Reference / Paper · 2016

The Inscriptions of the Antikythera Mechanism, 4: The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions

Almagest 7(1). Metonic months, games dial and Saros eclipse glyphs.

Author: M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. M. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou
Year: 2016
Type: Reference / Paper
Credit: Almagest / AMRP

antikythera
inscriptions
saros

M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 4 The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 138 DOI 10.1484/J.ALMAGEST.5.110735 Y. Bitsakis Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens/ Institute of Historical Research/National Hellenic Research Foundation, Greece E-mail: [email protected] A. Jones Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York, USA E-mail: [email protected] J. M. Steele Department of Egyptology and Assyriology, Brown University, USA E-mail: [email protected] M. Zafeiropoulou National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece E-mail: [email protected] 139 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions M. Anastasiou Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The rear face of the Mechanism consisted of a rectangular “Back Plate“ dominated by two large spiral dials. The upper five-turn Metonic Dial represented a 235-lunar-month calendrical cycle while the lower four-turn Saros Dial represented a 223-lunar-month eclipse prediction cycle. A subsidiary quadrant “Games“ dial was situated inside the Metonic Dial, and a subsidiary three-sector Exeligmos Dial inside the Saros Dial. Preserved text inscribed around the dials (from the lower right quarter of the plate), probably representing about a quarter of the original inscription, provided further information associated with the predictions of eclipses. This paper describes the reconstruction from the Mechanism’s fragments of the surviving parts of the text on the plate and its dials, giving transcriptions and translations. The Metonic Dial inscriptions imply a calendrical scheme similar to that described by Geminos. It was intended to be a version of the calendar of Corinth as it was practiced either at Corinth itself or in some locality of Epirus. The Games dial shows six competitions, four Panhellenic (Olympics, Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean) plus Naa (Dodona) and very probably Halieia (Rhodes). On the Saros dial there were probably originally about 50 or 51 month cells with a lunar and/or solar eclipse prediction, each carrying a “glyph“ and an index letter. Predicted This is an open access chapter distributed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International License. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions eclipse times (in equinoctial hours) on the glyphs were calculated as times of true syzygy according to solar and lunar models that both involved anomaly, with the simple Exeligmos dial extending the predictions over three or more Saros cycles. We are reluctant to base a firm construction date on interpretation of the eclipse cycles. The additional information referred to by index letters from the Saros dial was grouped into paragraphs; that for lunar eclipse prediction probably ran down one side of the plate, and that for solar eclipse prediction down the other. Statements about direction may imply a meteorological aspect by referring to predictions of winds attending the eclipses. Five references to colour and size at eclipse are the only Greco-Roman source known to us that suggests prediction of eclipse colors, and might conceivably be linked with astrology. 140 The rear face of the Mechanism consisted of the so-called Back Plate, a rectangular plate, approximately 316 mm tall by 171 mm wide, dominated by two large spiral dials (Fig. 4.1).1 The upper Metonic Dial represented a 235-lunar-month calendrical cycle while the lower Saros Dial represented a 223-lunar-month eclipse cycle.2 Each spiral was defined by a slot cut through the back plate, approximating an Archimedean spiral by means of alternating semicircular arcs, and winding clockwise from the inner to the outer end of the slot, making five complete turns for the Metonic Dial and four complete turns for the Saros Dial. Although there is some uncertainty, it appears that the two outer ends either coincided —so that there was a single continuous slot for both spirals— or came close to doing so.3 The inner end of each spiral was about halfway between the spiral’s geometrical center and the center point of the Back Plate. The scales of the dials ran continuously along the outside of the slot, taking up the entire winding strip of metal between the successive turns and finally running once around the outermost turn. Where the scales came closest to the edges of the Back Plate, they left only small margins. There would have been some overlap of the scale areas of the two