Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 22

= July 22 =

bronze age India
what type of bed and mattress were used in bronze age India (e.g. the Buddhas time)

Thank you!!
 * Those aren't the same periods. The Buddha lived from c. 563 BCE or c. 480 BCE to c. 483 BCE or c. 400 BCE, according to our article.  The Indian Bronze Age ran from about 3000BC to 1000BC.  (Unfortunately, I don't know the answer for either period). 62.172.108.24 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Found this quite difficult to research, but try Manjaa. (No refs or sources.) Perhaps one of the other language wikipedias has more. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is quite a detailed description in the Vinaya texts here. I'm not quite certain when these were written (maybe a few hundred years after the Buddha's time?) but they purport to be contemporary descriptions for his time. Anyway, if this is the time period you mean:
 * The monks initially slept on bare dirt floors, but eventually moved on to grass mats and eventually beds, described as bedsteads made of laths of split bamboo which were raised at least eight inches off the ground as a deterrent to snakebite. The bedframe was criss-crossed with a lattice of string. The mattress is described as stuffed with cotton but pillows were made of skin and stuffed with wool, or cotton cloth, or bark, or grass, or leaves. Sometimes the coverings were cloth, and were coloured with patches of dye. Click through for many more details. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the Bronze Age period, toy beds have been found at Kalibangan. According to this book and this book they had corner posts and the authors speculate the real beds were made of wood with a rope lattice, just like 196.213.35.146's link above. This describes a toy bed with uprights at head and foot. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This site claims they are an ancient furniture style. "Ancient" is a bit vague but there is a ref. See http://www.stringbedco.com/history.html 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

States vs Non-state societies vs something inbetween
I've been looking at our articles on States and Stateless societys. While both articles seem to imply that all societies are one or the other, the actual definitions used seem to leave a large gap for various historic societies that fit neither definition: This seems to me to leave a bit of a gap in definitions: there are a lot of pre-modern societies that had more division of labour, government, etc than the sort of societies described in Stateless society, but which don't meet Weber's definition of a (contempory) state. Of course, as pointed out previously, Weber says his definition didn't apply to past states, but that makes it pretty useless for distinguishing between stateless and "old" state societies. Given that, a) what level of organisation, government, taxation/tribute collection, etc are mark the transition between non-state and state socity, and b) do the respective articles need improving to exlain this? (I'm thinking particularly of the "Types of state" section, which currently only talks about sovereign vs. (con)federated states, but should probably talk also talk about various historic state types, eg. feudal, imperial, city states, etc). Iapetus (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stateless society mostly talks about hunter-gatherer societies with little division of labour, plus a few ancient urbanised civilizations (e.g. Harappan civilization for which no evidence of governments have been found.
 * State (polity) days there is no universally agreed definition of the concept of a state, but says that the most commonly accepted is Max Weber's "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory". (Monopoly on violence explains that a) this means the state is the sole source of the right to the use of force, not necessarily the only entity allowed to use it, and b) doesn't apply to all historic states).


 * Agreed, articles could use development. Probably best outlined on articles' Talk page first. Weber certainly does not have the last word on political anthropology. I've added two references to that article for sources on current scholarly thinking you'll likely find at a nearby academic library:

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Abélès, Marc (2010) "State" in Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, 2nd. ed., London and New York: Routledge, pp. 666-670. ISBN 978-0-415-40978-0 Includes bibliography
 * Sharma, Aradhana and Akhil Gupta (eds.) (2006) The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-1468-4 Includes Weber and rejoinders. Good intro.
 * The OP presents what is commonly called the fallacy of the excluded middle; They ask about a binary, single-axis classification scheme which in reality is neither single-axis, nor binary. The organization of society shouldn't be thought of as either "state" or "non-state", but as series of multi-dimensional continuums that define such matters as who makes decisions for the society, how those decisions are made, how those decisions are enforced, etc. etc.  There's way too much to say there are only two options, and either a group of people is a "state society" or a "non-state society".  I know the OP defines their question with "something in between", but still looks for binary thinking, i.e. looking for a bold line that defines the "transition between state and non-state".  I'm not sure that's a productive way of thinking.  Instead, one might want to look at a continuum between "absolte anarchy" and "absolute control" and have those extremes be asymptotes that define the edges of the continuum: defined edges which are themselves unattainable, and then look to figure out where a society fits on that continuum (also keeping in mind there are dozens of other intersecting continuums to consider) rather than saying "state" or "stateless".  As soon as a group of people has binding decisions made for their future action, they've entered the continuum.  -- Jayron 32 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny, I call that a false dichotomy. Then there's the Law of excluded middle, one of the Three classic laws of thought. I understand this is just terminology, but thought it was funny that the same concept (and name!) is considered a law in some circumstances and a fallacy in others. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken. (When I started writing that question, I don't think I was thinking so binarily, and in fact was probably going to criticise the articles for being too binary.  But I took so long writing it, due to doing other things at the same time that I rather forgot where I was going with it and what my original question was going to be).  Still, the false dichotomy / fallacy of the excluded middle problem seems to be quite ingrained in the articles, with one seeming to treat "stateless society" as a very narrow thing, with everything else being a state, while the other treats "state" as a very narrow thing and (at least by implication) everything else being a stateless society.  Which together leaves a broad continuum of things that they don't agree what to call. Iapetus (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cutting the thumbs of Bengali weavers: reliable source?
Indian politician Shashi Tharoor claims in this "viewpoint" piece that "the British" cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers because they were competing with British industrial textiles: Britain's response was to cut off the thumbs of Bengali weavers, break their looms and impose duties and tariffs on Indian cloth, while flooding India and the world with cheaper fabric from the new satanic steam mills of Britain. You can see that same fellow make the same claim at the Oxford Union here or here (that's 1 minute 58 seconds into the video if no time offset format works for you) only here he claims that "Britain" "smashed" their thumbs and did not cut them. On the other hand WP article Mahua Dabar states: ''By local legend the town was partly settled by Bengali textile workers fleeing British persecution in the 1830s. According to this legend, the East India Company had mutilated the skilled workers by chopping off their thumbs, making them unable to work. However, there is no historical evidence for this event, and most academic historians believe it to be a myth that arose, either by adaptation from the story of Ekalavya in the Mahābhārata, or from a mistaken quotation from a contemporary British source reporting possible self-mutilation by Bengali workers to break their indenture.'' The WP article is only about one town. How about Bengal in general? This source, this source and this source seem to imply this is just a myth. On the other hand this source, this source and this source mention otherwise unspecified "archives at the National Library in Kolkata" that confirm the story is true. On the face of it, the story seems nonsensical especially the way that Indian politician presents it. After all if you can produce cheaper textiles you do not need to maim anyone. The traditional weavers will just go out of business. But then we know how evil and cruel "the British" were, so maybe, who knows, they just liked to cut off thumbs for the hell of it. What is the deal? Are there any reliable sources for that story or not? How about those "archives at the National Library in Kolkata"? Contact Basemetal   here  17:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Gurcharan Singh Bhikhi (Sidki)
Hi there, I'm dealing with a problem article at Gurcharan Singh Bhikhi (Sidki). The article was created by a grandchild of the subject, a Punjabi poet, so there is a bit of a COI issue here. The entirety of the article is unsourced and I'm having trouble finding references that establish the subject's notability and previous attempts to ask WikiProject Sikhism (which I believe is a dead Wikiproject) have not been successful. If anyone can dig up anything of note, that would be sweet. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Japanese consumers
Why do consumers in Japan seem to prefer physical media whether it's books, CDs, blu Rays etc over electronic media such as e books, VOD/music streaming etc? There also seem to be other phenomena which is different to western consumer culture such as the widespread use of fax to this day and also the lack of use of social media by the average consumer. 90.201.189.237 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Complex question for why we cannot answer you question in any meaningful way. You've asked "why does X happen", but you have first not established that X is true.  In other words, everything you say after "why do..." is itself not yet shown to be true, so we cannot answer the why do question until you've first presented evidence that the information that comes after it is true first.  -- Jayron 32 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do I present evidence? Are trustworthy news sources etc ok? 90.201.189.237 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Contact Basemetal   here  21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a number of sources relating to your question: BBC, NY Times, The Guardian, Reuters. Those, some blogs I've read by ESL teachers (which, granted, would fail WP:RS), as well as preparation materials from ESL-teaching companies I applied to present a pretty solid image that while Japan advances new technology, it's not out of neophilia.  If a fax machine made in the Thatcher administration still works, and the people you do business with are likewise using fax machines, there's no reason to throw it out or replace it with something that your business partners might not be using.
 * Purely anecdotal, but some friends of mine have resistance to digital releases for Japanese games because the manufacturers are convinced that it'll only lead to pirating.
 * As for social media, it is present, but focuses more on anonymity. I'd have to dig around for the blogs that explain that (been a few years), but the reasoning I can recall is that most Japanese people know they're not celebrities (...unlike one of my cousin's kids), and anyone who would care to keep up with them like that will either know their online pseudonym or actually see them in person.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Contact Basemetal   here  21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle an answer here is not supposed to be based on our personal speculations but on reliable sources. What difference does it make if the OP posts a source for his statement? Either there is a reliable source to answer his question or there isn't. Or maybe you mean "before I start wasting my time to try and locate sources to answer your question, maybe you should first present evidence that my efforts have any chance of being worthwhile"? Contact Basemetal   here  21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To help the OP's question in a more general sense I will answer "why do some people prefer paper books instead of Digital books?". When reading a paper book there are experiences that you would not obtain from an E-book. Scanning from one page to another, holding the book in your hands, turning each page all provide stimuli to the brain that affects your imagination and overall experience. The culmination of all these micro variables give rise to a macro experience. Some quotes from a Japanese man: E-books lack character, books are not something that you just read words in, They're also a tool to adjust your senses.

