Purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of the Danish West Indies by the United States of America? I am only talking about cases where one country sold land to another without being heavily pressured or forced by this other country to sell this land (thus, the Mexican Cession and similar territorial purchases are excluded, since force and/or coercion was involved from the side of the country who bought this territory in order to get the opportunity to buy this territory in the first place). Is there a specific Wikipedia article about this, and if not, have there ever been any other similar territorial purchases? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a cash-for-land exchange, or merely other forms of peaceful land exchanges, such as territory swaps? 1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange involved an exchange in kind (land-for-land) between the two countries.  -- Jayron  32  21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean a cash-for-land territorial exchange. Futurist110 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See German–Spanish Treaty (1899). Germany bought the Caroline Islands and Northern Mariana Islands. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Danish Gold Coast was sold to the UK and the Danish West Indies were sold to the U.S. -- Jayron  32  00:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have already mentioned the Danish West Indies in my original post here. Also, I managed to find this Wikipedia Category -- Category:Treaties involving territorial changes, where I found the Treaty of Petropolis. The Treaty of Petropolis is sort of what I was talking about here, in the sense that while it did contain a land swap, this land swap was extremely disproportionate (Brazil gained 60 times more territory than it lost) and Brazil also paid some money to Bolivia in exchange for acquiring this new territory. Are there any other examples which are not mentioned in this Wikipedia Category? Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Does Manhattan count? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If one country bought it (via cash) from another country, then Yes, it counts. Futurist110 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lenape Indians (that's who I thought "sold" Manhattan but Wikipedia says unnamed American Indian people) can't be really be considered a country in the modern sense and they didn't sell the land only the right to use it and not even exclusively at that. I think the concept of a peaceful, non-coerced sale of land by a nation was a rarity in history (most countries were scrambling to defend or expand their territories not give it away) and the Louisiana Purchase might just be an unprecedented event. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why can they not "really be considered a country in the modern sense"? This is what I'm tired of hearing.  You know nothing of which you speak. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By the early 1600s, the Pope and the kings of France and England had all passed "laws" agreeing that nothing in America could be considered a "nation" because they were not ruled by "any Christian prince" and all of the territory was therefore up for grabs to the first Christian prince who could seize it. It would seem such attitudes die hard. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many examples like the Treaty of Lancaster (1744) where the Haudenashonee Six Nations sold the Shenandoah Valley to the Virginia Colony in exchange for money. For some of the treaties, however, clear pressure was exerted, so they may be excluded by your original question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously a disjointed tribal unit isn't a constitutional state that can negotiate on an equal footing with other nations. The Iroquois League were united by the 1600s unlike the Lenape and some other Native Americans who were divided and had no form of government above the village level. I don't mean to sound imperialistic. Of course there modern descendant have organized into nations (within nation) but in the 1600s they were as much a country as the Pintupi Nine are today. During the time of the Manhattan purchase the natives in North America had no conception of selling or owning land (they recognized individual tribes' right to use the land but not exclusive ownership) but I guess they were forced to recognize such a practice by the time of the Treaty of Lancaster. You are comparing an event occurring during early contact and an event around 140 later.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not comparing the Treaty of Lancaster to anything, I mentioned it to answer the OP question. But it's a myth that you just stated (ugh, yet again) that the Natives had no conception of selling land. They all recognized tribal boundaries, they all expected to be paid for land given up to whites from the beginning, and they all had their own rulers, laws, and warriors. The main reason they were not considered sovereign "nations" by Europeans in the early 1600s would be the laws by the Pope and kings of France and England that I just mentioned above. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. It is a really controversial topic, the whole concept of the Native Americans and their relation to the land, but it is definitely more than just a myth. I read in Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History by Ted Steinberg, the argument for a different attitude to land ownership that the Natives understood what it means to have the right to use land and its resources while Europeans believed in the sole ownership of the land itself, a legacy of John Locke and Christian attitude toward nature. But do you agree no payment process existed before the whites came?