spirals near the centre. Two series of inscriptions belong to the Metonic Dial. (i) The scale of the dial was divided by radial lines into 235 cells subtending approximately equal arcs, representing single synodic months. Every cell contained an inscription, consisting of either just a month name or an ordinal year number followed by a month name. (ii) Immediately inside the innermost turn of the slot, numerals were inscribed at intervals of two or occasionally three cells. When the Mechanism was set to display the chronological and astronomical situation for 1 Freeth, Jones, Steele, and Bitsakis 2008, building on earlier contributions, in particular Price 1959 and 1974, Wright 2004 and 2005, and Freeth et al. 2006. For the estimated dimensions see IAM 1.5. 2 The names used here for the parts of the Mechanism are modern, and reflect modern nomenclature for elements of ancient astronomy. “Metonic“ is the modern designation of a period comprising 235 synodic months and (approximately) 19 solar years, as well as of calendrical cycles based on this period. Greek writers attributed it to Meton of Athens (fl. 432 B.C.) though it was known earlier in Mesopotamia and served as the basis of regulation of the Babylonian calendar from about 500 B.C. on (Britton 2007). In Greek texts it is called ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίς (“19-year period“) or ἐνιαυτὸς Μέτωνος (“year of Meton“). “Saros“ is the modern name for a 223 synodic month eclipse period also known to the Babylonians (who called it, with convenient inexactitude, “18 years“) and the Greeks (who called it περιοδικός, “periodic,“ according to Ptolemy, Almagest 4.2). Greek sources use the name Σάρος for different chronological intervals of allegedly Babylonian origin, and it was Halley who mistakenly associated it with the 223 synodic month period; see Neugebauer 1957, 141-142. 3 IAM 1.5. 141 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 4.1 Introduction a particular date, the cell indicated by the pointer-follower of the Metonic Dial gave the current year and month in the calendar cycle.4 If this cell lined up radially with a numeral inscribed along the inner rim of the slot, this meant that the month had twenty-nine days instead of the “normal“ thirty, with the day number corresponding to the numeral skipped over in the count of days. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions The Games Dial was a small subsidiary dial situated in the right half of the space at the center of the Metonic Dial;5 its circle was divided by two engraved diameters into four approximately equal quadrants. It too has two series of inscriptions (iii): inside each quadrant is an ordinal year number, while outside the perimeter of each quadrant are names of athletic competitions. The pointer of this dial would have shown the position of the current calendar year in a repeating four-year cycle, as well as competitions taking place in that year. (A second subsidiary dial, the Callippic Dial, is conjectured to have occupied the left half of the central space.)6 142 The Saros Dial’s scale was divided by radial lines into 223 cells subtending approximately equal arcs, again representing synodic months. Only one series of inscriptions accompanied this dial: (iv) in some of the cells of the scale, highly abbreviated texts (named “glyphs“ in recent scholarship)7 indicated the possibility that a lunar or solar eclipse might occur in the corresponding months, as well as a time of day or night for the eclipse. About one-quarter of the cells had such a glyph, while the remainder were left vacant. The subsidiary Exeligmos Dial, situated in the right half of the space at the center of the Saros Dial, was divided radially into three approximately equal sectors (v): two of the sectors contain numerals, while the third seems to have been left vacant. When this dial’s pointer indicated one of the numerals, that number of hours was to be added to the times given in the glyphs. The space left around the two spirals consisted of four roughly triangular spaces at the corners and two larger, again roughly triangular, spaces halfway down the two sides of the plate. The only remains of the plate outside the dials, preserved in Fragments A, E, and F, 4 For the structure of the pointer-followers of the spiral dials see Anastasiou, Seiradakis, Carman, and Efstathiou 2014, 3-7, and IAM 5.5, commentary to lines II 5-15. 5 It should be noted that Price 1974, 44 conjectured that the main upper dial (which is in fact the Metonic Dial) might be a four-year dial. 6 Wright 2005, 11 conjectured that the extant subsidiary dial (the Games Dial) inside the Metonic Dial was a Callippic Dial. A preserved passage of the Back Cover Inscription (II 17-19) referring to the Metonic and Callippic periods makes the former existence of a Callippic Dial probable, and in Freeth, Jones, Steele, and Bitsakis 2008, Supplementary Notes (amended June 2, 2011) 23 it was hypothesized to have occupied a position to the left of the Metonic Dial’s center. 