If you have any interest in ancient science and technology, you have almost certainly heard of the Antikythera mechanism, an ancient Greek mechanical orrery that was discovered in 1901 in an ancient shipwreck off the coast of the Greek island of Antikythera. It is a clockwork mechanism that was used to keep track of Olympiads and the movements of the celestial bodies. The wreck the device was recovered from dates to between c. 70 and c. 60 BC. The Antikythera mechanism itself was most likely originally created sometime in around the late second or early first century BC.
In popular science writings and in popular culture, the Antikythera mechanism is usually described as an “ancient Greek computer.” It is usually presented as an astonishing example of how incredibly advanced ancient Greek technology was and it is usually presented in such a way that makes it sound as though we had no idea that devices like it even existed before it was discovered.
The truth, though, is that devices like the Antikythera mechanism are actually well-attested in surviving ancient written sources and classical scholars already knew that these kinds of devices existed in antiquity long before the Antikythera mechanism was discovered. The Antikythera mechanism is not significant because it is the only device of its kind that ever existed, but rather because it is the only one of its kind that is known to have survived to the present day.
A review of the popular narrative about the Antikythera mechanism
A flurry of popular news articles about the Antikythera mechanism were published on 17 May 2017 after Google featured a “Google Doodle” commemorating the 115th anniversary of the discovery of the Antikythera mechanism. All of these articles went to great lengths to emphasize how utterly astounding and ahead of its time the Antikythera mechanism supposedly was, repeatedly claiming that it is a miraculous scientific creation totally unlike anything else known to have existed in the ancient world.
A typical example of such an article is an article from Vox titled “The Antikythera mechanism is a 2,000-year-old computer,” which takes great pains to emphasize “the genius — and mystery — of this piece of ancient Greek technology, arguably the world’s first computer.” The article declares that the Antikythera mechanism displays “a level of technology that archaeologists would usually date to the 16th century, not well before the first.” The article quotes Princeton University science historian Derek J. de Solla Price as writing the following:
“Nothing like this instrument is preserved elsewhere. Nothing comparable to it is known from any ancient scientific text or literary allusion… It is a bit frightening, to know that just before the fall of their great civilization the ancient Greeks had come so close to our age, not only in their thought, but also in their scientific technology.”
This statement is so jaw-droppingly ignorant I can hardly believe it came from a credentialed historian. First of all, as I shall show in a moment, there are, in fact, multiple specific references to devices like the Antikythera mechanism in numerous ancient texts that were well known to classical scholars before the Antikythera mechanism was discovered. The fact that Price somehow managed to not know this is startling to me.
ABOVE: Photograph of the British science historian Derek J. de Solla Price next to a modern reconstruction of the Antikythera mechanism
Second of all, Greek civilization did not really “fall.” In truth, Greek civilization has survived to this day; it has simply changed. All you have to do to know this is read any history of Greece ever written. Greek culture thrived under the Roman Empire, became the dominant culture of the Byzantine Empire, survived under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, and still survives in Greece today. Granted, it has changed significantly since ancient times, but there is no point where you can accurately describe Greek civilization as having totally “fallen.”
Unfortunately, this narrative about the Antikythera mechanism being an ancient Greek computer unlike anything anyone knew existed in antiquity before its discovery is also incorporated into how children are taught about ancient Greece. When I went to the Indianapolis Children’s Museum in summer 2019 for their “Treasures of Ancient Greece” exhibit, they had a whole section of the exhibit that was solely about the Antikythera mechanism.
The signs at the exhibit repeatedly referred to the Antikythera mechanism as a “computer” without clarifying what they meant by this—a blunder which I am sure gave many children the impression that they were reading about the ancient Greek equivalent of a modern laptop computer. Meanwhile, the exhibit went to great lengths to emphasize how utterly unique and amazing the Antikythera mechanism is. Nowhere in the exhibit did they mention the fact that devices like it are mentioned in surviving Greek texts that were known before the mechanism was discovered.
ABOVE: Photographs showing two different pieces of the Antikythera mechanism
Is it a computer?
The Antikythera mechanism is almost universally described in popular sources as a “computer.” This description is technically correct, but it is nonetheless deeply misleading. The Antikythera mechanism is technically a computer because it computes things, but it is only a “computer” in the same way that an abacus or an mechanical analog clock is a “computer.” It is not at all a “computer” in the sense that most people think of when they hear that word today.
