Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Human Arm-Bones as Measuring Sticks

The ancient measures were based upon the various naturally-occurring lengths of the human body:

extending the arms sideways we get the fathom, which is then subdivided into two yards, due to the bilateral symmetry of the human body;
then, bending the arm(s) at the elbow(s) we notice that each of these two yards can be further divided into two cubits, each of them containing two spans of three palms each.

So dividing the fathom into eight spans or twenty-four palms seems relatively obvious: but into six so-called feet, not so much.

One likely explanation for the origin of the foot could be a purely mathematical one, based on the fact that, since the fathom of twenty-four palms is divided into groups of three palms called spans, all (other) multiples of four palms remain `unused`, so to say, which is `sad`, since twelve divides not just by three, but also by four;
so, since the length of the sole of the human foot is the same as the span, and since humans usually leave a small space (of, say, one palm) between the toes of one foot and the heel of the other foot when walking, one might just call such a distance of 3 + 1 = 4 palms a foot.

But this fails to explain its wide-spread popularity. Then, bending the arms at the elbows, I also noticed that

apart from aligning the hand's fingertips at the middle of the chest, close to the sternum, this movement also positions the wrist at the same place as the shoulder,
meaning that the distance from the shoulder to the elbow is the same as the one from the elbow to the wrist, and the length of the latter is obviously one cubit minus two palms (since the length of the human hand is twice its width), yielding a total of four palms, or, in other words, one foot.

Now,

since man is known to have used, throughout human history, (animal) bones as tools for various purposes,
and since measuring length by `folding` either the entire arm (by hiding the forearm, so as to `highlight` the distance from shoulder to elbow), or only the forearm (by hiding the palm, so as to `highlight` the distance from elbow to wrist), is rather impractical,

I couldn't help but wonder, at this point, whether a more natural explanation for both the existence and the popularity of this anthropic unit could be the use of the three major bones of the human arm, namely the humerus, the ulna, and the radius bone, in the act of measuring lengths and distances.
— 86.125.209.239 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of feet for many measurements seems like it might be related to the use of paces, which to this day remains a practical if not extraordinarily accurate unit of measurement for those without special preparation for a task. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that the fathom, yard, span and foot were ab initio arranged in an organized system where each unit was a multiple of another unit. This seems quite improbable. Most likely, the fathom, based on the length of a man's outstretched arms, arose in some contexts where it was a convenient size, while the foot, based on the length of a human foot as seems pretty clear from the name, arose in other contexts. Later as it became more important to standardize measurements, the units were redefined in terms of each other. I've never heard of a culture that uses the remains of their deceased relatives as everyday tools. The use of (living) body parts as measuring devices has the obvious advantage that they are always available. CodeTalker (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a span is the hand length (also the finger span) the width is the hand (unit) 4 inches (1/3 foot). A span should really be 8 inches instead of 9 and 2 hands instead of 2.25 so it seems to me that spans were based on yards. Yards are used more than fathoms now so if yards were important at the beginning of time a foot would simply be 1/3rd yard. This might be why feet and spans are so long (to have a 1/3rd and 1/4th yard unit to go with the 1/2 yard cubit). A forearm should be 10 inches if a cubit is 18 and would be another convenient body part to measure with but that too suffers the fate of the 8 inch unit into obscurity, 10 inches not going into 12, 18, 36 or even 72. The thumb is about 2 inches which doesn't have a name as far as I know, the half thumb became the inch, which most body units can be divided into without fractions (however the finger, a unit of one quarter palm, is 3/4ths inches). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think CodeTalker hits the nail on the head - prior to metric units, measurements evolved in an ad hoc fashion suited to the practical needs of particular tasks and trades, rather than in a rational overall fashion. I'm old enough to have had to learn a whole set of 'odd' measurements at school (rods, poles and perches, chains and Furlongs spring to mind), each of which appeared to have evolved to suit practical needs. I myself know how to use various parts of my body to estimate inches and feet when no tape measure is handy. Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of time zone in French Canada

In many contexts, it's important to tell the time zone of a specific date, e.g. to precisely mark a legal or commercial expiration date. However, in most European countries this is unusual, as the entire country lies within a single time zone anyway - in contrast to Canada or the USA. However, what's the situation in French Canada? As far as I can see, it's entirely located in the Eastern Time Zone? So, two questions:

Do French Canadians usually tell the time zone with a specific date?
If so, do they insist on the French abbreviation of the time zone (HNE/HAE) instead of the English one (EST/EDT, respectively)? --KnightMove (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of Quebec is in one time zone, but there are non-Quebecois French Canadians in the other time zones as well. At the national level, HNE/HAE is used, and the other time zones are Heure normale/avancée du Pacifique, des Rocheuses, du Centre, de l'Atlantique, and de Terre Neuve, with the associated acronyms. I'm not sure if French Quebecois actually say HNE/HAE in everyday conversation though (personally I never really need to mention the time zone in English in Ontario either). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's used regularly on Radio-Canada's French radio broadcasts, where many programs are heard in both Quebec and the Maritimes (i.e. in different time zones). E.g.: "au début du trait prolongé, il sera exactement midi, heure normale de l'est" --Xuxl (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew in theory that there were French Canadians all over the country, but I did not expect WHAAOE to the extent of e.g. Franco-Yukonnais (more than a thousand people, apparently). The situation is somewhat complicated by some French Canadians not speaking French, and some French-speakers-in-Canada not being French Canadian, according to our article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in war

Can I get someone to help double check the top entries at List of wars by death toll. I was trying to use this information for an off-wiki project related to Memorial Day, but after looking at the list I wasn't sure that the figures were reliable. There are several ancient wars that seem surprisingly large and at least one recent estimate that seems somewhat low.

The top wars by geometric mean number of deaths as currently appearing on that list are:

Three Kingdoms War: 36,000,000–40,000,000 deaths
World War II: 15,843,000–85,000,000
Mongol conquests: 30,000,000–40,000,000
Qing conquest of the Ming: 25,000,000+
Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire: 24,300,000+
Taiping Rebellion: 20,000,000–100,000,000
Second Sino-Japanese War: 20,000,000–25,000,000
An Lushan Rebellion: 13,000,000–36,000,000
Germanic Wars: 15,450,000+
World War I: 8,545,800-21,000,000
Conquests of Timur: 8,000,000–20,000,000

Dragons flight (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although not directly responding to your reliability concerns, these numbers would presumably include secondary effects of war ("collateral damage" as well as famine, etc.); cf: Three Kingdoms § Population. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that not many entries have direct citations. If you follow the link to Mongol conquests and thence to Destruction under the Mongol Empire, there's a section on demographic changes which suggests that 30-40 million may not be out of line at all. The bars on a war like WW2 give you an idea of how difficult it would be to get anything like proper numbers: 15-85 million is nearly an order of magnitude difference and record-keeping was immeasurably more well-developed than during, say, the Spanish conquest. Other than following the links to the main articles for yourself, I'm not sure what to suggest. Matt Deres (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit concerned about e.g. the "Germanic wars" - the events span over 700 years. If we accept that as one conflict, shouldn't we also accept anything from e.g. the Seven Years' War to WW2 as "the modern World Wars"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on what you want to use the figures for. The Hundred Years' War is on there and, in some contexts, that makes perfect sense. In other contexts, WW2 should really be split into multiple sections (broadly, Asian and European). Matt Deres (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well take for example the WW2 number. I think the 16M number is only counting direct casualties (or maybe only combatant deaths), whereas most authorities look at a larger universe of direct and indirect casualties. So there is obviously an apples vs. oranges question about which kind of numbers should even appear in a list like this. I'd prefer the numbers at least be vaguely comparable through time. Aside from that it is sometimes hard to even check the cited sources. For example, the 3 Kingdoms war cites two books that I don't have easy access to. I've tried to find other sources online but so far everything I've come across looks like they are getting their numbers from us. Our Three Kingdoms article does show a large population decline but also has an odd note: "While it is clear that warfare undoubtedly took many lives during this period, the census figures do not support the idea that tens of millions were wiped out solely from warfare. Other factors such as mass famines and diseases, due to the collapse of sustaining governance and migrations out of China must be taken into account." Dragons flight (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before the late 19th century it was the norm in wars for more people to die from disease than from actual combat. A famous example being Napoleon's Grande Armee. I don't have a citation off the top of my head but anything discussing the history of warfare should back this up. Which of course, as you noted, makes it important in any discussion of casualties from war to specify what you're including. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons_flight -- you can look at the book "Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements" by Matthew H. White (ISBN 978-0-85786-122-1). He gives 34 million for the Three Kingdoms Period (189-280 A.D.), but explains that it's a demographic gap number -- the difference between the population counted in the 140 A.D. census and the 280 A.D. census. It's quite impossible to say how many of those were killed by fighting, or even involved in the fighting in any way. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. Well I've actually moved on from my original Memorial Day plan. I'm probably not going to devote more time to this. Though if anyone still wants to double check the other numbers, it might still be worth while. Dragons flight (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bright Emerson

Trying to find primary or secondary sources relating to Nathaniel Bright Emerson and his involvement with annexation of Hawaii. Trying to corroborate claim he testified for annexation of Hawaii to the US at Washington, DC. Name sometimes listed as N. B. Emerson or Nathaniel B. Emerson. —KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]