7 The term was introduced in Freeth et al. 2006, 589 and Supplementary Information 5 This paper contains new, critical editions and translations of all the inscriptions on the Mechanism’s rear face. For the inscriptions of the upper dials (the Metonic and Games Dials) we have not seen a need to provide extensive commentaries, but we summarize the principal findings of the 2008 paper and draw attention to a few developments in our understanding of these inscriptions since 2008.8 We offer a more extensive treatment of the Saros Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions, based on findings that we obtained between 2007 and 2012 in the process of preparing our editions. Two recently published papers report and develop some of these findings (which were communicated to their authors);9 however, we believe it will be useful to present our analyses and arguments more or less as they stood in 2012, making the necessary adjustments to take into account more recent revisions in the texts of the inscriptions, and referring to the more recent publications for a few salient additions or corrections. 8 Anastasiou, Seiradakis, Carman, and Efstathiou 2014; Iversen 2011, 2013a, 2013b, and 2015. Paul Iversen’s work on the Metonic and Games Dials (in part in collaboration with John D. Morgan) will be reported in greater depth in Iversen (forthcoming, a) and Iversen (forthcoming, b). 9 Carman & Evans 2014 (see in particular pp. 697 note 2 and 765); Freeth 2014 (see below, note 34). 143 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions come from its lower right quarter, wrapping around the right half of the eclipse spiral, and accounting for about half of the larger triangular area in the right center and most of the smaller area in the lower right. In all three fragments, the plate outside the Saros Dial is inscribed with parts of a single text (vi), the “Back Plate Inscription“. It seems likely that other parts of this inscription occupied all six triangular spaces outside the dials; if so, we have about a quarter of the original text. This text provided further information in connection with the predictions of eclipses on the Saros Dial. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 4.2 Location and layout of the Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 144 Figure 4.1: Reconstruction of the back face of the Mechanism, with scale cells and sectors numbered for reference. Regions of the plate surviving in the major fragments are approximately indicated by dark gray outlines Fragment B (see supplementary Fig. S2), the second largest fragment of the Mechanism, has dimensions 111 mm (height), 98 mm (width), 20 mm (thickness). B-1 preserves about a third of the spiral scales of the Metonic Dial and about a third of the space inside the spiral, including the entire Games Dial. On B-2 are the remains of a bridge radially crossing the turns of the spiral, which was there to provide them with support and stability, and a single gear that directly drove the pointer of the Games Dial. A layer of accretion material bearing the mirror-reversed impressions of the Back Cover Inscription overlays about three-quarters of B-1; a small bit of the Back Cover plate itself is also present. A substantial portion of the pointer of the spiral is lodged in the space between the accretion layer and the Back Plate. Part of the Metonic Dial scales that is not behind the accretion layer is now exposed but has undergone much surface damage. In photographs from 1902-1918, this region was wholly concealed behind a layer of patina. This material was probably removed during the conservation work of 1953. In addition to providing the only means of reading the dial inscriptions in Fragment B that are not now exposed, CT has also proved more effective than PTMs for the exposed area (Fig. 4.2). 10 The original configuration of Fragments A and B was deduced by Price in 1958 (Price 1959, 62-64) and, as he later reports, confirmed in 1961, apparently by fitting the fragments together physically (Price 1974, 47). Bromley and Wright established the correct placement of Fragment E around 1990, and Wright has published a photograph taken at that time showing A, B, and E fitted together in their approximate relative positions (Wright 2004, 9, Fig. 10, and Wright 2005, 10, Fig. 5). Fragment F’s location immediately below Fragment A was established by Freeth et al. 2006, 589, Fig. 4. Conservation carried out around 1905 and 1953 removed material from the surfaces of fragments A and B, so that little if any of the original contact surfaces survive. 