Humanities desk
< December 8	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 10 >

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.

December 9

Germanic people nations Roman Catholic and Protestant

I understand that United Kingdom except Northern Ireland is a Protestant nation and same thing with Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway. Germany and Netherlands are half Protestants and Roman Catholics. But what about Germans in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria? Are they all Roman Catholics or some of them are Protestants? What about Dutch people in Belgium? Are they Roman Catholic? Also, I want to know that are Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and Belgium 100% Roman Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.103 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Catholics and Protestants among Swiss German-speakers. Austria and Belgium are predominantly Catholic due to their Habsburg heritage. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are also predominantly Catholic. No nation is 100% Catholic. Every country has minority religions. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except perhaps Vatican City. LANTZY ^TALK 04:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City might be a state, but I hardly think it's a nation. Not that I really buy the concept of "nation", but if I did, I wouldn't count the Holy See. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy See and the Vatican City are different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wouldn't count Vatican City, then. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic/Protestant divide among German-speaking peoples is one of the things that got in the way of uniting Austria with the rest of Germany. There were some efforts to unite them early on (see German Confederation), but ultimately the eventual United Germany excluded the mostly-Catholic Austria (see German question and Unification of Germany). --Jayron32 06:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here ist the distribution of denominations in 1986. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can simply look up each country, they all have a section on their populations' religion, called "religion" under "Demographics"!!. It is really not that hard to search before you ask, as the top of this reference desk page recommends. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein Luxembourg. --Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have slightly oversimplified the issue of religion in the nations you mentioned - all of these countries have significant religious minorities, and religion isn't taken particularly seriously in much of Northern Europe - for example, according to Religion in Sweden, while 70% of Swedes are members of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, only 17% of the population see religion as an important part of their everyday life, and only 2% regularly attend church. The UK is a particularly complicated case, as the largest religious group is Anglicanism, which is frequently not considered to be Protestant (as far as I can tell, there isn't really any consensus among its members). If you don't consider the Church of England to be Protestant, then Northern Ireland has more protestants (relative to its population) than England. Of course, most of these countries have a 'Religion in X' article, if you want more detailed information. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there is an oversimplification here...while some European nations have Established denominations, that does not mean that everyone in that nation must be an adherent of that established religion or denomination. In fact, it doesn't even guarantee that a majority of citizens are adherents of the established religion or denomination. It is quite possible for a nation to have one denomination as its Established Religion, and yet have a majority of its citizens adhere to a completely different denomination... or to no denomination at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Church of England is not Protestant, this is a big problem for the UK monarchy. The Act of Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be a Protestant. The monarch is a member (the Supreme Governor, in fact) of the Church of England, which has always been regarded as satisfying the Act of Settlement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the relationship between CofE and Protestantism is, erm, complicated. Insofar as "Protestant" means, merely, "Christian but not Catholic or Orthodox", then the CofE is "Protestant". Insofar as "Protestant" means "Decended from the teachnings of Martin Luther/John Calvin/et. al.", then the CofE is somewhat less Protestant. Historically, after the tumultuous time under her siblings, Edward VI who was unambiguously Protestant (of the Lutheran type, see Edward_VI_of_England#Reformation) and the Catholic Mary, the Elizabethan Religious Settlement established a particular, unique "branch" of English Christianity. That's why a third term "Anglicanism" exists, and Anglicanism#Anglican_identity discusses some of the complications in considering it a "Protestant" faith of the second kind. Some CofE members would unambiguously describe themselves as "Protestant", while others would not. One cannot describe the CofE as a "Protestant" church in a completely unqualified manner. --Jayron32 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to write well