The Antikythera mechanism is an analog, mechanical device. It is neither digital nor electrical. It has a variety of gears and dials that turn to show the motions of celestial bodies and so forth, but the technology is basically the same as the kind you would find in a standard mechanical analog clock; it is nowhere even close to the level of technology that you would find in a modern laptop or smartphone.
Mind you, all this is still very impressive considering that the Antikythera mechanism was created in around the first century BC. Nonetheless, the constant use of the word “computer” to describe the Antikythera mechanism has unfortunately given many people a false impression of just how advanced the device is. Popular science writers know very well what they mean when they call the Antikythera mechanism a “computer,” but, unfortunately, many of their readers do not understand what they mean, as evidenced by questions like these that I have encountered on Quora:
- “How did the ancient Greeks have their own Greek computer?”
- “Do you think the 2000 year old Greek computer was actually real?”
- “What are your thoughts on the 2000-year-old Greek computer?”
- “How was the Antikythera mechanism ‘fuelled’?”
Clearly, the people asking these questions were under the impression that the Antikythera mechanism was a computer in the sense we normally think of when we hear that word; these people clearly thought that the Antikythera mechanism is a computer in the same sense as a modern laplop—not in the broader sense of “a device used for computing.”
I really wish popular science writers would stop feeding these misconceptions by constantly referring to the Antikythera mechanism as a “computer.” Instead, they should call it a “mechanical orrery,” since this is a more precise and less misleading term. If people do not understand what an “orrery” is, the popular science writers can explain that an orrery is a kind of mechanical device used to keep track of the movements of celestial bodies. Calling it a “computer” does nothing but mislead people.
ABOVE: If you search for “computer” on Google Images, these are the kinds of images that show up—not abacuses, mechanical clocks, and orreries. Describing the Antikythera mechanism as a “computer” is technically correct, but it is nonetheless deeply misleading.
Coverage of similar devices in the writings of Cicero
The popular science writers and news outlets keep claiming that scholars had no idea that devices like the Antikythera mechanism even existed before the mechanism was discovered in the shipwreck off the coast of Antikythera in 1901. In reality, it has always been well known among classical scholars that these kinds of devices existed in classical antiquity. Classical scholars have known about the existence of these kinds of devices since long before the Antiktythera mechanism was ever discovered, because these kinds of devices are actually discussed quite extensively in surviving classical sources.
Notably, the Roman orator Cicero (lived 106 – 43 BC) mentions several devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism in his treatise De Re Publica 1.14. Here are Cicero’s own words, as translated into English by the early nineteenth-century British-American scholar G. W. Featherstonhaugh:
“‘I shall lay nothing new before you,’ said Philus, ‘nor any thing discovered or thought of by myself. I remember, however, that C. Sulpicius Gallus, a very learned man as you know; when this same phenomenon was stated to have been seen, being by chance in the house of M. Marcellus, who had been in the consulate with him; ordered a sphere to be placed before him, which the ancestor of M. Marcellus had taken from the conquered Syracusans, and brought out of their wealthy and embellished city; the only thing he had possessed himself of among so great a spoil. I had heard a great deal of this sphere, on account of the fame of Archimedes, but did not admire the construction of it so much; for another which Archimedes also had made, and which the same Marcellus had placed in the temple of virtue, was more elegant and remarkable in the general opinion.”
“But subsequently, when Gallus began very scientifically to explain the nature of the mechanism; the Sicilian appeared to me to possess more genius, than human nature would seem to be capable of. Gallus said, that the other solid and full sphere was an old invention, and was first wrought by Thales of Miletus: but afterwards was delineated over with the fixed stars in the heavens by Eudoxus, the Cnidian, a disciple of Plato. The which adorned and embellished as it was by Eudoxus, Aratus who had no knowledge of astronomy, but a certain poetical faculty, many years afterwards extolled in his verses. The mechanism of this sphere, however, on which the motions of the sun, moon, and those five stars which are called wandering and irregular, are shown; could not be illustrated on that solid sphere.”
“But what appeared very admirable in this invention of Archimedes was, that he had discovered a method of producing the unequal and various courses, with their dissimilar velocities, by one revolution. When Gallus put this sphere in motion, the moon was made to succeed the sun by as many revolutions of the brass circle, as it actually took days to do in the heavens. From which the same setting of the sun was produced on the sphere as in the heavens: and the moon fell on the very point, where it met the shadow of the earth, when the sun from the region…’”
Clearly, the device Cicero is describing here is one very, very much like the Antikythera mechanism. And, again, this passage was certainly known long before the rediscovery of the Antikythera mechanism in 1901; George William Featherstonhaugh, the translator of the version of the passage that I have quoted here, died in 1866—well over three decades before the Antikythera mechanism was rescued from the sea. When popular science writers keep claiming that no one knew about devices like the Antikythera mechanism prior to its discovery, they are only making fools of themselves.