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain no payment process existed, but I will have to rack my memory of early accounts to see if I can come up with a case of any evidence for that. It's true that land was more usually transferred between tribes during that period by conquest or simply migrating into unused land, but it's not impossible that a friendly transfer might be alluded to somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it existed at all, it would have been a very marginal occurrence. The Native Americans' concept of land ownership was quite different from that of the Europeans. Even among the Europeans themselves, the notion was comparatively new, since exchange-based means of land transfer didn't really take off until the Late Middle Ages. The notion that arable land is something that could be bought and sold in the same manner as bushels of wheat or pounds of cheese would have been an alien notion to the typical European at the time of Columbus' contact with America. See and . Gabbe (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Something to keep in mind is that the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase (and probably the Gadsden Purchase, I'm not sure) were not simple "cash-for-land" exchanges. In both cases the vast majority of the land was controlled by Native Americans/First Nations, and much was not even explored by the imperial/colonial powers. It is better to think of these not as purchases of land so much as purchases of the claim to the land, as recognized by other imperial/colonial powers—along with the few actual colonial settlements (New Orleans, Sitka, etc). You sometimes hear things like "the United States acquired the vast land of the Louisiana Purchase for four cents an acre", which implies that after paying France the US owned all that land and could do with it as it pleased. In reality the United States recognized that most of the land belonged to the Indians living on it. The "Indian titles" were "extinguished" bit by bit, usually by a treaty process that at least pretended to treat the Indians as sovereign nations, and often involving paying much more than four cents per acre (though still far less than most of the land's "market value" and too often in the aftermath of violent conflicts). In other words, under European/US international law at the time, what the US really purchased from France was not "land" but the recognition by the other imperial powers that the US had the sole right to treaty with the Indians in Louisiana Territory. In Alaska the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 extinguished aboriginal title claims. Most of Alaska was still under native title claims, which the US purchased for $962.5 million, among other things in the treaty (a lot more than the $7.2 million paid to Russia in 1867, even adjusting for inflation).


 * People often argue that when Native Americans sold land, which they did in hundreds of the treaties, the process was different from European (and US) powers selling/buying territory, and/or that the natives did not understand what they were agreeing to. Apart from a few exceptional or early cases, by and large Native Americans were very much aware of what they were doing—what they were giving up and what they were getting. Sometimes Native American treaties became the basis for European territorial claims. The Two Row Wampum Treaty between the Iroquois and Dutch established the basis for the vast territorial claims of the Iroquois—with the Iroquois claims being similar to the European imperial claims: "within this territory we have sovereignty over whoever lives there, natives and Europeans alike".


 * Finally, as Gabbe pointed out, the concept of owning land outright, fee simple, was alien to Europeans well into the colonial era. In New Spain and New France there was little or no fee simple land ownership. Even in the English colonies old feudal systems remained in place for a long time, such as quit-rent in Virginia. Anyway, in short, this topic is complicated. Pfly (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All that said, if you want another example of territorial purchases between imperial powers similar to the Louisiana Purchase, the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819 might be one. Spain sold Florida to the US, although under some duress, and a much larger territory: Spain sold the US all its imperial claims north of California—a huge area including the Oregon Country and Alaska. Until this treaty Spain had always claimed all of western North America. You might argue that this claim was rather empty, since much of the region had never even been explored by Europeans, but you could say the same about the Louisiana Purchase. And by 1819 the whole coastal zone was well known and a good portion of the interior was being explored. You could also argue that the claim was not very strong due to de facto Russian control of southern Alaska and British control of some of the interior and parts of the coast. Nevertheless, Spain had done its best to reinforce its claims, conducting "possession ceremonies" as far north as Unalaska, and the US used its purchase of Spanish claims to establish its own claim to the Oregon Country, north all the way to 54°40′N latitude (north of which the US and Russia had come to an agreement) and east to the continental divide, despite having almost no control or even knowledge of most of the territory. The US acted as if it had purchased all that territory, just like they had purchased Louisiana, at least until making a compromise with Britain. Pfly (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)