[Debate] Antikythera device may be older than previously thought

[DAVIDE]

From Swiss Army knives to iPhones, it seems we just love fancy gadgets with as many different functions as possible. And judging from the ancient Greek Antikythera mechanism, the desire to impress with the latest multipurpose must-have item goes back at least 2000 years.

This mysterious box of tricks was a portable clockwork computer, dating from the first or second century BC. Operated by turning a handle on the side, it modelled the movements of the Sun, Moon and planets through the sky, sported a local calendar, star calendar and Moon-phase display, and could even predict eclipses and track the timing of the Olympic games.

I gave a talk on the device at London's Royal Institution last night. One new clue I mentioned to the origin of the mechanism comes from the Olympiad dial - there are six sets of games named on the dial, five of which have been deciphered so far. Four of them, including the Olympics, were major games known across the Greek world. But the fifth, Naa, was much smaller, and would only have been of local interest.

The Naa games were held in Dodona in northwestern Greece, so Alexander Jones of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World in New York has suggested that the mechanism must have been made by or for someone from that area.

Intriguingly, this could mean the device is even older than thought. The inscriptions have been dated to around 100 BC, but according to Jones the device may have been made at latest in the early second century BC, because after that the Romans devastated or took over the Greek colonies in the region, so it's unlikely that people would still have been using the Greek calendar there.

But the highlight for most of the audience - judging from the spontaneous round of applause it received - was this breathtaking new animation (below) of the gearing inside the mechanism. It has been made by Mogi Vicentini, an Italian astronomer and computer scientist, and it brings the device to life brilliantly.

Judge for yourself, but I think it shows that the mechanism would hold its own against the best of today's luxury gadgets.

video inside the link: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...t-from-sw.html

[SigniferOne]

This seems to be another attempt to bring the mechanism closer to Archimedes' period. I don't see how or why the Greeks would've adopted the Roman calendar around 100 BC, or frankly that the area around Dodona was "devastated".

[Stavroforos]

Heh, Alexander Jones was one of my first year professors. He spent such a seemingly disproportionate amount of time talking about the Antikythera device.

[DAVIDE]

passion?

[conon394]

I would still lean toward Rhodes as the production site seeing as they were noted for producing such devices. I agree with Sig however there does seem to be a desire to push the thing toward Archimedes as what the only genius instead of perhaps recognizing a more general technically skilled set of craftsmen around the Greek/Roman world.

Sig - I imagine they mean the fall out from the Third Macedonian war, the Romans were rather harsh with Epirus

[Watchman]

The Romans kind of made a point of being rather harsh with everybody, methinks.

[SigniferOne]

Sig - I imagine they mean the fall out from the Third Macedonian war, the Romans were rather harsh with Epirus

Yeah but Jones tries to make an even stronger argument: that the Greeks were so devastated that they adopted the Roman calendar instead and completely imploded on themselves as a culture. As you said, this hints of a fairly intense Hellenist classicism, where only 5-4th centuries are worth knowing, and the ancient world's glory is located as early as possible. It is a direct consequence of Winckelmann's "Imitation of the Greeks" of 1755. Like you said however, there is absolutely no basis for saying it.

Not only does Poseidonius bear a close connection to this device as witnessed by Cicero (or as close to it as one can have), but we have actual examples of Roman engineering (Arles) that far surpass the "Classical" Greek, or even Archimedes time, engineering, and Athens itself at the close of the Classical period in 4th century AD, had more advanced water mills than as far as I know had ever existed there in the Greek period.

In fact during Plato's period there was no large-scale machinery in Athens at all, and even Archimedes contented himself with constructing war machinery, and I don't know of any record of civil machinery such as mills being present during his Syracuse. So the effort to push the Antikythera mechanism towards what some phil-Hellenists see as the only possible period that could create inventive engineering, simply goes contrary to all the facts.

[Watchman]

The Greeks were pretty good at coming up with interesting gadgetry. The Romans were far better at actually "operationalising" technology, that is, putting it into productive use on a meaningful scale.

[conon394]

The Greeks were pretty good at coming up with interesting gadgetry. The Romans were far better at actually "operationalising" technology, that is, putting it into productive use on a meaningful scale.

I can't really agree there that's rather an image the Romans themselves liked but it hard to prove - got a case? The biggest problem is that by the late Republic or early empire its hard to really separate Roman form Hellenistic...

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The Antikytera Mechanism is more of a hype device. Compared to later engineering devices from the Middle Ages, it is crude and primitive, but still it has some partisan merit among historians.

[conon394]

The Antikytera Mechanism is more of a hype device. Compared to later engineering devices from the Middle Ages, it is crude and primitive, but still it has some partisan merit among historians.