145 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions The surviving parts of the Mechanism’s back face are divided among four of the major fragments, which were originally contiguous but had broken apart by 1902 when Fragments A and B were discovered in the Museum.10 Fragment B preserves part of the upper half of the back face, while parts of the lower half are present in Fragments A, E, and F. In addition, we have two small fragments (24 and 25) of accretion material that formerly adhered to the lower back face, preserving mirror-reversed imprints. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 146 Figure 4.2 : Fragment B, CT composite image (Image: Antikythera Mechanism Research Project) Fragment A (supplementary Fig. S1), the largest surviving piece of the Mechanism, has dimensions 174 mm (height), 164 mm (width), 55 mm (thickness). It preserves a major portion of the gearwork that led by various complex trains from the rotary input on one of the Mechanism’s sides to those outputs on the front and back faces relating to solar and lunar motion, chronological systems, and eclipse prediction. A-2 also retains part of the lower half of the Back Plate itself, including parts of the Saros Dial and the entire Exeligmos Dial. Overlaying part of the Back Plate is an accretion layer of corrosion products bearing mirror-reflected offsets of the Back Cover Inscription. This layer conceals parts of the dials. The entire inscribed area of the Back Plate outside the Saros Dial is exposed, though parts are obscured or obliterated by surface damage. We have depended primarily on PTMs and photographs for the exposed inscriptions on Fragment A, and on CT for the inscriptions concealed behind the accretion layer. Figure 4.3 : Fragment E, CT composite image (Image: Antikythera Mechanism Research Project) Fragment F (Fig. 4.4), 80 mm height, 94 mm width, 35 mm thickness) preserves another part of the Saros Dial and the surrounding Back Plate, both of which are entirely concealed by a layer of patina. Adhering to part of the inscribed face is a small piece from the corner of a metal plate with a sliding catch similar to the one preserved in Fragment C.12 Part of the Mechanism’s containing frame is also present. Fragment F was originally situated immediately below Fragment A, to which it would have been rather precariously attached, but it had broken off before the 1902 discovery and was not identified in the Museum’s 11 The Price-Kalligas correspondence (comprising three letters from Kalligas and two from Price, 1976-1978) is preserved at the Adler Planetarium, Chicago. Price mistakenly thought that Fragment E adjoined the top of Fragment B, at the top of the original Mechanism. The first published description of Fragment E is in Wright 2005, 9; Wright determined its correct original location. 12 See IAM 3.2. 147 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions Fragment E (Fig. 4.3), 37 mm height, 61 mm width, 14 mm thickness) consists of three layers of material. The lowest layer comprises part of the Saros Dial and the surrounding area of the Back Plate. Next, and entirely covering this, is part of the layer of accreted material bearing the offsets of the Back Cover Inscription. Topmost, though partly broken away so as to expose the offsets on the accretion layer, is part of the Back Cover itself. Fragment E was originally attached to the rear face of Fragment A, but had already become separated when the Mechanism was discovered in 1902. It lay unrecognized in the Museum’s store until 1976, when it was found by the museum’s curator of bronzes, Petros Kalligas, who sent photographs of it to Price on April 4.11 The inscriptions on the Back Plate in E can only be seen in CT. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions store until it was discovered by M. Zafeiropoulou in April, 2005.13 The inscriptions are only visible by way of CT. 148 Figure 4.4 : Fragment F, CT composite image (Image: Antikythera Mechanism Research Project) 13 Zafeiropoulou 2006, 830-831. Figure 4.5: (Left) Fragments 24 and 25, image from PTM ak2a and ak2b with diffuse gain; (right) Fragment 25, CT composite image (Images: Antikythera Mechanism Research Project) 149 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions Two small platelike fragments, numbered 24 (29 mm height, 13 mm width) and 25 (21 mm height, 19 mm width), are part of a layer of accreted matter that originally lay against the Back Plate on A (Fig. 4.5). They preserve mirror-reversed “offset“ impressions of parts of the Back Plate Inscription and the scale inscriptions of the Saros Dial, and in addition a bit of the surface of the Back Plate itself adheres to Fragment 25. 