When I don’t feel well, I’ll stare at a page for ever before realizing I haven’t absorbed a word. When that happens, I try to understand why. What’s gotten in my way? On the other hand there are books I can take in effortlessly, no matter how awful I’m feeling. Why do those books draw me in? I think it may be a sort of mental tuning. It’s the feeling of the paper against my fingers, that familiar smell of pulp and glue, a momentary stimulation to my brain when I turn each page. These sensations regulate and focus my brain, they make it work better.” Void burn (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The King's step-children
Fast forward to the demise of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession of her son Charles (whatever regnal name he may take).

He has 2 step-children. When was the last time a British monarch had a step-child? I suspect we'd need to go back more than 250 years. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The last British monarch to have a step child I can find was Henry VIII of England, who had a posthumous step child in the person of Mary Seymour, who was the daughter of Catherine Parr from her second marriage. If that counts; I'm not sure that children born after the end of a marriage to one's spouse count as step-children though.  Still looking further back.  -- Jayron 32 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to count that as "step children", the last British monarch to have actual step children (meaning children of their spouse from a prior marriage) was Edward IV of England, who's wife Elizabeth Woodville had two children from her prior marriage to John Grey of Groby; those being Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset (a direct ancestor of Lady Jane Grey) and Richard Grey. -- Jayron 32 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I've never heard of the children of a person's relict or ex-spouse, who were born to their new spouse after the initial person's death or the end of the marriage, referred to as step-children. If you're right about Edward IV, and I suspect you are, that means my initial guesstimate of over 250 years ago was over 50% too short.  Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that Philip_II_of_Spain says that Mary I had a stepson. Her husband Philip had a nine-year-old son from his first marriage when he married Mary. 184.147.131.217 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, Carlos, Prince of Asturias became the stepson of Mary I of England upon her marriage to Philip II in 1556. That's still 450 years ago.  This would be a great pub quiz question: Which opera by Verdi was about the stepson of Bloody Mary?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)