Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 29

Where are the other 10%

I was reading an article the other day (link: scroll down to Advanced Stone Age Tools https://www.rd.com/list/weirdest-archaeological-discoveries/) and it said "More than 90 percent of modern humans descend from a small population of Homo sapiens that left Africa about 60,000 years ago, according to genetic evidence.: Where did the other 10% come from? 70.26.18.194 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Early human migrations#Dispersal throughout Africa, "130,000 years ago, there were two ancestral population clusters in Africa, bearers of mt-DNA haplogroup L0 in southern Africa, ancestral to the Khoi-San, and bearers of haplogroup L1-6 in central/eastern Africa, ancestral to everyone else." I doubt that the Khoi-San amount to 10%, so it probably means that some of the latter group left Africa earlier or later. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Or some of the latter group never left Africa. The migration wave supposed to have taken place about 60,000 years ago probably corresponds to the Southern Dispersal hypothesis, corresponding to haplogroup L3.  --Lambiam 10:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Khoi-San don't have to amount to 10%. They just have to amount to less than 10%. "More than 90%" is just as true if the percentage is actually 99.999% as it is if it is 90.001%. --Khajidha (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

True maybe, but it's so unlikely to be the intention of that phrasing. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading the article I understand that the other 10 percent are all humans who didn't leave Africa in this particular migration, that is 1) all humans who never left Africa plus 2) all humans that left Africa before and after this particular migration, and hypothetically 3) all humans who did't originate in Africa at all. The point of the article is, what made this particular group of humans, originally a rather small one, so succesful that they became the numerically dominant human population? 2003:F5:6F18:3300:50:7628:18A6:612B (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Marco PB

Currently, Africa is closer to 20% of the human population, but when the article was written it might have been less than 10%. Also, some of the population in Africa (Boers in the south and North African Arabs in the north) were descended from non-African populations so that might decrease it slightly. Thinking from a Y-DNA point of view, the article on Haplogroup F says that it is present in "90% of all non-African lineages", so it also could've just been mis-stated and they meant "90% of humans that don't live in Africa".

And as for why they became successful, it sounds like it's because they found the lands of Eurasia that had previously been populated only by less technologically advanced hominids.RedPanda25 21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think (as I wrote above) the 90% is haplogroup L3.  --Lambiam 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What's going on in this image?

Monkey despot

This picture [1] shows a monkey dressed in ermine holding a small sceptre, with religious figures arguing at his rear, seemingly hiding behind a mask of calm resolve, whilst standing on the book Rights of Man by Thomas Paine and there’s a horned figure placing a jester’s hat on his head and stepping on ‘liberty’ with his cloven hooves. The text on the plinth beneath them reads "The sight of one of the most despicable of God's creatures trampling down the dearest rights of mankind, and crushing with impunity the rising liberty and prosperity of millions, is one of the most melancholy and degrading spectacles in existence...and the miserable would-be despot, and the wretched monkish faction who has urged him into so much perfidy and folly are likely to be driven into merited obscurity." What I'm trying to figure out, is what is being satirised or parodied here. Is it a particular monarch or event? The engraving is by Thomas Landseer and dates from 1828. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.37.129 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Met’s caption refers to a book, “Monkey-Ana,” which is described in this catalogue: “LANDSEER’S Monkeyana, or Men in Miniature, 26 finely executed and humorous engravings, INDIA PROOFS, impl. 4to cl. 18s (pub £2.2s) 1827. A rich book of humour, picturing the vices, follies, and pursuits of man in the most vivid and ludicrous manner.” That doesn’t sound like a political cartoon, or linked to any event in particular. Let’s see what the others turn up. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's from the book 'Monkeyana' thanks, and I know most of the book is just humorous singeries but this seems so full of political and cultural symbolism, I figured it must be referring to something specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.37.129 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Our article on Thomas Landseer describes the images as "satirical etchings of monkeys in human clothing". I see them as allegories. The accompanying text on the pedestal makes clear this image describes one particular vice, instances of which in the real world are not hard to come by, so it does not reference any specific instance. This is the text: "The sight of one of the most despicable of God's creatures trampling down the dearest rights of mankind, and crushing with impunity the rising liberty and prosperity of millions, is one of the most melancholy and degrading spectacles in existence. – and the miserable would-be-despot, and the wretched monkish faction who has urged him into so much perfidy and folly, are likely to be driven into merited obscurity —" One small thing: I think the devil (horns, cloven hooves) is removing the jester's hat while furnishing the would-be-despot with a human(e) mask.  --Lambiam 22:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@95.150.37.129: Please sign your contributions by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end. According to this colourful website it seems that it is Landseer's tribute to Tom Paine in the form of an allegory. As you say, it depicts a typical would-be despot dressed in ermine whose neutral mask has slipped away, revealing a monkey behind. I can't identify the type of sceptre he wields, it seems to have wings rather a cross (King Ottokar's Sceptre?) On the left is Tom Paine himself. I thought he might have been wearing a lion skin, but it's not obvious. I had missed the cloven feet. His prominent nose is similar to the portrait in the WP article That looks very much a liberty cap (the sign of a freed slave in antiquity), transformed into a fool's cap with bells, which Paine is mockingly placing on the monkey's head. He is reaching for the crown which is rightfully Paine's own. A despot often gains his backing from a far-right clerical faction, which is shown in the monk/monkey jabbering pair in the background. As the WP Paine article says, he was ostracised in the US for his ridicule of Christianity. I hunted around for political events around 1826/27, but couldn't find anything specific.