How can I get good at writing? --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write. The more you write, the better you get. You will also want others to read what you write and tell you everything they find wrong with it. That doesn't mean that you will blindly accept all criticism. But, it allows you to form your own opinions about your writing. (Example: Imagine if Douglas Adams accepted complaints that he tends to go off tangents easily and decided to avoid doing so - he would have become a terrible writer). -- kainaw ™ 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't write at all. The most I've ever gotten is a paragraph before I realize it's all garbage and delete it. --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You left this paragraph which is quite comprehensible, and you even know how to manage Wikipedia templates. If that's not good writing I wouldn't know what is! Joepnl (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unconventional view regarding this: I believe it is impossible to write well without having something to say. Do you have anything to say? Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to learn to write well is to read as much as you can. Books and periodicals, I mean. And not Maxim magazine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree—reading is very important to learning how to write well (not that I write well). Looie496 also makes a good point—that one has to have something to say. Apropos this, though, I think writing can help us figure out what we want to say. Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading is essential; but, like anything, practice makes perfect. No painter/composer/writer/film maker/chef ever created a masterpiece before first creating lots of non-masterpieces. Fail your way to success. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to read/join one or more of the several websites run by and devoted to aspiring writers, such as Absolute Write: note I am not personally endorsing that particular one, I merely happen to know that it is well regarded by some professional writers and editors. A frequent aphorism quoted in such circles is that (in the case of fiction) one typically needs to have written about a million words of "rubbish" before one can expect to attain a consistent publishable standard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.243 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is actually quite a good place to learn to write. Find a topic you're interested in. Find a reliable source that mentions it in a way we don't currently cover and add the information in your own words, adding the source of course. Others may come along and 'improve' what you wrote - keep an eye on what they do and try to weigh up whether the changes improved the text or not, and if they did, try to remember what they did, and ape it. However, your writing style seems to be very colloquial, ie you seem to write as if you're speaking. This is a writing style that suits some projects - some novels, for instance, are written in this manner, but for an encyclopedia, you'll need to try to write more formally. You have three great things going for you - your spelling looks pretty good, you can punctuate and you have a desire to write. Good luck! --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest to that, I recently passed my millionth word of rubbish and think my writing ability has noticably improved over that time. Meanwhile, The idea is to write rubbish, then go back and make it better rather than just starting again. And plan what you want to write, have a sort of rough outline of where you want to go, and follow it, until you find that moving away from that is even better (that is when you start writing well, when the words carry you along rather than the other way around). And yes, read, but also, look at what you are reading, understand how they did what they did, what you like and dislike about it, all that boring stuff they tell you to do at school, apparently it does actually help. HS7 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the question about writing fiction or non-fiction (or both)? There is a world of difference between the two, and being good at one does not imply doing well at the other. Wikipedia is a good place to practise some non-fiction (but not all) writing, but it is not a good place for fiction! Mitch Ames (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to chime in that for me, personally, my writing would not have gotten anywhere had I not the help of better writers than I. I do quite a lot of writing as part of my job (non-fiction) and find it very easy to just swim in one place and keep writing the same breathless crap that I usually am inclined towards (for examples of such, see my "user contributions" page on Wikipedia). Becoming a better writer required me to actually put something in front of someone who knew how to write (and edit), and have them talk it through with me, show me where the stupid parts are, show me where I've got germs of good parts that I'm not really using, and so on. Over time I internalized some of these suggestions and some of this approach to it. I'm not sure that just writing more and more will get you there (after all, it didn't work for <insert horrible-but-prolific sci-fi or fantasy author here>, hey-o!), if you don't have some sort of real feedback loop with better writers. The people I know who really care about their writing have all participated in writing workshops, round-tables, and merciless, excruciating criticism (including one who is regularly a contributor to The New Yorker). They all agree it is a painful thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to "The people I know who really care about their writing", but should one "care about" one's "writing"? Yes, under certain circumstances, one should care about one's writing. But that entails conforming to one sort of propriety or another. In some settings such propriety is besides the point. Basic verbal communication is the minimal requirement of writing, I think. In fact mangled language is a beauty of its own—I think. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to paraphrase Strunk and White, there are some people who get a lot out of breaking the rules. But most people don't — they just write poorly. I don't consider "creative" as being synonymous with inarticulate, thoughtless, poorly-constructed, inexpressive, and cliche-ridden, which is what most "bad" writing is. I also think we should not confuse creativity with laziness. