Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3

Joseph Lane

Besides his pro-slavery views, why was Joseph Lane chosen as the Southern Democrats' vice-presidential candidate alongside John C. Breckinridge in 1860? Was their a strategy of using Lane's Western (Oregon) and Northern (Indiana) affiliations to curry votes in non-Southern states?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be, but regarding the 1860 Baltimore convention however, things were not at all as much clear cut as they became at the time of Secession. Daniel S. Dickinson from New-York for example, gave his support to Breckinridge. --Askedonty (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baikonur, Kazakhstan - status

What is the status of Baikonur? Is it Russian territory or Kazakhstani territory controlled by Russia. The article seems a bit confusing. Hack (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article in The Atlantic from June 2013 [1], The town exists in a strange state of political suspension. When the Cosmodrome was built, it was squarely in USSR territory. Today that land is Kazakhstan, and Russia rents the town from the Kazakh government for $115 million a year. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey barrels on the American frontier

I'm in the middle of writing an expansion for the Yost Tavern stub, and according to this historical text, in 1809, the tavern's customers purchased more than fifty barrels of whiskey. Was "barrel" a standard size at the time (e.g. the 31 or 31.5 gallons of a fluid Barrel (unit)?), or does it simply mean that Mr Yost dispensed the contents of thirty-one whiskey casks? Perhaps there was a standardised size for taxation purposes, but Whiskey Rebellion tells me that the 1791 federal excise tax on spirits was repealed in 1801, so I can't rely on its definitions. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since barrels were used to transport liquids at the time, they would have needed to be standardized to avoid people getting cheated (and also so you would know how many fit on a given wagon, etc.). However, that doesn't necessarily mean the standard was 31 or 31.5 gallons. There might have even been regional variations in the standard size. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barrels were made by "coopers" - simple logic posits any given cooper kept to specific sizes based on measurements of his tools, as otherwise it would be nearly impossible to make a non-leaky barrel. As this was a "trade" - coopers in any area would have had to keep to the same standards. Collect (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a single size, though. They could have had several. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book [2], Ohio had no laws about standard measures until 1811. You can scroll back back a few pages to get an idea of the standards that applied in neighbouring states at the time. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reasons for the placement and position of the numbers on the face of a clock?

Recently, some incident (irrelevant and unimportant) sparked my curiosity about these matters. Question One: Is there any rhyme or reason as to why the numbers on the face of a clock are placed in the way that they are? In other words, why does "clockwise" go around from the top 12, moving (somewhat rightward) to the 1, then the 2, then the 3, etc.? Counterclockwise goes the other way (somewhat towards the "left" and down from the 12). Is there any practical or logistical or ergonomic or historical reason for this? Once the standard was set, of course, everyone simply followed that standard. But, when it first started (i.e., clocks were first created), there was an affirmative decision to place the numbers in the positions that we now see. Question Two: Same question as above. With the added question, why did they place the "12" at the very top? I am (obviously) referring to a round clock face. I scanned this article (clock), but I didn't see anything (unless I missed it). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Clockwise' follows the movement of the sun in the northern hemisphere - and accordingly follows the shadow on a sundial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And what happens in the southern hemisphere? The exact opposite? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern Hemisphere is well known as a place of heathens, pagans, convicts, sports champions and other assorted riffraff, and nothing important ever happens there. Just forget about it, I say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Never a truer utterance said. Also, their TV soap operas are an offense to the sensibilities of all cultured people as well ;¬)--Aspro (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Larry Wilmore may be positing that the Southern Hemisphere might be the Northern Hemisphere.[3] Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - sundials are different in the Southern Hemisphere. [4]. Collect (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian sundial (c. 1500 BCE) from the Valley of the Kings. Daytime divided into 12 parts.