Odd claim - partisan merit in what way?

I don't know that anyone would claim it to be some ultra advanced better than the Renaissance thing. What is important about is that is reveals a level of mechanical proficiency that is not otherwise easy to deduce from just literary sources.

More generally I would not say that for example Roman horse harness was better than Medieval ones, but we do at least now correctly understand it was not deficient somehow and that Middle Ages harness was not de novo super good, but evolutionary - same with heavy plows etc.

After all the Middle Ages is quite likely some 1200-1300 or more years after the item in question so I would hope they were more refined... Middle Ages cranes are after all quite crude compared to a modern one.

[neoptolemos]

I can't really agree there that's rather an image the Romans themselves liked but it hard to prove - got a case? The biggest problem is that by the late Republic or early empire its hard to really separate Roman form Hellenistic...

I agree
Take for example the sculptures od the Roman period with that of the hellenistc era

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I don't know that anyone would claim it to be some ultra advanced better than the Renaissance thing. What is important about is that is reveals a level of mechanical proficiency that is not otherwise easy to deduce from just literary sources.

Yes, of course. It's a quite old myth but it floats about: Carl Sagan once stated that it was "the most advanced astronomical device" until the "XIX century".

More generally I would not say that for example Roman horse harness was better than Medieval ones, but we do at least now correctly understand it was not deficient somehow and that Middle Ages harness was not de novo super good, but evolutionary - same with heavy plows etc.

After all the Middle Ages is quite likely some 1200-1300 or more years after the item in question so I would hope they were more refined... Middle Ages cranes are after all quite crude compared to a modern one.

Yes, of course. Still, from 1000 on the Middle Ages (in Europe) witnessed a far larger and better documented technological progress: windmills, mechanical clocks come to mind. Many of these were original, although some count in as refinements from earlier Eastern technology, which also made great progresses compared to the years of the late Empire and Principate, technologically speaking a bit of a stagnated period.

Odd claim - partisan merit in what way?

Generally in debates among historians there is a whole lot of partisanship. You see it as early as "Hittites vs. Egyptians" discussions, and I am sure there is a bit of partisanship in trying to set the date to a time before the Romans and during the Hellenistic age, as Siggy stated. Not that it makes the claim automatically invalid or interferes with the technological merit of the Rhodians anyway, since Rome played little influence on Greek science other than as a systematic pillager of art and eager learner of knowledge.

I agree
Take for example the sculptures od the Roman period with that of the hellenistc era

Indeed, all Roman sculpture is generally accepted to be derived from a few Hellenistic types.

[conon394]

Yes, of course. It's a quite old myth but it floats about: Carl Sagan once stated that it was "the most advanced astronomical device" until the "XIX century".

Flamboyant statements aside - it is usually rather suggested that is is the most sophisticated device know for a 1000-1400 years not the 19th century.

Yes, of course. Still, from 1000 on the Middle Ages (in Europe) witnessed a far larger and better documented technological progress:

Of course it better documented it happened 1000-1500 years closer in time.

windmills, mechanical clocks come to mind

Again build on a technological base, and eventully things like the printing press and cheap paper. More below...

Many of these were original, although some count in as refinements from earlier Eastern technology

Which themselves given the demonstrably mature nature of the A device were likely based on Hellenistic/Roman work...

which also made great progresses compared to the years of the late Empire and Principate, technologically speaking a bit of a stagnated period.

What stagnation????????? step away from the Lynn White/M I Finley crack pipe

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Well conon I'm sure this debate was held before but I would like to hear, in a separate debate, your arguments as to why the Principate was not a technologically stagnated period. I would be glad to check your sources too...

Flamboyant statements aside - it is usually rather suggested that is is the most sophisticated device know for a 1000-1400 years not the 19th century.

At least until the Astronomical advances made in Al-Andalus, I would reckon.

EDIT -

Of course it better documented it happened 1000-1500 years closer in time.

We know more about the Egyptian and Sumerian Kings than of anything Greek before the 7th century, including lists of rulers. "Time" ain't got nothing to do with it.

[conon394]

We know more about the Egyptian and Sumerian Kings than of anything Greek before the 7th century, including lists of rulers. "Time" ain't got nothing to do with it.

Umm yes it does... Great we know something about what absolute rules liked to put down in stone about themselves in arid places that were not in continuous occupation so on stone not often reused. The A device by itself refutes you argument it is a mature device quite undocumented but vaguely by literary sources - which survive in only the most limited and fragmentary form. The comparison is not some Dynastic list but rather show me the Sumerian text on domesticating onagers or managing to save you cruciform text libraries...

At least until the Astronomical advances made in Al-Andalus, I would reckon.