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half-baked opinion follows: An expressionistic theory (and pedagogy) of composition has done a lot to reduce the quality of prose in the last 50 years or so. The good stuff doesn't just pour out of one when one opens up one's soul; facility with words is definitely learned. In his essay "A Retrospect", Ezra Pound wrote: "Don't imagine that the art of poetry is any simpler than the art of music, or that you can please the expert before you have spent at least as much effort on the art of verse as the average piano teacher spends on the art of music." The same applies to any sort of writing. Deor (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98—I don't aspire to be a great writer. I have no pretensions about my writing. But I'll be damned if I am going to sacrifice having fun out of fear of writing wrong. And I do think that mangled language is beautiful. Why is a crushed automobile by John Chamberlain a beautiful thing to behold? I do know The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. I like it a lot. But I wouldn't follow it slavishly. In response to your mentioning of cliches, I think cliches can be deadening if found in an expected context, but I think they can be refreshing when thrown in where they "don't belong". I guess I am mostly expressing a concern with keeping one's writing entertaining. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP doesn't sound like they're having "fun" with their writing. Anyway, you've got it all backwards. Improvement is not something you do "out of fear of writing wrong." You do it because you always have room to improve. This is the case with everything one does, no matter whom one is, not just writing. Being in control of your prose gives you the option of playing with the rules, playing with language, playing with plot. Doing whatever you were taught to in high school (in my case, nothing but empty, careless "emoting" which took literally half a decade for me to break out of), without any feedback, is a recipe for stagnation. I don't care in what direction people move, but everybody who cares about the content of their work (whether writing, programming, dancing, cooking, whatever) should take care to being in control of it. Doing empty things because it's all you know how to do is, well, empty. And lazy. And even Strunk and White wouldn't want you to follow their book slavishly, and say so in it many times. But the alternatives here are not "slavish attention to rules of writing" and "flowering creativity that comes from being a total autodidact who doesn't care about improving." There's plenty of middle room to occupy as writers work to find their own voice and be in control of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyplace online that I can post my attempts at writing fiction and get feedback from better writers on how to improve? --108.225.117.205 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98—there is also a "naturalness" to many things. There are self-taught musicians, writers, painters. Some are awful because of their unawareness of the concerns of their particular field. But it is perfectly feasible to pick up all you need to know by looking at what others are doing or have done. Just listening, just reading, just looking—can teach one worlds of information about a given pursuit. There is nothing wrong with a proper educational course of study, but it is not indispensable. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has come here because he or she has determined that they are not advancing adequately on the "do it yourself" track. I think re-inventing the wheel is a poor way to make much progress, personally. And I have not, at any point, advocated a "proper educational course of study." I recommended they sit down with people whom they think are better writers and have them talk to them about improving their work. I can hardly see why one would be opposed to such an idea, especially for someone who is obviously complaining about not being able to do it on their own. In any case, it is what every writer of substance I have ever met has done — and the people I include in that category include people of a wide diversity of styles, purposes, topics, genres, and so on. Learning to write is hardly about putting on a straight-jacket. It's about learning how to do things you want to do, to be in control of your own abilities. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no assurance that education of any formal sort will greatly advance creative writing. Reading is important in developing writing skills as has already been pointed out. Additionally, language is all around us. We hear spoken language, and that is not inconsequential. We hear which words are associated with which words in which phrases and in which sentences and when discussing which topics. These components of language form hierarchies and categorization systems. When it is time for us to deploy language, the entire gamut of components is available to us, and we should not hesitate to pick and choose freely. Reading helps with writing because writing is different than speaking. Writing involves conventions that can't be invented, by-and-large, but have to be learned. But listening to spoken words is a rich and varied source of material for writing, as is well-written material itself. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: That is a good idea, but I would suggest doing it in person rather than online. I don't know your location, but in the U.S. just about every community has a writers' group where authors and aspiring authors gather and review each other's work. They are especially helpful to beginners. Check with your local arts center or community center. These groups are very often free. (I do not know your location, but if you like, I can help you find such a group.) — Michael J 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyplace online that I can post my attempts .. and get feedback ...
Use your favourite search engine to search for "writers' forums" or similar - there are plenty of them out there. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRADOCtrine

Is TRADOC the only major center in the world that has focouced on doctrines or there are another places? if so, where?(does doctrine here means that should make someone believe dogmatically in it?) Flakture (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most military have some form of doctrinal development of one kind or another. In the UK we have the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, the Aussies have something similar. The entire staff model used by NATO forces is derived from German staff doctrine.

TRADOC is an interesting example as it combines both doctrine and training, although that reflects US Army culture. What we see is that, at least in NATO, there is quite a high level of shared development.

The level of dogmatism around doctrine does to an extent itself depend on the doctrinal approach to the use of doctrine. There are risks that it stifles innovation at the practitioner level and that's something that's taught in the UK, and elsewhere. Doctrine is a guide, rather than a direction to the lower level. Others teach it as somewhat more binding.

Personaly I'm a fan of the doctrine of Mission Command, in that one passes down the food chain what one wants achieved and allows subordinates to get on with it in a manner they see fit.

ALR (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ALR, your examples are just military ones (more examples are still appreciated) but TRADOC itself seems to have more than military doctrines. for example see TRADOC Mission and TRADOC Priorities in the article. is it still non-unique in this way? More obviously, is there any non-military major doctrine center in the world? Flakture (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRADOC does only deal with "military doctrine", although it should be noted that current military doctrine also includes components of Security Sector Reform, Rule of Law, Stabilisation Operations, Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration etc, all of which include elements of both other government and non-government ativities.

I referred above the the uncommon nature of conflating doctrine with training and development in that way that it happens here. I've only had dealings with the doctrinal component but I've met training analysts and the like from there. The associated articles are, in the main, meaningless as they've been taken straight from opaque doctrinal documents, unfortunately.

So yes, there are many military doctrine centres, and by it's very nature doctrine is taught at both entry and continuation training for officers and other ranks. It would normally be treated as a component of training, rather than governing it. I'm also not sighted enough on the relationship between TRADOC and the various US Army higher command and staff training establishments.

I'm conscious that doesn't really answer your question, but I'm having difficulty doing that without making the distinction between "doctrinal development" and "doctrinal training".

ALR (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I thank your trying. Actually TRADOC has some non-military content schools like finance schools ... (take a look at list of schools at their homepage)maybe they are not related originally to TRADOC's knowledge and doctrine generating and there TRADOC is just a consumer of other thoughts. 16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to see where the difficulty is. Military training includes all of the activities that are required to conduct military operations, and that can include subjects like finance, contracting, negotiation, criminal investigation. If you look at current operations one of the directors of TRADOC is in Afghanistan heading up the counter-corruption taskforce. He's a Brigadier and has people doing investigation into financial and contracting issues in theatre.

These are all essential skills in the management of military activities as well. The commander of a base in CONUS needs to be able to run it as a business and his, or her, board will include a finance director, military and civilian HR, facilities etc.

Counter-Insurgency doctrine includes a need to understand the economies within which the military operate at the maro and micro levels.

A personal view would be that the US military can be very doctrine driven. Whether this is a function of conflating training and doctrine, or whether that conflation reflects the culture I do not know.

ALR (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Manuʻa Elisala

Does anybody know where I can find a complete list of the Tui Manu'a, the ruling chiefs of what became American Samoa, and the genealogy of the family/families that held that title? Also what years were the births and deaths of Tui Manuʻa Elisala and Chris Young, the last titleholders? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone answer this question? Also what is the best institution/museum in American Samoan history in the world? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What type of military equipment did the Qing use during the Opium Wars?