There is a ton of info here History of timekeeping devices though you have to sift through it to find specific answers to your questions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for why the 12 is at the top, that's where we normally start things, like reading from the top of the page. Keep in mind that the 12 is also a 0, from a time before we had such a concept. But, the day still started there (as did afternoon), whether it had a zero of not. So, then why do we normally start looking at an object from the top ? Well, it certainly would seem odd if you started looking at a person's feet before their face, since feet don't display emotions or talk. Perhaps that started the pattern ? StuRat (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question wasn't so much "why is the 12 at the top, instead of somewhere else?". My question was more along the lines of "why is the 12, and not some other number, at the top?" Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before the decimal system was invented, it was convenient to use numbers that could easily be divided to yield integers. 10 hours in a day would fail if you tried to divide it by 3, while 24 can be divided by 2, 3, or 4, so you could set guard shifts every 12, 8, or 6 hours without having to worry about minutes. (At night, without sunlight, they could use a version of an hourglass.) So why two divisions of 12 hours ? Well, noon was a convenient point to split the day in two, as you didn't even need a sundial to tell when it was noon, since that's when shadows are shortest (this method no longer works because of time zones and daylight savings time). StuRat (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding my question. Say that we have the exact clock face that we are now accustomed to. But, instead of a "12" at the very top, there is a "7" at the very top. (Or whatever number) So, the clock would appear, clock wise, 7 (at the top), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1 (at the very bottom), 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Or, with whatever permutation, given the "new" number at the top. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I still don't get your Q then. I answered as to why the day starts at the top of the clock, and why the start of the day is a 12. What else where you asking ? StuRat (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When "they" designed the face of the clock, why not place a "7" at the top-most position? Or a "4"? Or whatever number? If I were designing a clock (so that it wold be similar to reading a book, for example), I'd probably place the "1" where we now normally place the "9". To me, that would seem the most analogous to "normal" left-to-right reading of text. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: I guess I still don't get your Q then. I answered as to why the day starts at the top of the clock, and why the start of the day is a 12. What else where you asking? In other words, why are you assuming that the day should "start" at the top-most position of the clock (that is, where we normally place the 12)? Why can't the day "start" at some other position? Like placing the "12" at the normal "6" position? Or placing the "12" at the normal "9" position? Or whatever? The day does not have to "start" at the top-most position of the clock face. (That's merely a convention.) Or, is there a reason why it does? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"...that's where we normally start things, like reading from the top of the page... So, then why do we normally start looking at an object from the top ? Well, it certainly would seem odd if you started looking at a person's feet before their face, since feet don't display emotions or talk. Perhaps that started the pattern ?" To add a bit more, some might have read a scroll from right-to-left or left-to-right, but I don't think anyone read from bottom-to-top. That would either require completely opening the scroll to start reading it, or perhaps writing upside-down on the inside side of the scroll. A "double scroll" (with two hubs) fixes this problem, but I don't think those are good for long term storage, as the exposed area will be likely to age faster. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really 12 on the stereotypical sundial should be "down" (nearer). If it were up then your shadow might get in the way. The Sun is highest in the sky when the shadow's at the top of the dial and is lowest when the shadow's theoretically at the bottom but I'm not sure if your body shading the gnomon every noon is worth it. Maybe the most common sundial when and where clocks were invented was a more body shade-resistant type? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A (horizontal) sundial can be viewed from any side, so just view it from whichever side won't put it in shadow (and that's where you would want to be to see the it's shadow most clearly, anyway). Putting it up on a high table would also make it less likely to fall into shadow, and thus usable closer to sunrise and sunset. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would totally screw up the poster for Tomorrow at Seven. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Let's first discard placements considered starting at the left or at the right. If the one was at the top, the twelve would seem to be waiting to take the place of the one. Now let's try any other possible sequence: they all seem highly arbitrary. Is that of being conditioned by the two first tests ? (there was only one) --Askedonty (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also where midnight would be, on a conventional vertically-mounted sundial, if sundials actually worked at midnight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a sundial works at midnight, it doesn't work at any time (or what used to be times), including midnight. It would stick at "all the time", and nobody would ever need to buy one. Scary stuff. Less clear whether planes would fall from the sky, Y2K-style, but maybe! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A sundial could work at midnight near the poles, or even in space, provided it had at 24 hour rotation period about it's axis, and it's axis wasn't pointed toward the Sun. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure if that makes sense. Maybe. All I know is sundials need light and midnight needs darkness. Turn! Turn! Turn! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

See Land of the Midnight Sun. StuRat (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Definitely catchier with "midnight", but it's not night. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Presumably you could make a "moondial", but would have to be re-oriented daily, as the moon is only overhead at midnight when it's full. And as the moon gets dimmer the rest of the month, the moondial would be hard to read. So probably not worth the effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've a moondial article. Unsourced, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The full explanation is given in the article clockwise, which has some interesting snippets about clocks that move in the opposite direction. Am adding this pic from the article MarnetteD linked - the oldest known sundial. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Clock face, the way it was set up imitates the way it appears on sundials. That, of course, raises the question of why it's at the top on a sundial. As suggested by others here, the 12 is also a 0. And at high noon, local time, the straight-overhead sun produces no "angular" shadow, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Gnomon - the gnomon is at an angle such that a shadow is cast (other than exactly at noon at an equinox exactly at the equator). Collect (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to 12-hour clock, the conventional division of the day into two sections of 12 hours each, with the 12s being noon and midnight, goes back to ancient times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]