Which is in fact rather in the time I just suggested was rather more common for describing the A device sans a Sagan's hyperbole

Well conon I'm sure this debate was held before but I would like to hear, in a separate debate, your arguments as to why the Principate was not a technologically stagnated period. I would be glad to check your sources too...

Fine at some point here in a few days I'll move it to VV but I also curious as to why you think the Principate was a period of stagnation? In any case this is more or less the same argument we hit on in Sig's Jared Diamond thread - where I belive you stated this...

Maybe we should blame the Napoleonic Army for not having repeating rifles, eh?

Seeing as the Middle Ages had over 1000 years and up to maybe 1500 years of additional development of the technological base to work with aren't you doing the same as those you sarcastically attack (and rather a poorer example since repeating rifles are less than 50 years in the future of Nappy's army...)

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Umm yes it does... Great we know some about what absolute rules liked to put down in stone about themselves in arid places that were not in continuous occupation so on stone not often reused. The A device by itself refutes you argument it is a mature device quite undocumented but vaguely by literary sources - which survive in only the most limited and fragmentary form. The comparison is not some Dynastic list but rather show me the Sumerian text on domesticating onagers or managing a to save you cruciform text libraries...

We have a good share of the library of Nineveh plus extremely pedantic (even though indulding in the anecdotal and extraordinary) accounts of campaigns, kings, dynasties, gods and the like from Mesopotamia and Egypt. By the same token the Greeks are rather empty in history and detail - Weather might have played an important part, since a great share of Egyptian art was also lost due to the wet climate of the Nile Delta, but then most of the time it's only an excuse. Case in point is that the Greeks had no interest in preserving much of their names and deeds in stone, or even preserving them at all - It is astounding we know about Menes after so many years, but the best limited glance of Heroic Age rulers comes from a highly mythological source (the Illiad). And that's about it - No list of rulers, no dynasties. It is probable that many of the more archaic figures, Homer, Lycurgus et all are later inventions.

Fine at some point here in a few days I'll move it to VV but I also curious as to why you think the Principate was a period of stagnation.

Most of the Science of the Principate was stagnated - We have rehearsals, commentaries and the like, but the best attempt at innovating Mathematics, for example, only came at the closing of this period by Diophantus. Philosophy was either a rehearsal of Zeno or an affirmation of Aristotelian and generally Hellenic principles and natural Science. Sculpture idem, architecture idem... Indeed it was a rather shallow period as far as I can tell. As for metallurgy, it remained about the same Iron Age stuff the Romans were used to since their earlier history - Innovations only come in significant number with the "Dark Ages", at least in Europe.

Again, as said elsewhere, the best the Principate can offer is probably Ptolemy for Astronomy.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

where I belive you stated this...

I said that only to be ironical with Siggy's stance that Pre-historical man should have "learned how to be 'civilized' quickly" or the likes. I didn't mean to be serious with that.

EDIT -

Seeing as the Middle Ages had over 1000 years and up to maybe 1500 years of additional development of the technological base to work with aren't you doing the same as those you sarcastically attack

I am not grasping your point here - Of course there is a technological basis for everything. Whether or not there is merit to anyone, is if it improves that base further, as the Middle Ages example shows both in the East and elsewhere. I am not ironizing the Greeks for not being clever enough to predict the whole advances of future Science - Only stating that there are periods where technology ceases to progress or progresses very slowly, a self-evident notion.

[SigniferOne]

Fine at some point here in a few days I'll move it to VV but I also curious as to why you think the Principate was a period of stagnation? In any case this is more or less the same argument we hit on in Sig's Jared Diamond thread - where I belive you stated this..

Actually I'll start a thread on this.

[conon394]

We have a good share of the library of Nineveh plus extremely pedantic (even though indulding in the anecdotal and extraordinary) accounts of campaigns, kings, dynasties, gods and the like from Mesopotamia and Egypt. By the same token the Greeks are rather empty in history and detail

Huh - I'm at a loss here? We have a ton of very detailed accounts form Greece - ATL anyone, the Athenian navy records laws from dozens of city states fragments (unfortunately Democritus could not command his philosophy to but on a pyramid or obisk) from hundreds and hundreds of poets, philosophers, dramatists, sophists, historians etc. Unfortunately as I mentioned most put their work to pen an ink and so suffer from the fact the medium they worked with is far less durable than baked clay tablets buried in arid ruins.

I mean is it the fault of Ephorus and the Oxyrhynchus historian, or Theopompus and any number of other period scholars we have only Thucydides and Herodotus in their entity surviving today?

edit and in any case does the Library of Nineveh provide a critical commentary on those kings, their policies, how to build an effective state, how to train good cavalry officers, any comments on past mythology etc.?