The complete book is here on archive.org. The plate discussed here is very different to most of the others. which are brutal, closely-observed depictions of man's general inhumanity to man (or woman), similar to Gillray or Hogarth. Not even Cupid escapes. The last plate is rather touching, with a quote from King John. MinorProphet (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a guess, but perhaps it represents Napoleon Bonaparte, who used the French Revolution to eventually make himself Emperor of France. Paine, who was vocal in his support of the revolution, also supported Napoleon's overthrow of the French Directory, effectively installing a dictatorship and I believe was not overly critical of the creation of the First Empire. The cartoon might be lampooning the contrast between Paine's proclaimed democratic ideals and his later support for the despot. The monkey's dress does bear some resemblance to Napoleon I on His Imperial Throne. Le bonnet rouge being replaced with a crown would also fit this theory. I'm not sure if the monkey's mask resembles Napoleon's death mask which arrived in Europe in 1822? But perhaps it's just confirmation bias. Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lots of interesting ideas. I can certainly see the similarities to the Ingres painting. Let's face it, there weren't many other dictators around at the time. But the sceptre is all wrong (if indeed it's meant to represent some sort of reality). It reminds me of something very specific and real, but I still can't work out what. The one in the Prussian Crown Jewels is closer. The Revolution was very anti-clerical: Napoleon and the Catholic Church shows Bonaparte's relationship with the papacy, which was fairly negative. However, "Napoleon realized the importance of religion as a means to increase obedience and his power and control over the French." but no ref.

If Paine (if indeed it is him) was initially supportive of Napoléon, why does the monkey have its foot on his book? And why does Paine have a cloven hoof? Paine's occasionally ambivalent relationship with the Revolution and its representatives is discussed in Thomas Paine and the French Revolution (review). Paine remained a Francophile revolutionary. He was far more scathing of William Pitt and George Washington.