4.3 Previous transcriptions and study of the Back Plate Inscription M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions Fragment A was one of the original two or three fragments to be accidentally discovered at the National Archeological Museum on May 18 or 20 (Julian), 1902.14 In the condition in which it was found, only the top six or so lines of the Back Plate Inscription were exposed, while the remainder (as well as the Saros Dial scales) were hidden behind a layer of accreted matter, as can be seen in the photograph of A-2 in Svoronos’s 1903 publication of the wreck.15 When a group of archeologists including Gavriel Vyzantinos examined Fragment A on May 21 with the aid of a lens, only a few letters, including the unrecognizable word fragments ΙΝΟΝ (in the present line 3) and ΤΩΝ (likely a misreading of ΤΑΝ in the present line 5) could be read, as reported in two Athens newspapers, Σκρίπ and Νέον Ἄστυ on May 22.16 Attention soon shifted decisively to the mirror-writing inscription on B-1, which was seen to contain identifiable vocabulary relating to astronomy, and no further readings from A-2 were reported until Periklis Rediadis’s report on the Mechanism incorporated in Svoronos’s book. In its Greek edition, a few letters on five lines, credited to Svoronos and corresponding to lines 1-3 and 5-6 of the present lineation, are erroneously said to be inscribed on C-1.17 The German edition has the identical transcription, but assigns it to its correct place on A-2.18 The longest stretch of letters that Svoronos thought he was able to read was the sequence ΙΚΟΜΑ in line 2, of which only the first two letters are correct, and not one complete word could be guessed at. 150 The layer covering the rest of the inscription was separated from A-2 during the conservation work of around 1905; two pieces of this layer survive, the present Fragments 24 and 25, which bear mirror-writing impressions of parts of the Back Plate Inscription and the Saros Dial scale inscriptions that exactly match the engraved text on A. A photograph of A-2 taken by Georg Karo for Albert Rehm in October, 1905, though none too clear, shows the entire inscribed area as it is now preserved.19 A later photograph in Rehm’s collection, believed to date from 1918, catches more detail, and hints that parts of the inscription were slightly more legible then than they are now. During his visits to Athens in 1905 and 1906 Rehm must have seen more of the inscription than Svoronos had, but if he made a fuller transcription if it, it has not come to light. 14 15 16 See IAM 2.1 for the history of discovery and conservation of the fragments. Svoronos 1903a and 1903b, plate 10. “Αἱ ἀρχαιότητες τῶν Ἀντικυθήρων,“ Σκρίπ no. 2429, May 22, 1902: 3; “Δύο ἐνεπίγραφα τεμάχια ἀπὸ τὰ Ἀντικύθηρα“, Νέον Ἄστυ no. 162, May 22, 1902: 2. 17 Svoronos 1903a, 46. 18 Svoronos 1903b, 45. 19 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Rehmiana III/9. Fragment 24 was known to Theofanidis, who gave a transcription of it in his encyclopedia article.21 Surprisingly, he did not recognize that it matched part of the inscription on A-2, the transcription of which was given immediately above. In 1958 Derek de Solla Price and George Stamires studied the Mechanism’s fragments (which had undergone another round of conservation in 1953); the transcription of the Back Plate Inscription that Price published in 1974 was presumably based on Stamires’s work, since Price did not have sufficient knowledge of Greek to read or interpret the more extended inscriptions.22 This was a more comprehensive transcription than any that had preceded it, with parts of lines 1-6 and 10-18 represented; roughly three quarters of the letters agree with the readings offered in the present paper. Stamires and Price were able to verify Theofanidis’s Ἀπηλιώτην by reading several letters of the beginning of the word on line 13; but this was the only complete word that they correctly read or restored. While dismissing Theofanidis’s other restorations of wind names, Price introduced a new false restoration, Ἰάπυγος, “West-northwest Wind,“ in lines 16-17.23 He confessed his inability to explain the purpose of the direction references. 20 Theofanidis [1927-1930], “98“ [correct pagination: 90] and 1934, 145. In the former article, “99“ [correct pagination: 91] he repeats Svoronos’s transcription of lines 1-3 and 5-6, saying these lines were formerly on a layer of material on Fragment C that had been removed to expose the parapegma inscription. Thus he was relying on Svoronos 1903a and unaware of the correction in Svoronos 1903b; but it is strange that he did not notice that these lines are actually on Fragment A, right above the ones that he himself transcribed. In the 1934 paper he makes no mention of the upper lines. 21 Theofanidis [1927-1930], “98“ [correct pagination: 90]. It does not appear to be mentioned in Theofanidis 1934. 22 Price 1974, 48 and 50-51. 23 The file of Price’s notes on the inscriptions kept at the Adler Planetarium, Chicago strongly suggests that Price introduced this restoration at a late stage, probably after his collaboration with Stamires had ceased. 