I've never been clear on what type of equipment the Manchu army used during the Opium Wars. I know there were still using Junks for naval war. But I'm not sure what kind of arms their land army used? Were they using some form of primitive muskets, or pikes, bow and arrows? How were Chinese weapons manufactured? I'm aware that the Chinese discovered gunpowder very early on, but I was wondering if any military use of it was made during the 1840s in guns or artillery? --Gary123 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the assault on Dinghai on 05 September 1841, "100 iron guns, 36 brass cannons, and 540 gingalls (heavy muskets or light guns mounted on swivels) were captured (by the British) for the loss of two killed and 27 wounded."[1]. The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes By Arthur Waley says "The bow was still the main Chinese weapon and the Chinese regarded our (ie the British) failure to make use of it as a sign of military backwardness". A bit more detail is in Modern Chinese warfare, 1795-1989 By Bruce A. Elleman. "The most common weapons of a Qing soldier included swords, shields, and pikes. The Chinese infantry also used a large range of non-standardized weapons... dart rockets with barbed tips... spears, halberds, and a curious thing like a hedge chopper fastened to the end of a pole". Also, "the Chinese musket was a wretched thing... Worst of all, the thing was a matchlock, which is to say, it was fired by holding a slow-burning cord over a hole instead of pulling a trigger". As for artillery; "Chinese cannon were numerous, but Chinese infantry did not have field artillery, although the gingal resembled a large elephant gun and could fire a ball weighing up to a pound" Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

monarchs of Arabian Gulf

In western media, they addressed the monarchs of the Arabian Gulf kings and princes but what about the local media meaning newspaper and tv networks and radios, how do they addressed the king of Saudi Arabia, King of UAE, King of Qatar, King of Kuwait, King of Bahrain and King of Oman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.23 (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi kings now disclaim any title except Custodian of the two holy mosques... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the local media, but labeling them all as Kings is definitely wrong in western media as well. The title King is usually only applied to the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Qatar and Kuwait are ruled by Emirs. Oman is ruled by a Sultan. And the UAE is ruled by a President, who is also Emir of Abu Dhabi (the Emir of Dubai is traditionally Prime Minister). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Moroccan princess married to Lebanese

Hello,

I am trying to find the name of a member of the Moroccan royal family, who married a Lebanese, and has a grandson who is a Lebanese businessman. I don't have much more information, except that she must almost certainly have been born before 1940.

Thanks! Evilbu (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably Moulay Abdullah (4th child of King Mohammed V), born 30/7/35 in Rabat, who married Lamia el Solh (born 1937) in 1961, daughter of Riad el Solh, former Prime Minister of Lebanon. Mikenorton (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you put princess in the title - I couldn't find a Princess who married a Lebanese, but that's not to say that one didn't. Mikenorton (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Moulay Ismail was their son and became a businessman. Moulay Abdallah's grandchildren appear to be too young for any of them to be a 'businessman'. Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black man speaketh with forked tongue (X-Factor)

L.A. Reid said in December 8th's X-Factor's Result's Show that he had to go by his principle, admitting that Rachel Crow had out-performed Marcus Cantry, one of his "Boys". He chose however to send home Rachel Crow. I thought the idea of the "Save Me" song they performed was under the auspicious of talent. Isn't this a Talent show? Why have a "Sing Off" if it (that evening's performance) really doesn't count? Wasn't the deciding factor the performance of the evening BEFORE?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely. In most of these types of shows, the results are based on the performers' overall performances during the season, as well as how the judges think they will do as professionals. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the X Factor, where rules are obeyed only insofar as they suit the Great God of Maximising Audience Ratings. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor is a competition between judges to see who can have the winning act. In the British version which has been running for a few years, the judges never send home their own acts if there is another judge's act in the sing-off. It'd be like a sports fan saying they wanted the best team to win, rather than their own team. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Dowager Bo's tomb

Does anybody know anything about the whereabout of Empress Dowager Bo's tomb and the excavation of it? According to some articles she buried with a panda and a rhinoceros.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese pyramids lists her tomb under "Western Han dynasty mausoleums complex in Xianyang and around Xi'an, Shaanxi", at 34.2209934°N 109.0963411°E. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page, The Giant Panda, agrees with you; "When the Empress Dowager Bo (179-163 BC) tomb was opened 2100 yrs after her death, a giant panda skull was found along side her.". The same detail is repeated in The Last Panda By George B. Schaller p.62. I couldn't find any other reference or account of the excavation though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]