Did Bonaparte betray the ideals of the Revolution? Did Paine think so? This is one for the history scholars. Stendhal thought so, as related in Stendhal and the Lesson of Napoleon, but on jstor. Some quotes: "His victories permitted him to indulge his taste for despotic power and the ceremony of Empire, and it is to the tightening grip of absolutism on the national life that the increasing coruption must be attributed. The betrayal of the libertarian ideals of the Revolution and the founding of a dynasty were directly responsible for the moral and intellectual decline both in Napoleon himself and in the national soul." "The lesson that Napoleon's career teaches, then, is that disinterested patriotism and public spirit are incompatible with despotic government, even with a relatively benevolent one." "After more than thirteen years of Napoleonic absolutism, the patriotic enthusiasm of the citizens of 1792-93 was dead." Stendhal prefers Danton as the true revolutionary, of and for the people. But this straying from the topic. MinorProphet (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the sceptre represents a French Imperial Eagle, a clue for the average reader who might not be familiar with the French crown jewels? Although the Revolution was anti-clerical, Napoleon persuaded Pope Pius VII to officiate at the coronation. Napoleon was regarded as the worst kind of villain in Britain in the 1820s, so if you want to rubbish Paine, maybe you could show him fawning to our national bogey-man, who had ridden roughshod over Paine's ideals of libertarianism but still enjoyed his support? Anyway, it was just a suggestion. Alansplodge (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that eagle is pretty much what I was imagining. Impressive work. And look, here is the very object in question - a caricature of Napoléon on St. Helena with almost the exact same sceptre, third image down.[2]. I'm quite satisfied with your explanation as it stands. :>MinorProphet (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This messed up the indentions somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It was the eagle that made me think of Napoleon in the first place. Alas, a search for somebody better qualified to agree with me has failed. This website only describes the monkey as "the Majesty". Alansplodge (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we can probably cobble together a fairly complete and concise explanation for the OP. But is Paine removing the Fool's cap from Napoléon's head or putting it on? Is he merely indicating the crown, or making a grab for it? He seems not to be actually touching it. Ingres depicts the wreath only. Although it probably doesn't matter, it's not quite the same crown as in David's The Coronation of Napoleon. Why does Landseer show it? It seems to be relatively central to the dynamics of whole picture. If, as you say, the picture is rubbishing Paine as well as Bonaparte, might it not be the ultimate act of folly for Paine to crown himself? PS I'm just posing awkward questions. It is indeed a particularly complex image, but that's what you get with allegories on the banks of the Nile. >MinorProphet (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Maybe not relevant, but at the The Coronation of Napoleon, there was a story that "Man of Destiny" grew impatient with the pope's prayers, snatched the imperial crown from the papal hands and crowned himself (he did crown himself, but it was actually pre-arranged). The golden wreath shown in David's painting was worn before the actual crowning. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see an eagle at all: to me the head of the sceptre is a cross paty, such as one might find in any sceptre shop; the irregularity of its outline is a quirk of the hatching. —Tamfang (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tamfang: I can certainly see your point, but I would have said that there is considerable similarity to the sceptre in this cartoon (see above), which is slightly more obviously like an eagle. If (and this is not sure) Landseer is attempting to represent something specific, what else might it be? Is it even Napoleon? If so, why would he be brandishing a cross paty? Just asking. MinorProphet (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: I may be trying to extract meaning out of something that cannot provide it: but in general, if you are demonstrating something in art, the hand is generally turned palm upwards or outwards. If you are hoping to acquire or take something, the palm is downwards, as in Landseer's image. If I can continue to pick your brains, why is Paine making a grab for the crown, which I suggest is the focal point of the image? Is Landseer just re-hashing the mythology of the coronation ceremony, or is he making a specific point, perhaps hidden from us? Is the artist perhaps suggesting that Paine (and his book) is an even greater menace than Napoleon, by making a grab for the crown? It is not at all certain what is intended, it seems to depend on whether he is placing or removing the fool's cap. I am genuinely interested, but as you say there are few other commentaries about this image. WP:OR beckons. MinorProphet (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My assumption was that Paine was in the process of replacing the revolutionary cap with the crown, but the suggestion that it's a fool's cap now seems more likely. Or perhaps it's both - I really don't know. Somebody better qualified might be able to break the code. I fully admit that my interpretation might be completely wrong. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia never join SEATO?

A map of the various blocs during the Cold War in 1980.

