As I understand it, pretty much everybody uses the "Babylonian/sexagesimal" time format: 12/24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute.

Have there been alternative systems to accurately tell time? Or maybe there are still some in existence?

By "accurately" I mean that one can tell an exact time, i.e. not the "some time during the morning"-type. Also, let's exclude inventions that were never properly used over a longer period, e.g. decimal time during the French Revolution.


migrated from linguistics.stackexchange.com Mar 11 '16 at 9:56

This question came from our site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would the four-section Thai system of telling time be an answer? Telling minutes and seconds in Thai is as usual. $\endgroup$ – bytebuster Mar 10 '16 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ There's the Swahili clock: google.com/#q=swahili+clock $\endgroup$ – Yellow Sky Mar 10 '16 at 10:25
  • $\begingroup$ The 12/24 part is not exclusively Babylonian, ancient Egyptians and Chinese also had this division, for different reasons, and independently of Babylonians. hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2876/… $\endgroup$ – Conifold Mar 11 '16 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ @yellow sky: it would be interesting if you could elaborate a bit more - it seemed to me, that they still used a 24 hour division, though - or did I misunderstand this? $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Mar 11 '16 at 20:10

"Swahili time" is essentially the same as contemporary standard time, synchronized at sunrise / sunset (6:00), so it has the same 12/24 system. There is a Chinese time unit the ke, 14.4 minutes, but it apparently co-existed with a duodecimal system so one can suspect that it was added to a duodecimal system, used exclusively (as far as I can determine) with months.


French Revolutionary time had ten hours to the day, 100 minutes to the hour, and 100 secnds to the minute. That same article describes a couple of other instances of decimal time.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, but I had explicitly excluded decimal time during the French Revolution, as this has neither "developed"\is a traditional way of telling time, nor has it been used over a longer period of time. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Mar 11 '16 at 19:13

It is not clear what you are asking about: clocks (devises to measure time) or systems to record the time. Ancient Babylonians had no clocks. Time recording was needed for astronomy. As true (quantitative) observational astronomy began in Babylon, their time recording system spread universally. Clocks were a later invention (water clocks), and this had little to do with the system of units, the system of units only tells you how to divide the dial. The French, when they introduced a universal decimal system of units for measuring everything during the revolution, tried to introduce it for time and angles as well. This did not work because the Babylonian units of time and angles were already universally accepted.

  • $\begingroup$ I am interested in alternative "systems". If there are no alternative ones, that is fine for me as an answer, but it is not obvious to me that no one devised a system before or in parallel to the Babylonians - the world was not that globalised at that time. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Mar 11 '16 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerhard: some examples of alternative systems of marking time were given in the answers. $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Mar 11 '16 at 23:00

The reason a clock uses 12 hours is actually simple: use a compass/forked stick in the sand to make a circle. then, naturally one would place one leg of the compass at some point on the circle, and draw a second circle. then, one would naturally place the leg on one of the intersections just made, and draw a third one. 3 more times, and you have gone all around and drawn a pattern of 1 circle in the middle (the 7th) and 6 circles around.

This means that, division in 6/12 is the easiest, and also most accurate way of dividing a circle in the past. Dividing a circle in 5/10 parts is really hard to do accurate with only the 'euclidian tools'(pencil, ruler, and a pair of compasses).

Note also that a number system based 60 is easy to make calculations with. Imagine a dollar having 60 cents, makes it much easier to share this dollar with 2,3,4,5,6 people. Also note that you can count 60 on your fingers, when counting 12 digits on your one hand, and 5 fingers on the other hand (5x12=60). Doing this, you even do not need one thumb, so you can hold your merchandise while counting :)

Since your question is about accuracy, i need to add that while we think of an hour now as a fixed unit, before the invention of the clock, hours were 'variable' in the sense that a day is shorter in the winter, so while there was a division in 12 parts, the parts were not always equal.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ While your assertion(s) sound interesting, I think it would be appropriate to back them up with some sources. $\endgroup$ – Danu Jun 12 '16 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ to some extent you are just naming the advantages of the duodecimal system in general - that is why e.g. the "dozen" was widely used in the past. When it comes to the circle, however, I would assume that dividing it into e.g. 4/8/16 sections is not harder than into 6 or 12. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Jun 14 '16 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Gerhard I strongly disagree here. Dividing a circle in 4 parts, done accurately, needs 3 extra circles to know for sure that the straight lines that make the divisions are on a 90 degree angle. To divide in 6, you only need to use the same forked stick and 'rollover' it along the first circle. Easy as cutting a pie.. $\endgroup$ – Erik Goff Jun 21 '16 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Either way, it does not answer the question. $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Jun 21 '16 at 20:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.