151 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions Ioannis Theofanidis published transcriptions of parts of lines 12-18 in his encyclopedia article on the voyages of St. Paul and in his 1934 paper on the Mechanism, and he made the happy guess that ΩΤΗΝ in line 14 was the end of the wind name Ἀπηλιώτην, signifying either the East Wind or the direction due east. 20 Although his restorations of other bits of words in these lines as wind names have turned out to be false, such names do occur intermittently in the rest of the inscription. Theofanidis believed that the plate bearing the inscription was extraneous to the Mechanism and merely stuck on it, and that it was a remnant of a circular diagram showing the directions of the rising and setting points of stars on the horizon as an aid to navigation; under the influence of this hypothesis, his drawings misrepresent the lines of text as fanning out from a center point rather than running along parallel lines. In his 1959 Scientific American article, Price provided drawings of the portions of the Back Plate on B-1 and A-2.24 The drawing of B-1 shows the cells of the Metonic Dial scale, with attempts to transcribe a few letters in eight of the cells. The circular outline of the Games Dial and its quadrant divisions is also shown, though it lies entirely behind the accretion layer with the Back Cover Inscription offsets; Price must have managed to see it by looking obliquely into the narrow gap between the Back Plate and the accretion layer.25 The only indication he gives of inscribed text on the Games Dial is a sigma near the bottom of its lower left quadrant, which does not seem to correspond to any of the actual inscriptions.26 On A-2 Price’s drawing shows the cells of the Saros Dial, with incomplete but fairly good copies of the glyphs in cells 125, 178, and 184, and in the text of the article he correctly identifies the notations signifying Sun, Moon, and numbered hours.27 He also shows the subsidiary Exeligmos Dial with the eta inscribed in its lower left sector, though the sector divisions are not drawn. Surprisingly, the corresponding figure in Gears from the Greeks shows fewer cell inscriptions on the Metonic dial, while the transcriptions of the three cells of the Saros Dial with glyphs are different from their 1959 versions and on the whole less accurate.28 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions On one page of his manuscript notes on the Mechanism’s inscriptions Price drew a copy of Fragment 24 and noted its correspondence to the inscription on A, but in Gears from the Greeks he did not mention Fragment 24 at all. Price’s 1958 photographs of the Mechanism’s fragments show both 24 and 25, but he does not appear to have taken any special notice of 25.29 152 The paper on the Mechanism published in 2006 by the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project (AMRP) includes as part of its supplementary material a new provisional text of the Back Plate Inscription.30 For the part preserved on A-2, this text follows Stamires-Price fairly closely, though adding a small number of new letters and correctly reverting in line 3 to the 1902-1903 reading ΙΝΟΝ (Stamires and Price apparently thought they saw ΗΛΙΟΝ, “Sun,“ with the lambda and iota fused). Moreover, through study of CT volumes, the AMRP 24 Price 1959, 64. 25 See also Wright 2005, 11, who reports being able to see only the upper left part of the circle with parts of two of the radii, as well as traces of dial inscriptions visible in tomographic images. 26 The sigma also appears in the drawing of B-1 in Price 1974, 17, Fig. 7. In the 1959 drawing the Games Dial is shown as a pair of concentric circles, whereas the 1974 drawing correctly shows only one circle. 27 Price 1959, 64-65. 28 Price 1974, 17, Fig. 7. 29 Price’s collection of photographs relating to the Mechanism as well as his file of notes on the inscriptions are at the Adler Planetarium, Chicago. 30 Freeth et al. 2006, Supplementary Information 9-10. The AMRP researchers correctly read and recognized two new wind names in addition to retaining Theofanidis’s correct Ἀπηλιώτην and Price’s incorrect Ἰάπυγος, namely Λίβα, “West Wind,“ in Fragment E, line 6, and Νότον/Νότου, “South Wind,“ in Fragment F, lines 5 and 12. Unclear CT images misled them into reading two place names, Φάρος, “Pharos“ (Fragment F, line 7) and Ἱσπανίας, “Spain“ (Fragment F, line 13). Pointing out that the solar eclipses are highly dependent on geographical location, and that ancient eclipse observations often took note of wind directions during the eclipse —and perhaps also tacitly reasoning from the location of the inscription next to the eclipse spiral — the researchers suggested that the inscription had something to do with eclipses. The 2006 paper also included provisional transcriptions of sixteen glyphs of the Saros Dial scale, relying on CT for those in Fragments E, F, and the parts of A hidden behind the accretion layer.31 These were the first published transcriptions to show the index letters, though their function was not yet understood. The AMRP researchers were the first to identify the glyphs as indications that eclipses of the Sun or Moon could occur in the months corresponding to the inscribed cells, and they conjectured (unaware that Price had partially anticipated them) that the glyphs also gave a prediction of the time of eclipse in seasonal hours. In 2008 a group of researchers associated with the AMRP published a second paper devoted to the Back Dial Inscriptions. 