Why did Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia never join the SEATO alliance? Also, is there any anti-Communist alliance that any of these countries ever actually did join? Futurist110 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia under Sukarno hosted the famous Bandung Conference and was quasi-aligned with communist China, so there was no real chance that it would join. By the way, the "SEATO" article says that it was a failure among U.S.-led regional pacts, but the one which was really a failure was CENTO. CENTO's failures left SEATO's failures in the dust... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Why didn't Suharto's Indonesia join SEATO? Futurist110 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Suharto was more pro-Western and anti-Communist than Sukarno was, after all–no? Futurist110 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And, a different decade. The expansion of the Vietnam War made it more attractive to unite than to continue confronting neighbors. .DOR (HK) (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't unity best be achieved in part through a (multinational) military alliance, though? I mean, think of the European Economic Community (which later became the European Union) and NATO; a lot of countries were involved in both projects. Futurist110 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that Suharto didn't join SEATO because by that time (late 1960s) doing so would have been interpreted as supporting the U.S. role in the Vietnam War. NATO arose out of particular circumstances in Western Europe, which didn't necessarily translate to other regions of the world (as the U.S. found out the hard way). Indonesia under Suharto was a founding member of ASEAN... AnonMoos (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I'm well-aware of ASEAN. I do wonder, though‐did Japan, South Korea, and/or Taiwan ever sign a formal treaty of alliance with the United States of America, either during the Cold War or after the end of the Cold War? Futurist110 (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, interestingly enough, the map on the right here shows Indonesia as being a part of the US-led bloc during the Cold War in 1980. Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Indonesia fought a rather nasty war against Britain and the Commonwealth until 1966, so perhaps the prospect of immediately jumping into bed with them was beyond the political pale. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Being overall western-economically-aligned and generally anti-communist is a different thing from specifically actively supporting the U.S. in the Vietnam War. Also, Indonesia has remained a member of the Non-Aligned Movement down to the present (though the NAM has declined over the decades, starting from when it was not too choosy about admitting members such as Cuba which were definitely "aligned" -- today the NAM is just another "G" grouping, such as the G20, G77 etc, and not the most influential one). AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Handkerchiefs marked with hair

George Eliot's Scenes of Clerical Life mentions of one character: "It seemed an alarming fact that his handkerchiefs were beautifully marked with hair, until she reflected that he had an unmarried sister of whom he spoke with much affection as his father's companion and comforter." Does anyone know what kind of hair were they marked with, and why? Henry^Flower 21:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Miss Eliza Pratt is worried that the curate Mr. Tryan is interested in another woman. I imagine that in this instance it would have been a lock of his sister's hair, perhaps lovingly and decoratively stitched into the border of his handkerchief for him to remember her by. MinorProphet (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Google found a few other 19th century mentions:

"However, these are the handkerchiefs you have been speaking of? - I believe they are... Look at the marking, you can tell; are they marked with hair? — They appear to be. Do they seem in every respect, except being more yellow, to be the same handkerchiefs?" Proceedings upon the trial of the action brought by M. E. Smith (1846) p. 218.

"Mrs. Brant affirmed on her honour that no white handkerchiefs marked with hair had ever by any chance come into her wash-tub". All for the Best: A Story of Quiet Life (1861) p. 69.

"The object of Lord Rosemont's return return to the chapel was a handkerchief which he valued highly... Jessica had marked for him with her own jet black hair... while she was at school in Paris, that Jessica having recently acquired the art of embroidering and marking in hair, had agreed to mark these handkerchiefs as a present for her guardian". The Australian Journal: Volume 30 (1895) p. 421

"I find the answer to this in a queer little collection in an old family cabinet. It seems to have been formerly the custom (besides making watch-chains and horrible little "ornaments" out of human hair, and marking handkerchiefs)..." The Agricultural Gazette and Modern Farming, Volume 92 (1920) p. 517

Finally, the The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a 19th century British handkerchief which it describes as being made from " Silk and possibly animal hair", although human hair seems a possibility. Alansplodge (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

One more; "...an especially sentimental girl would use strands of her long hair to mark handkerchiefs for her sweetheart, as Daisy did for Nat in Jo's Boys". [5] Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both! That does sound quite bizarre to my 21st century ears; I'd love to see something like the Met hankie which is definitely human. Henry^Flower 14:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Handkerchief, North America or Western Europe, mid-19th century. Silk dimity, human hair embroidery. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks! The best I could find was this one, but it doesn't specify the origin of the hair. Henry^Flower 15:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Embroidered hair. MinorProphet (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)