Humanities desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2[edit]

Were the ancient Egyptians Coptic[edit]

Were they?`Venustar84 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See Copts, Coptic identity, and Pharaonism. The best answer is probably something like "No according to most scholars, Yes according to certain nationalists". Tevildo (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a matter of definition. There was considerable continuity between the different periods, but in modern usage the word "Coptic" usually refers to those who wrote the Egyptian language in a variant of the Greek alphabet, while those who wrote the Egyptian language in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts are not called "Coptic"... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Coptic language is "grammatically closely akin to Late Egyptian, which was written in the Hieroglyphic script" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one language is a later version of the other -- and the transition point between the two is usually taken to be the adoption of a slightly expanded Greek alphabet; this resulted in a radically simplified writing system which ignored many archaic relics of hieroglyphic/hieratic/demotic script, and caused vowel sounds to be fully written for the first time (whereas hieroglyphic/hieratic/demotic script had almost completely ignored vowels)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a language, Coptic is a later development of the language spoken by the ancient Egyptians. As a people, Coptic anda non-Coptic Egyptians of today are both the descendants of ancient Egyptians - one group (the majority) accepted Islam and took to speaking Arabic, the others didn't. PiCo (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Muslim conquest of Egypt and Islamization of Egypt. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'Copt' is derived from the Ancient Egyptian word for Egypt, which was 'kmt' (vowels not wrtten), so yes, in a sense, all of them were Coptic. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cities not connected to transportation network[edit]