32 The revised transcriptions of the Saros Dial glyphs now extended to eighteen cells, and the numerals of the Exeligmos Dial were described and explained as time corrections for the predicted eclipse times. The index letters were explained for the first time, and on their basis a revised conjectural reconstruction of the distribution of glyphs was presented. This paper also provided the first transcriptions of the Metonic Dial and Games Dial inscriptions (aside from the few letters that Price copied). The calendar of the Metonic Dial scale was identified as that of Corinth, and a conjectural restoration of the entire calendrical scale was offered. Meanwhile in 2007, Yanis Bitsakis and Emmanouel Georgoudakis (then of the Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Center for History and Palaeography), who had undertaken a revision of the reading of the Back Plate Inscription, discovered in the part of 31 Freeth et al. 2006, 589, Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information 5. In this paper the Saros Dial’s spiral was incorrectly reconstructed with its beginning and end at the bottom. 32 Freeth, Jones, Steele, & Bitsakis 2008. 153 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions researchers were able to add readings from inside Fragment E, which yielded earlier portions of lines 5-8 (though due to a slight misalignment of the fragments they were erroneously assigned to lines 4-7), and Fragment F, which yielded an entirely new run of thirteen lines of the inscription some distance below the part preserved in A. Over the entire inscription, about five letters out of six read in 2006 agree with our readings. the inscription in Fragment F terminology relating to colors, and on the basis of this as well as the expressions previously read relating to directions, Bitsakis identified the inscription as an eclipse description text. Comparing their readings with his own (from PTM) of the inscription on Fragment A, Alexander Jones established that the inscription comprised a series of paragraphs with repetitive structure, and conjectured that these paragraphs were linked to groups of the eclipse predictions in the Saros Dial scale by means of sets of index letters. Bitsakis and Jones produced an augmented and substantially improved transcription of the entire Back Plate Inscription in 2009. This transcription and the findings concerning the contents and structure of the inscription provided the foundations for the treatment of the Saros Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions in the present paper, which was drafted in 2012. M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions An extensive study of the eclipse predictions of the Mechanism was published by Tony Freeth in 2014.33 This paper included revised copies of the glyphs as well as a transcription of the Back Plate Inscription. The latter was prepared by Charles Crowther (Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, Oxford) on the basis of images and tracings provided to him by Freeth.34 154 33 Freeth 2014. 34 Freeth 2014, Note S2. Dr. Freeth had been provided by Bitsakis and Jones with their transcriptions and translations of the Back Plate Inscription in 2009 and 2012; the 2012 version differs in only minor details from Dr. Crowther’s transcription and translation, made in November 2013 (according to personal communication from Dr. Crowther). In addition to its original contributions to the subject, Freeth 2014 presents several research findings relating to the Mechanism’s eclipse inscriptions that had been communicated to Dr. Freeth by Bitsakis and Jones between 2009 and 2012. These include the fundamental identification of the Back Plate Inscription as eclipse descriptions organized in structurally repetitive paragraphs with statements about colors and changing directions, the correct alignment of the partial lines in Fragments E and A, the correlation of the paragraphs with the Saros Dial glyphs through groups of index letters, the reference of all the surviving paragraphs to solar eclipses, the probable division of the complete inscription into two halves pertaining respectively to lunar and solar eclipses, and the fact that all eclipses grouped together in each paragraph had the Moon within fixed zones of elongation from one of the lunar nodes. Further findings relating to the Saros Dial glyphs communicated to Dr. Freeth in 2012 include demonstrations that the eclipse