• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    901 month ago

    IIRC they counted the bones in their fingers using their thumb and that gives 12. The first sundial was around the equator and there is always light for half a day, so half a day becomes 12 hours.

    To count large numbers often one hand was used to count using 5 fingers and the other to count the bones, so you get 5x12 for 60 minutes.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      54
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      AIUI there was an aspect in the divisibility of the numbers being convenient.

      12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.

      10 is divisible by 2 and 5. 100 is divisible by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50.

      If you want to minimize dealing with fractions, 12 and 60 are far more convenient than 10 and 100.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s an interesting thought, but I believe it to simply be a coincidence.

        The base 12 counting being based on counting the division of your fingers is historically verified, but if the division aspect was so compelling to them you’d expect it to carry forward into their writing system.

        By the time you get cuneiform math though, they actually go back to base 10.

        https://images.app.goo.gl/9GR6VEiT7GHYF3KaA

        As you can see base 12 is not in the written system, or for written mathematics. It just was convenient for counting on their hands.

        They used mixes of base 10/base 12 and base 60.

        Base 10 would be used go determine the symbols for a specific “digit” in base 60.

        So similar to how our 13 is 1 ten and 3 ones, their 13 was the symbol for 10 then 3 symbols for 1. 13 = 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹 But 73 would be written 𒁹 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹

        Which would be interpreted as 1 sixty and 13 ones, or 60 + 13

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 month ago

              It’s a problem no matter how you divide the year

              That’s why I propose changing the orbit of the earth, too

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 month ago

                  I wouldn’t call having an unassigned remainder “perfectly”. And always, leap day fucking shit up lol

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Ok, but now subdivide the 73 day month-analogs into week-analogs.

                  I can see calling the month analogs “seasons”, but 73 is a prime number so you’re boned. We need subdivisions smaller than that for practical purposes

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 month ago

                    Don’t subdivide the 73-day seasons.

                    Instead, subdivide the year into 73 5-day weeks.

                    A year made up of 5 seasons and 73 weeks.