ABOVE: Roman marble bust of the orator Cicero, who wrote about devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism in his treatise De Re Publica
Coverage of similar devices in other extant ancient Greek and Roman texts
There are at least a half dozen other passages in classical Greek and Roman texts describing devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism. In many texts, these kinds of devices are specifically associated with the ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes of Syracuse (lived c. 287 – c. 212 BC). In the passage I have just quoted, Cicero speaks of Archimedes as having constructed mechanical orreries similar to the Antikythera mechanism.
Meanwhile, according to the Greek mathematician Pappos of Alexandria (lived c. 290 – c. 350 AD), Archimedes not only studied these devices, but actually wrote a whole treatise on how they worked and how to construct them. Unfortunately, Archimedes’s treatise on orreries has not survived. This is not terribly surprising, considering that, as I discuss in this article from November 2019, many treatises by Archimedes have been lost and others have only been rediscovered relatively recently. One important treatise by Archimedes was only printed for the very first time in 1907!
In any case, in addition to Cicero and Pappos of Alexandria, the Roman writers Lactantius (lived c. 250 – c. 325 AD) and Claudian (lived c. 370 – c. 404 AD) and the Greek Neoplatonist writer Proklos the Successor (lived 412 – 485 AD) all also specifically mention Archimedes having constructed devices of this kind. There are also many accounts of devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism from Byzantine and Arab sources, indicating that the technology to construct these devices was never really lost, except perhaps in western Europe.
In other words, there is no question that other devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism existed during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In fact, we knew that these kinds of devices existed long before the Antikythera mechanism itself was ever discovered.
ABOVE: Fictional (and anachronistic!) portrayal of Archimedes of Syracuse painted in around 1620 by the Italian Baroque painter Domenico Fetti. Archimedes is recorded by multiple classical authors to have constructed orreries similar to the Antikythera mechanism.
Why no other similar devices have survived from antiquity
The only reason why no other examples of devices like the Antikythera mechanism have survived from antiquity to modernity is because devices like the Antikythera mechanism were extremely rare and expensive; they were not the sort of thing your average man in ancient Greece just had sitting in his closet.
You have to add onto this the fact that almost all the artifacts that existed in antiquity have been lost or destroyed. Indeed, it is especially rare for metal devices from ancient times to survive because, in most cases, such devices were eventually melted down for their metal. Taking all this information into consideration, it makes sense that few examples of such devices, if any, would have survived to the present day.
Rare and expensive metal artifacts from antiquity are normally only ever found in places where someone lost the object and was unable to retrieve it for some reason, meaning no one was ever able to melt the device down. The Antikythera mechanism was discovered in 1901 in the remains of an ancient shipwreck just off the coast of the Greek island of Antikythera. The device has only survived because it was at the bottom of the sea and no one was able to retrieve it.
ABOVE: Photograph from 1900 or 1901 of divers off the coast of Antikythera working to recover the artifacts from the Antikythera shipwreck, which included the Antikythera mechanism, along with a large number of other unique ancient Greek artifacts
The Antikythera wreck also preserved countless other rare and extremely valuable artifacts that have been preserved in few other places. For instance, it preserved a large number of ancient Greek bronze sculptures. Surviving bronze sculptures from ancient Greece are extremely rare because bronze sculptures were almost always melted down for their metal. Indeed, the ancient Greek bronze sculptures that have survived to the present age come primarily from ancient shipwrecks.
The more famous bronze sculptures that were discovered in the Antikythera wreck include the Antikythera Youth, a bronze sculpture of a nude young man, probably either a hero or an athlete, and the Antikythera Philosopher, a fragmentary statue of an old man with a beard, probably a Cynic philosopher. Both of these sculptures are currently on display in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, along with the Antikythera mechanism. As with the Antikythera mechanism, we know for certain that there were many, many other bronze sculptures that existed in ancient Greece that have not survived.
To be clear, complex mechanical devices like the Antikythera mechanism really do showcase impressive ancient technological skill, but the Antikythera mechanism itself is no more impressive than the other devices of its kind that have all been lost. The only thing that is unique of the Antikythera mechanism is that, unlike all the other devices of its kind that we know about, it has managed to survive this long because it was accidentally lost in a shipwreck and it was only recovered in modern times. The only thing miraculous about the Antikythera mechanism is its survival, not its mere existence.
ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of the Antikythera Youth, an ancient Greek bronze sculpture of a nude young man that was also discovered in the Antikythera shipwreck, currently held in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens
ABOVE: Photograph of the head of the Antikythera Philosopher, a fragmentary ancient Greek bronze sculpture of a philosopher—probably a Cynic—recovered from the Antikythera shipwreck, dating to between c. 250 BC and c. 200 BC, currently held in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens
Why is this not widely known?
Now, you may be wondering at this point why the fact that we know there were other devices like the Antikythera mechanism never seems to be mentioned in conversations about the Antikythera mechanism. I mean, you would think this would be the sort of thing that any classical historian describing the Antikythera mechanism would always be keen to emphasize. And you’d be right; any classical historian writing about the Antikythera mechanism would surely make sure to mention the fact that other devices similar to the Antikythera mechanism are mentioned in classical sources.
Unfortunately, classical historians seem to rarely ever be the ones educating the general public about the Antikythera mechanism. Instead, the general public has learned about the Antikythera mechanism not from classicists, but rather from popular science authors who are, in many cases, completely unaware of the surviving written sources on the subject. Thus, they tend to present the Antikythera mechanism is total isolation, as though we did not have any documentation of the existence of such mechanisms before the Antikythera mechanism was recovered.
This common misleading presentation of the Antikythera mechanism also feeds directly into a lot of misconceptions about ancient science. By presenting the Antikythera mechanism as though we had no knowledge whatsoever that devices like it even existed in antiquity prior to its discovery, popular science writers are directly contributing to a popular impression that we don’t really know the full extent of ancient technology and they are feeding into a widespread misconception that people in ancient times may have had all kinds of extremely advanced technologies totally unknown from the written record, like cars, airplanes, televisions, and the internet.
How much we really know
The truth is, we actually have a very good impression of the kinds of technologies that people in ancient Greece and Rome had. While the surviving written records from antiquity are admittedly not nearly as extensive as most classical historians would like, they are more than extensive enough for us to know more-or-less what kinds of technologies people in the ancient world had available to them. The precise details of certain technologies are lacking in some cases, but there is virtually no possibility that people in the ancient world had cars or computers as we think of them today.
This is the reason why I find the popular narrative about the Antikythera mechanism so frustrating: because it ultimately serves to undermine public confidence in the historical record by making people think that people in ancient times may have had vastly more sophisticated technology than anything historians today can even imagine.
In reality, it is certainly possible that some forms of ancient technology may have been more sophisticated in terms of some specific aspects and functions than what historians now believe them to have been. For instance, we might, say, discover that ancient Roman building methods were somewhat more advanced than we previously realized or that the ancient Greeks knew a bit more about astronomy than we once thought.
Nonetheless, it is highly, highly unlikely that we will ever have to completely revise our entire understanding of what kinds of technologies existed in the ancient world; we almost certainly aren’t going to discover that the ancient Romans built the Pantheon using ultrasonic levitators or that the ancient Greeks built a rocket ship and flew to the Moon.
ABOVE: Photograph from Wikimedia Commons of the Pantheon in Rome. There is virtually no chance that the Pantheon was actually built using ultrasonic levitators.
“If people do not understand what an “orrery” is, the popular science writers can explain that an orrery is a kind of mechanical device used to keep track of the movements of celestial bodies.”
And if they think that the words “mechanical” and “celestial” are still too complicated for their readership, then: 1.) This publication should probably reconsider its topic of choice; and: 2.) They can still say “it’s like a clock but it tells you where the planets are instead of what time it is”.
In no case is hyperbole an appropriate substitute for fact.
I have some honest advice from a typical reader. I had to stop reading because you frame your writing in a way that shows you do not have faith in your reader. Don’t bother writing extensively about these topics if you aren’t willing to put that trust in the reader that they have enough knowledge from previous to intemperate your article properly. For example going on and on and on and on about how it is technically an ancient computer, but not in the sense that modern people think a computer is. It should be considered that anyone taking the time to read an article like this knows that a computer refers to many things, not just a typical smart phone or laptop. Those things didn’t even exist in the way they are today 20 years ago. It’s like you write topics for adult audiences but then reference and explain everything as if speaking to a child. Pick an approach!
The problem is that lots of real, reasonable adults have heard the Antikythera mechanism described as a “computer” and have come to think that it is a highly technologically advanced device comparable to the kinds of devices we have today. I cite several examples of this in my article, but you can find this misconception in just about any clickbait-y article about ancient technology; they always inaccurately portray the Antikythera mechanism as a device so advanced that it totally undermines everything we thought we knew about the ancient world.