times in the glyphs probably indicate the times of true syzygy, that the intervals between such times can be approximately modelled as the sum of periodic solar and lunar components, and that the Saros Dial was normed so that the Moon was close to apogee at its first Full Moon, aligning the dial with the presumed marks for the Full Moon Cycle inscribed inside the Saros Dial. Freeth 2014 makes no mention of either Bitsakis or Jones except as authors of published works. i. Inscriptions in the cells of the Metonic Dial All remains of the Metonic Dial are in Fragment B, and have been read from CT. For discussion, see section 5. Transcription and translation Cell 1 2 3 (ἔτος) α΄ | Φ̣[οινι-] | κ̣αῖος̣ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 [Δωδ]ε- | [κα-] | [τεύ]ς 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Μαχα- | νεύς Κρα- | νε̣ῖ- | ος̣ Λ[ανο-] | τ̣[ρόπι-] | [ος] Εὔ- | κλει- | ος Ἀρτε- | μίσι- | ος Ψ̣υ̣- | δ̣ρ̣ε- | [ύ]ς̣ no legible text Ἀγρι- | άνι- | ο̣ς Π̣ά̣- | [να]- | μος Ἀπελ- | λαῖος̣ (ἔτος) δ΄ | Φ̣[οι]ν[ι-] | [καῖ]ο̣ς Κ̣ρ̣α- | ν̣ε[ῖ-] | ο̣ς Λ̣ανο- | τρό- | πιος Μαχα- | νεύς Δωδε- | κα- | τεύς Εὔ- | κ̣λ̣ει- | ος̣ Ἀρτε- | μίσι- | ος Ψυ- | δρεύς Γαμε[ί]- | λιος̣ Ἀγρι- | άνιος Πάνα- | μος Δωδε- | κ̣α̣τ̣ε- | ύ̣ς̣ Εὔ- | κλε̣[ι-] | ος Ἀ̣ρ̣τ̣ε- | μ̣[ίσι-] | ος no text visible [ ]|[ ] | ος no text visible Π̣ά̣ν̣α̣- | μ̣[ο]ς̣ Year 1 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios Psydreus [Gameilios] Agrianios Panamos Apellaios Year 4 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios Psydreus Gameilios Agrianios Panamos Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios [Psydreus] [Gameili]os [Agrianios] Panamos 155 M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 4.4 Transcriptions and translations M. Anastasiou, Y. Bitsakis, A. Jones, J. Steele, M. Zafeiropoulou: IAM 4. The Back Dial and Back Plate Inscriptions 156 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Ἀ̣π̣ελ- | λαῖος 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Λα[νο-] | [τ]ρ̣ό̣[πι-] | ο[ς] 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 (ἔτος) η΄ | Φοινι- | καῖο̣ς̣ Κρα- | νεῖ- | ος Λ̣α̣ν̣ο- | τρ̣[ό]πι- | ος Μαχα- | νεύς Δωδε- | κατε- | ύς Εὔ- | κλει- | ο̣ς Ἀρτε- | μίσι- | ος Ψυ- | δρεύς Γαμεί- | λιος Ἀγ̣[ρι-] | άν[ιος] Μ[α]χα- | [νεύς] Μα̣χα- | νε̣ύ̣ς Δω̣[δε-] | κα[τ]ε̣- | ύ̣[ς] Ε̣ὔ̣- | κλει- | ος Ἀρ̣[τε-] | μίσι- | [ο]ς̣ [Ψυ-] | δρεύς [Γα]μ[εί-] | λ̣ι̣ος Ἀγρι- | άνιος Πάνα- | μος Ἀπελ- | λαῖος (ἔτος) ιβ΄ | Φοινι- | καῖος Κρα̣ν̣ε̣[ῖ-] | ος Λ̣α̣ν̣ο̣- | [τρόπιος] Μαχα- | ν̣ε̣ύς Δωδε- | κατεύς Ε[ὔ-] | κ̣λ̣[ειος] no text visible [(ἔτος) ι]ε΄ | Φ̣[οι]ν̣ι̣- | καῖος Κρα- | νεῖ̣ο̣ς [Λα]ν̣ο̣ | [τρό]π̣[ι-] | [ος] Μαχα- | νεύ̣ς̣ Δωδ̣ε̣- | κ̣α̣τ̣ε̣ύ̣ς Εὔ̣- | κ̣λ̣ειος Ἀρτε- | μίσιος Ψ̣υ- | [δρ]εύς Γαμεί- | λιος Ἀ[γριά-] | νιος [Πά]να- | μος Apellaios Year 8 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios Psydreus Gameilios Agrianios Lanotropios Machaneus Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios Psydreus Gameilios Agrianios Panamos Apellaios Year 12 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios [Apellaios] Year 15 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios Machaneus Dodekateus Eukleios Artemisios Psydreus Gameilios Agrianios Panamos Ἀπελ- | λαῖος 225 226 227 [ 234 235 [Πά-] | [ναμ]ος (ἔτος) ι̣ϛ̣ | [Φοινι-] | κ̣[αῖος] Κ̣ρ̣α̣- | [νεῖος] Λαν̣[ο-] | τρ̣όπι- | [ο]ς ] | ος [Λανοτρό-] | π̣ι̣ο̣ς [Μ]α̣[χα-] | νεύς Ἀπελ- | λαῖ̣ο̣ς Apellaios Year 16 Phoinikaios Kraneios Lanotropios [Kranei]os Lanotropios Machaneus Panamos Apellaios Apparatus 1 (ἔτος): L (likewise 39, 88, 138, 187) | Φ̣: faint and indistinct | κ̣: bottom half of letter, indistinct | ς̣: letter straddles division line between cells 1 and 2 | 2 ε̣: faint and distorted | ς̣: indistinct | 3 τ̣: faint | 34 Ψ̣υ̣: faint | δ̣ρ̣: faint | ς̣: faint | 36 ο̣: indistinct | 37 Π̣α̣: indistinct | 39 Φ̣: faint | ο̣: faint | 40 Κ̣ρ̣: faint | ν̣: faint | ο̣: faint | 41 Λ̣: indistinct | 44 κ̣λ̣: faint | ς̣: indistinct | 47 ς̣: indistinct | 80 κ̣α̣τ̣: faint | υ̣ς̣: faint | 81 ε̣: horizontal stroke at baseline | 82 Α̣ρ̣τ̣: indistinct | μ̣: bottom half of letter | 86 Π̣α̣ν̣α̣: indistinct | μ̣[ο]ς̣: indistinct | 87 Α̣π̣: faint | 88 ο̣ς̣: indistinct | 90 Λ̣α̣ν̣: indistinct | ρ̣: indistinct | ο̣: indistinct | 93 ο̣: indistinct | 97 γ̣: complete, along edge | 127 ρ̣ο̣: indistinct | 129 α̣: indistinct | ε̣υ̣: indistinct | 130 ω̣: indistinct | ε̣: indistinct | υ̣: indistinct | 131 Ε̣υ̣ indistinct | 132 ρ̣: bottom of vertical | ς̣: indistinct, along bottom edge of cell | 134 λ̣ι̣: very faint | 139 α̣ν̣ε̣: faint | 140 Λ̣α̣ν̣ο̣ very faint | 141 ν̣ε̣: indistinct | 143 κ̣λ̣: faint and indistinct | 175 Φ̣: faint | ν̣ι̣: indistinct | 176 ι̣ο̣ς indistinct | 177 ν̣ο̣: top parts of letters | π̣: indistinct | 178 υ̣ς̣: indistinct | 179 δ̣ε̣: indistinct | κ̣α̣τ̣ε̣υ̣: indistinct | 180 υ̣: indistinct | κ̣λ̣: indistinct | 182 Ψ̣: right half of letter | 187 ι̣: indisti