I can think of obvious cases (cites in Hawaii, Vancouver Island, Newfoundland) but are there any major cities in North America (or the rest of the world) not connected to a physical transportation grid, ie. no paved, year-round roads? I'll accept rail-only or seasonal roads if it's all we've got. Both "major" and size of region that are unconnected are up to you, I suppose: I can't think of a way to be more specific. Continents and islands without bridges are obviously out, though. Mingmingla (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess not. Since the development of railroads, it's been extremely hard for a new major city to develop without rail connexions, existing major cities without rail connexions have often languished, and the same has become true of road networks in the last century. Even smaller regional centers in some of the remotest parts of Russia, e.g. Magadan, are connected to the national road network. In North America, the biggest unconnected places are probably remote spots in the far north; only three Alaska cities on the mainland (i.e. excluding ones on islands without bridges) the largest Alaska cities not connected to the rest of the network are Barrow (population 4,212 in 2010), Bethel (6,080 in 2010), and Ketchikan (8,050 in 2010). Even the capital of Juneau, with no roads, has car-ferry service. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, never mind on the Russia bit. Norilsk (population 175,000 in 2010) in the far northern Krasnoyarsk Krai apparently has no road connexions (Google Maps claims that you can't even drive to the nearby city of Dudinka, c. 100km away), so it looks like most of its surface transportation consists of rail service to Dudinka, followed by shipping upriver to road-connected and rail-connected ports such as Yeniseysk and the capital, Krasnoyarsk. Can't imagine what they do in winter, though. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend -- for much of the Soviet period, the road network outside cities was notoriously underdeveloped even in parts of western Russia, since railways were used whenever possible. See M10 highway (Russia) connecting the two main cities of Russia (Moscow and Leningrad) -- "Other than in the vicinity of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the M10 is basically a two-lane highway (one lane for each direction)". What westerners would call a real highway or motorway was just recently being built between the two cities: Moscow-Saint Petersburg motorway... AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I brought in Russia as an extreme example, since Mingmingla was asking about road connexions, not limited-access-four-lane-highway connexions, but I'm still surprised about Norilsk. Anyway, he was primarily interested in North America; I only gave Alaska because I couldn't answer for northern Canada. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With Juneau being a ferry and not a fixed link, it fits what I'm curious about. I guess it's unlikely that there are any others, but if anybodies has any others... Mingmingla (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't count ferry links, then there are other mainland settlements in Alaska and Northern Canada which are inaccessible by road from the North American transportation network, some only at various times of the year, and others always. You note Juneau, but several settlements along the Alaska panhandle also are just as inaccessible. Tuktoyaktuk can only be reached by road in winter, when the Tuktoyaktuk Winter Road freezes over allowing vehicles to cross the ice; there are other similar settlements in arctic Canada. IIRC, Carova Beach, North Carolina can only be reached by driving some distance down the beach sand from the end of North Carolina Highway 12 in Corolla, North Carolina. There are some small settlements in northern Maine which I know can only be accessed by unpaved private roads, some of which are closed in winter. As a random bit of trivia, I think that Lynchburg, Virginia is the largest city in the lower 48 states which is not serviced by the Interstate Highway System, though of course it is connected to the road network via US Highways, State Highways, and other roads. --Jayron 32 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it qualifies or not but Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, has no road or rail service. The place has a population of just under 7,000 but is legally a city. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, but the largest city int he United States unserved by the interstates is usually considered to be Bakersfield, with a population of 348,000 to Lynchburg's 72,000. 71.194.214.138 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. While the urban core does not have an interstate running through it, Interstate 5 passes within 6-8 miles of the center of Bakersfield, and the city limits of Bakersfield do encompass a tiny sliver of Interstate 5. It is clearly "served" by an interstate, though one doesn't run through the dead center of the city. See [1]. Lynchburg, on the other hand, is some 30-40 miles from the nearest Interstate. See [2] No city as large as Lynchburg is as far from an interstate. Indeed, no city as large is farther than probably 10 miles from one. --Jayron 32 23:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I had a bit of a brain fart. While I said Bakersfield, I meant Fresno. Population 509,000 and about 50 miles from I-5. 71.194.214.138 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuktoyaktuk is getting an all weather highway. They started construction in 2013. That leaves Paulatuk, Sachs Harbour and Ulukhaktok in the Northwest Territories, Old Crow, Yukon and every town in Nunavut without road/rail service. But of course they are all really small with Rankin Inlet (2,577) being the largest. There would still be quite a few fly in communities in the south, that is the bit south of the 60th parallel north but still in Canada. Several of the northern parts of the Provinces and territories of Canada will have fly in villages. Does the Cape Breton Regional Municipality count as it is only connected by the Canso Causeway? Other places in North America include the French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. They have ferry service to Fortune, Newfoundland and Labrador and two airports which don't provide service to France directly but via Canada. The other place is Greenland. There are no roads connecting communities. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was discounting Islands for obvious reasons, else places like Victoria, British Columbia would qualify: there is no bridge connection between Vancouver Island and the Mainland. There are dozens of such Islands in the U.S., which are populated but inaccessible by cars (Mackinac Island, Ocracoke Island, the Isles of Shoals, the Elizabeth Islands, Santa Catalina and the other Channel Islands of California, the entire Aleutian Islands chain, Kodiak Island in Alaska, etc.) excepting those cars brought to the island by boat. --Jayron 32 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natashquan, on the north shore of the Gulf of Saint-Lawrence used to be unconnected by road until 1996, when highway 138 was completed. Harrington Harbour is still unconnected by road; it's on an island just off the shore, but there is no road on the shore either. There are a few towns up the coast of Labrador which are also only reachable by ship or air. Davis Inlet is a famous case. --Xuxl (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moosonee, Ontario. Rail-only, even though it's south of London, England. Hayttom 06:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Triple portals in Gothic architecture[edit]

Is there an official term for a three-portal Gothic church entrance? I'm talking about something like the entrance to Notre-Dame de Paris, pictured here, although I couldn't find anything in that article (or elsewhere) giving a term for such a structure, as opposed to a single entrance, a three-portal entrance of another style, etc. Nyttend (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over a couple of relevant books on medieval architecture, I can't find anything more specific than "triple portal". It's regularly mentioned as a highly standard feature of French gothic architecture, so if there were a more technical term for it, I guess those books would have mentioned it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; it's good to know that I'm not omitting a standard term. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Global History of Architecture by Mark M. Jarzombek, Vikramaditya Prakash says of Abbot Suger who reconstructed the Basilica of St Denis in the early 12th century; "He also redesigned the cathedral's facade, introducing a triple portal that served as symbol of the Trinity". Just in case you wondered why they didn't have two or four doors... Alansplodge (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Louis of Luxembourg[edit]

