Slashdot Mirror
New Clues for Antikythera Mechanism
fuzzybunny writes "The Register reports that British and Dutch scientists located a previously undetected word on the Antikythera Mechanism which seems to confirm its nature as a tool for astronomical prediction. This device is one of the world's first known geared devices; while its purpose is still not 100% clear, according to the article, 'Athens university researcher Xenophon Moussas is reported as saying the "newly discovered text seems to confirm that the mechanism was used to track planetary bodies."'"
And what makes us think that most Greeks believed in a geocentric universe? We know precious little about what they knew back then, since we have only a handful of their writings. To insinuate that we have anything like a complete map of the intellectual landscape of the time is sheerest puffery.
A minute's thought might convince us that a heliocentric model was available to them: They knew the earth was a sphere; they knew its size; they knew the sun was far enough away that its rays arrived parallel for all intents and purposes. Add to that that as soon as someone tried to build something like the Antikythera Mechanism they must perforce have noticed (as did Kepler a millennium and a half later) that it's far easier to model the heavens if you place the sun in the center rather than the earth.
Even this mechanism itself cannot be unique, as some articles about it have hinted. An automaton/clockwork/astronomical model this complex cannot have leapt full-formed from the mind of a single inventor. There must be an entire lineage of similar devices. That we have only a single example is simply a hint that there was much more to their technology than we're currently aware of. It's also an indication of how easy it is for a cultural calamity to erase collective memories of high tech; a warning for our times if nothing is. Not to mention that the correct ideas are not necessarily those which survive such a calamity. After all, when the Roman Empire fell, Medieval Europe inherited the Ptolemaic model. Of course, by then Ptolemy was writing (ca. 150) he probably had to work without the benefit of the bulk of the Royal Library at Alexandria so he may have been left to his own devices when considering a model of planetary motion.
And the brethren went away edified.
If it were the only example, I'd agree with you. The Greeks had working steam power (not surpassed until the Industrial Revolution), an idea the solar system was centered on the sun, the beginnings of a theory of robotics, high-ranking female scientists, possibly a printing system (the Phaios Disk is printed, not written or carved) and maybe any number of discoveries we don't even know they had. The "dark ages" were not truly barbaric - art flourished then as it had never done before or ever since - but the total collapse of science and the loss of knowledge was a terrible tragedy. Not only did it put humanity 2,000 years behind on technology, but the re-learning devastated the environment and it is entirely possible that human civilization will not be capable of undoing the damage fast enough.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If we all disappeared, how much of what we have done would survive the test of time? A thousand years of neglect would take its toll. Even concrete won't last forever. A few hundred years is good enough for our current purposes, but that's hardly a blip in history. If 95% of the population died off, it wouldn't be possible to maintain what we have right now. Combined with climate changes, it's easy to imagine how even our modern society could waste away. I imagine stories of Silicon Valley would sound a lot like Atlantis if the oceans rose a few hundred feet.
The idea of a nuclear war in antiquity is preposterous. They didn't have atoms back then. =)
Anything made of stone has the best chance of standing the test of time. I think the pyramids demonstrate that. While the faces of the pyramids have been destroyed, there's no mistaking huge mounds of rocks that look out of place.
Knowing that there is iron in the concrete may lead to the conclusion that someone put it there, but not necessarily to why. One of the limitations of archaelogy is that the most believable story that incorporates all of the evidence wins. Knowing that something was a 3000 year old Anasazi field may be somewhat interesting, but generally isn't the level of detail people are looking for. While that may be true, it only tells us a little about how they lived. It doesn't tell us much about their culture, other than they farmed, which means they likely weren't nomads.
I remember an example used in class of how this process would work if it were applied to us. Some future archaeologist who came across the remains of our society would find most of it destroyed. Artifacts are rare, which is why they need a story to fill in the blanks. Many of the bodies found from our time would have groups of trinkets in close proximity, or in the clothes if they were still in tact. The number and types of these trinkets may be associated with someone's social status or religious beliefs. It would be curious because each group of trinkets would have similarities, but be different. In fact, no two identical sets of trinkets would be found across all of the bodies found. Someone could look at all of this and conclude that these were indications of social status and develop some intricate theory. Without someone from the present time to say "these are keys, they go in locks, we lock things because we don't trust people", the theory may sound solid.