Skip to main content
Log in

Greek angles from Babylonian numbers

  • Published:
Archive for History of Exact Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Models of planetary motion as observed from Earth must account for two principal anomalies: the nonuniform speed of the planet as it circles the zodiac, and the correlation of the planet’s position with the position of the Sun. In the context of the geometrical models used by the Greeks, the practical difficulty is to somehow isolate the motion of the epicycle center on the deferent from the motion of the planet on its epicycle. One way to isolate the motion of the epicycle center is to determine the longitude and time of oppositions of the planet with the mean Sun. A Greek astronomer might have realized that the predictions of mean oppositions by Babylonian models could serve as useful proxies for real empirical observations. It is shown that a Greek astronomer with a reasonable understanding of Babylonian System A models for the outer planets and the Sun–Moon could have used those models to estimate approximate values for the eccentricity e and longitude of apogee A required for geometrical models. The same method would work for the inner planets if conjunctions were observable, but they are not, and the variation of the observable synodic events—first and last morning and evening visibilities—is dominated more by the motion of the planet in latitude than the nonuniform motion of the epicycle center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaboe A. (1958) On Babylonian planetary theories. Centaurus 5: 209–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaboe A. (1964) On period relations in Babylonian astronomy. Centaurus 10: 213–231

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Britton J.P. (2001) Remarks on a System A Scheme for Venus: ACT 1050. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 55: 525–554

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Britton J.P., Jones A. (2000) A new Babylonian planetary model in a Greek source. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 54: 349–373

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke A.J.M., Steele J.M. (2002) A computer generated Babylonian system A lunar ephemeris. Journal for the History of astronomy 33: 279

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke D.W. (2005) Ptolemy’s treatment of the outer planets. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59: 169–187

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Duke D.W. (2005) The equant in India: The mathematical basis of Indian planetary models. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 59: 563–576

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Duke D.W. (2008) Mean motions and longitudes in Indian astronomy. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 62: 489–509

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Duke D.W. (2009) Mean motions in Ptolemy’s planetary hypotheses. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 63: 635–654

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Evans J. (1998) The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, 362–368. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. (1990) Babylonian and Greek astronomy in a papyrus concerning Mars. Centaurus 33: 97–114

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. (1998) Studies in the astronomy of the Roman Period III. Planetary epoch tables. Centaurus 40: 1–41

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. 1999. Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: (P. Oxy. 4133-4300A), 231–232. Philadelphia: Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society.

  • Jones A. (2006) The Keskintos astronomical inscription: Text and interpretations. SCIAMVS 7: 3–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer O. (1942) On some astronomical Papyri and related problems of ancient geography. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 32: 251–263

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer O. (1956) The transmission of planetary theories in ancient and medieval astronomy. Scripta mathematica 22: 165–192

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Neugebauer, O. 1960. A New Greek Astronomical Table (P. Heid. Inv. 4144+ P. Mich. 151). Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser/Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 39.1.

  • Pingree, D. 1976. The recovery of early Greek astronomy from India. Journal for the history of astronomy vii:109–123.

  • Pingree D. (1978) History of Mathematical astronomy in India. Dictionary of Scientific Biography 15: 533–633

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochberg F. (1998) Babylonian horoscopes, 19–20. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt O. (1969) A mean value principle in Babylonian planetary theory. Centaurus 14: 253–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swerdlow N.M. (1998) The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, 93–94. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomer, G.J., trans. 1984. Ptolemy’s Almagest. London: Princeton University Press.

  • van der Waerden B. (1957) Babylonische Planetenrechnung. Viertaljahrschrift den Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 102: 39–60

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Waerden B. (1974) Science Awakening II, 250–283. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Duke.

Additional information

Communicated by Alexander Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duke, D. Greek angles from Babylonian numbers. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 64, 375–394 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-010-0058-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-010-0058-x

Keywords

Navigation