Why was the marriage of Prince Louis of Luxembourg considered morganatic? It seems kind of outdated to considered a marriage morganatic especially in a current monarchy considering that both his mother, one of his sister in law and both his aunts were not even nobles much less royal prior to their marriage and thus would have been morganatic spouses. It seems like he did renounce his succession rights before his marriage and also the marriage was planned after the couple's first son was born out of wedlock. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything specific online, but it seems that the royal household of Luxembourg has since come around to your way of thinking, because "On Luxembourg’s National Day in 2009, Grand Duke Henri granted Tessy the title of Princess of Luxembourg with the style of Her Royal Highness, and raised their children to Prince of Nassau, also with the style of Royal Highness." if this source is to be believed. I suspect that because their first child was born out of wedlock, it was easier for them to forgo their titles than face a battle with traditionalists, it being a Catholic country n'all. Anyway, all's well that ends well. Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm Prince Jean of Luxembourg did the same thing (including the first child born out of wedlock thing albeit a girl instead of a boy), longer ago but not that long ago. From what I can tell, despite gaining a title, they never regained their place in the Line of succession to the throne of Luxembourg. I wonder if having the children the initial heirs of the next generation, even if likely to be overtaken by the children of Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg or if he had none Prince Félix of Luxembourg (as has happened now albeit not under the old law). Particularly since neither were even married at the time. Beyond the Catholic thing, there also seems to be some expectation the spouse gets the nod of approval first with royals. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Egyptians[edit]

Are any of the modern Egyptians descended from the ancients? Venustar84 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Our Population history of Egypt article says: "Blood typing and DNA sampling on ancient Egyptian mummies is scant; however, blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to modern Egyptians. This is indicative of the fact that despite ancient Egypt being ruled by foreign powers in different stages, the genesis of the peoples remained largely un-altered". It is a contentious issue though, and this article explains why. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asking questions like this. I suggest you do some research on descent. However, to answer your question: It is statistically virtually certain that every modern Egyptian is descended from every person living during the reign of Tutankhamun (for example) who had any descendants beyond the second generation. Consider: a person born today has two parents. A generation previously - let's conservatively say 33 years - the person born today has four ancestors - their grandparents. Another 33 years, and that doubles again to 8 ancestors. And 100 years ago sees the birth of 16 ancestors of a person born today. At a rate of 16-fold increase per century, a person born today would be expected to have 16^10 ancestors at 1015 AD, 16^20 at the time of the death of Augustus, 16^30 in about 985 BC, and 2x16^33 at the time of Tutankhamun. But there were only less than 50 million people (somewhat more than 16^6) in the whole world in those days. So barring impossibilities (like a member of an uncontacted Amazon tribe being descended from an indigenous Australian), everyone now alive is descended from everyone alive during King Tut's reign who has descendants at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every single modern Egyptian also descends from ultra-ancient sea worms, themselves with grandparents who came to the New World on meteorites. All genealogies get mighty fishy at a certain depth. The only thing that makes dating Acanthostega spawn worse is knowing (s)he's your actual cousin. Best to just forget our roots every couple of centuries, or we'd all start to feel ancient. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we can't have nice things. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't mean to sound rude, elitist, and generally jerk-like, but a lot of the questions you've been asking could be answered by basic research reading at articles on Wiki. Unfortunately, it makes you look bad asking such simple questions when you could make use of your own research skills. Come on, mate, a little self-reliance can go a long way! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Tevet 5775 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware. Editors have been raked over the coals for telling users to do their own research. And in fact that do-your-own advice could be given to almost anyone who posts a question here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I can take whatever editors throw at me unless it's valid criticism (which would be taken into account instead.) I do appreciate the warning though. I guess a talk page message would be a better way of getting the idea across that he's posting a lot of questionable questions on RefDesk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Tevet 5775 02:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ "I can take anything that's thrown at me except valid criticism!" 212.96.61.236 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of other ref desk editors should definitely be taken to the ref desk talk page whenever possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<admin hat on> If everyone on the ref desk adopted Sir William's admirable attitude, there would be far less dramaz at ref desk talk page or other drama-locations.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the OP hardly constitutes an "admirable" attitude. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I can take whatever editors throw at me unless it's valid criticism (which would be taken into account instead.) I do appreciate the warning though. I guess a talk page message would be a better way of getting the idea across that he's posting a lot of questionable questions on RefDesk. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu all over again. And thus you made the same mistake twice, unless Kristine (Venustar84) is actually a "he". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So "attacking" now includes rebuking? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>Are any of the modern Egyptians descended from the ancients

no, not one. the ancients' children all moved out and have had their mail forwarded. no descendent ever came back. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]