I can’t just assume that all the people reading my articles understand what I am saying. Even if you understand that the Antikythera mechanism is not a “computer” in the modern sense of the word, other people reading my article will certainly not understand this. I have to explain things for them. Honestly, if I have a flaw, it’s that I don’t explain things enough, because I get people leaving comments on my articles all the time who persist in believing these things, even though I have thoroughly debunked them.
For instance, I recently got this comment on an article I wrote debunking the popular misconception that the ancient Egyptians had electric lighting from someone who, even after reading my article, is still absolutely convinced that the ancient Egyptians did indeed have electric lighting.
Nice exposé, dude! I get your outrage here.
Also great to hear we’re only _almost_ certain we aren’t going to discover the ancients built a rocket and flew to the Moon, clearly some wiggle room there. Can we state there’s still a good chance we will discover they did…?
This is certainly well thought out. Is it ok to counter with a question?
I’m not butting in.. but are you right regarding this? It maybe somewhat triggered and I’m worried about you :/
Your claim of “widespread misconception” regarding ancient technology, suggesting people today widely believe the ancients had cars, television, or the internet, is ridiculous.
“By presenting the Antikythera mechanism as though we had no knowledge whatsoever that devices like it even existed in antiquity prior to its discovery, popular science writers are directly contributing to a popular impression that we don’t really know the full extent of ancient technology and they are feeding into a widespread misconception that people in ancient times may have had all kinds of extremely advanced technologies totally unknown from the written record, like cars, airplanes, televisions, and the internet.”
I’m not saying that everyone believes this. I’m just saying that this is a disturbingly popular misconception and one that has been aggressively promoted by pseudohistorical writers like Graham Hancock.
Bait-click authors give people what they , the readers, want to hear. The more sensational, the better. The latest is this “facial reconstruction” from Neanderthal skulls. People are left with the notion that this is what that particular Neanderthal looked like in life. This, of course, is horse-radish. This is art, not science. And it’s GREAT art, but it is still art. No mention of “artists concept” anywhere associated with the images. And the worst part is that reputable scholars are being sucked into the artist’s trap.
I am not the grammar police but you should proofread this article. You might change your tone. You talk down to your audience. I’m really not sure what you think you’ve debunked.
According to what I’ve read, the mathematics going into the construction of this device were not supposed to exist yet. Where are the examples of the wrist models. Very similar to our modern wrist watches. Someone owns a couple of empty watch cases from this time period. I do not recall who. Until the discovery of the Antikythera Device, no one knew how the inner gears would have worked. They had empty cases with bars where a leather strap would have been attached. It would be like future people finding an empty watch case. Did it run on gears and spring alone? Or was it like a Bulova Accutron running on a tuning fork and copper coil powered by a 1.55 volt current??? This just so happens to be the average output of your scroll preserving jars. I’m not saying they had Accutron like technology but it’s possible.
What you are really overlooking is the capabilities of such devices. Especially in regards to calculating longitude at sea or over land for that matter. The Antikythera Device is much more complex than your average orrery. Why do literalists always sell ancient man short? Especially regarding astronomy.
Do you even realize one of the photos you’ve provided contains a trademarked symbol? Which actually refers to a different Son of God than the pseudo-historian who trademarked the symbol thinks. The symbol just so happens to reside in the same picture you have misidentified an object as an “orrery”. In the “Fictional (and anachronistic!) portrayal of Archimedes of Syracuse painted in around 1620 by the Italian Baroque painter Domenico Fetti. Archimedes is recorded by multiple classical authors to have constructed orreries similar to the Antikythera mechanism.” What you call an “orrery” is actually a Celestial Globe. Some early globes combine the knowledge of the terrestrial sphere and the celestial sphere. Later on they become pairs as a terrestrial sphere(aka globe) and the celestial sphere(Globe containing mythological representations of the heavens). This is where your knowledge is incomplete. Once you learn to combine the celestial sphere with all of the various mythologies, you’ll have a much better understanding of things you already know. There is so much you think you’ve debunked that you actually have not.
Studying medieval cartography for the past several years has led me to discover new mythologies I didn’t know existed previously. Especially regarding the identity/persona applied to certain stars.
Before the discovery of this device, what was the oldest known device with the same level of technology?
My understanding is that a mechanical device with this complexity and precision was not known to have been created until the 14th century.