Hero (Heron) of Alexandria

[DecimusCaesar]

Could Hero of Alexandria be considered the greatest engineer of the Classical World? Many inventions have been attributed to him from primative steam engine style devices, to automatic doors, slot machines and various automata.

 

When I was reading Terry Jones' book a while back he mentioned that Hero wasn't an exception and that engineering had been an important part of Hellenistic science for the last few centuries before Hero's day. As a matter of fact, he even claims that by Hero's time, there was a decline in engineering and science and that Hero himself was not an inventor. He writes:

 

Heron himself is a bit of an enigma. It seems likely that the amazing inventions he described actually date from the third century BC, and relate to a technology that had already begun to be lost by the time he wrote.

 

He later says:

 

One careful student of Hellenist science has pointed out that, although he describes instruments that require precision metal screws and the theory of metal gear-chains, both of which would have been used 300 years before he was writing, he describes only the manufacture of wooden screws and the use of friction devices where you would expect gears. This looks like evidence of a steep declinein engineering know-how in the Roman World.

 

This brings into question was Hero a great inventor or just a man who recorded the inventions of times past? What does this signify about engineering in the late Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire?

[CiceroD]

"I remember seeing the Ancient Discoveries" on him

 

Did he "Invent" the automatic 20 minute play running on seeds from a hopper?

That invention is what floors me!

I would think that such a marvel would have been discussed by other sources. Wouldn't you?

They did mention that much of Hero's (Heron on the show) work went up in flames with the library of Alexandria.

 

so he could have done much we dont know about

[caldrail]

These inventions, assuming they're not exaggeratted, are amazing but the average greek never saw any practical use for them. Society as whole wasn't educated enough or ready for these advances, and saw them as curiosities that looking fantastic. They seemed to have the attitiude that what on earth is that steam driven revolving globe actually going to do for us?

[M. Porcius Cato]

These inventions, assuming they're not exaggeratted, are amazing but the average greek never saw any practical use for them.

But the average person isn't an engineer, and even brilliant engineers often fail to foresee the potential of their products. For example, when Wosniak released the Apple I, his mother asked him how an ordinary person could possibly use this "personal computer". What was the killer app he foresaw? "Organizing recipes"!

 

It strikes me that fundamental advances in science and engineering are best disseminated, applied, and sustained by well-financed, visionary entrepreneurs, ones who dedicate themselves full-time to finding a way to profit from these arcane advances. Obviously, this isn't the only route--the military serves a similar function--and one can look to Archimedes as the supreme example of this in the ancient world.

[CiceroD]

Its true that many times Invention is driven by inventers and engineers.

But if anyone has read Guns Germs and Steel Jared Diamond makes a point that often technology is invented by accident or for esoteric reasons and then only applied for reasons of need or want.

 

The example he gives is Edison's Phonograph.

When Edison invented it, he wanted people to record their dying words on it. He thought that recording music was a silly and undignified use for it.

 

Gunpowder also comes to mind. I had heard that it was invented by Chinese physicians as medicine.

(Some Medicine!)

 

My point is, even though Hero and the Greeks in their Ivory tower did not see a practical use for it does not guarentee that someone else (Hmm maybe the practical minded Romans) might not wonder what else Hero could've moved other then temple doors.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Its true that many times Invention is driven by inventers and engineers.

But if anyone has read Guns Germs and Steel Jared Diamond makes a point that often technology is invented by accident or for esoteric reasons and then only applied for reasons of need or want.

 

I agree; this is a very good point.

[caldrail]

These inventions, assuming they're not exaggeratted, are amazing but the average greek never saw any practical use for them.

But the average person isn't an engineer, and even brilliant engineers often fail to foresee the potential of their products. For example, when Wosniak released the Apple I, his mother asked him how an ordinary person could possibly use this "personal computer". What was the killer app he foresaw? "Organizing recipes"!

 

It strikes me that fundamental advances in science and engineering are best disseminated, applied, and sustained by well-financed, visionary entrepreneurs, ones who dedicate themselves full-time to finding a way to profit from these arcane advances. Obviously, this isn't the only route--the military serves a similar function--and one can look to Archimedes as the supreme example of this in the ancient world.

 

Vision is important but so are other things too. Have you ever heard of Henson and Stringfellow? Back in 1850 Henson wanted to build a steam powered airliner. He was a visionary, full of grand schemes and keen as mustard. He roped in Stringfellow, a sensible fellow engineer who was actually very gifted and improved Hensons designs. The pair even formed the 'Aerial Steam Transit Co' that got a bill passed in Parliament. They proceeded with scale models which failed to impress the audience, and Henson became dispirited, emigrating to america in ruins. Stringfellow carried on working quietly on aeroplanes to the end of his days, achieving nothing more. Together these two men had something going for themselves. Individually they couldn't make the project work.

 

The mindset of the ancient world was far less keen on technology and science than the victorians. There were concerns that such infernal machinery might upset the gods. Wealthy men usually refused to invest in such things because they had slaves. In roman eyes, having a number of slaves was a real demonstration of your wealth. A machine wasn't - far from it - it was a way of seriously damaging your credibility, especially if the darn thing broke or didn't work as expected. Wealthy men invested in human beings at that time, not machinery.

[DecimusCaesar]

The mindset of the ancient world was far less keen on technology and science than the victorians. There were concerns that such infernal machinery might upset the gods. Wealthy men usually refused to invest in such things because they had slaves. In roman eyes, having a number of slaves was a real demonstration of your wealth. A machine wasn't - far from it - it was a way of seriously damaging your credibility, especially if the darn thing broke or didn't work as expected. Wealthy men invested in human beings at that time, not machinery.

 

 

You made a very good point there Caldrail.

 

One reason that I believe Hero's inventions failed to take off, is that the Romans and Greeks had a completely different mindset to ours. To us it is only logical to improve on established ideas, for instance, if we wanted to improve a car we would think: How can I make efficient use of fuel? How can I improve comfort, speed etc?

The ancients on the other hand wouldn't have thought much of this approach. Unless a flaw became apparent in a machine they would'nt attempt to change or improve it. I'm sure that they believed in the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". One example of this would be Roman warships. They were not changed significantly throughout the entire period, seeing as they worked pretty well to begin with. Roman arms and armour on the other hand did change frequently, considering that the Romans came across numerous enemies with different weaponry and fighting styles. Many of the old style arms and armour were made obsolete against these new opponents, thus military hardware need to be updated.

 

This field is probably best reserved for cognitive archaeologists. I'm sure they would come to the conclusion that Hero's steam machines would have been seen in a different light by the ancients. While modern man would try to fit wheels on to his machinery and call it a 'steam engine', I'm sure the Romans and Greeks would have thought of it as nothing more than a amusement. Afterall, many of Hero's other inventions served no practical purpose, such as his 'singing bronze birds' and his 'mechanical amusement show'.

[caldrail]

I'm sure that they believed in the old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". One example of this would be Roman warships. They were not changed significantly throughout the entire period, seeing as they worked pretty well to begin with.

Yet the old triremes and quadremes ete etc of the punic wars had largely vanished in later roman times. There wasn't any need for such dreadnoughts in the roman 'lake', nor were any enemies found beyond the pillars of hercules that required the use of such vessels, if indeed they were seaworthy out on the temptestuous atlantic! Roman warships of the mid to late imperial period are very modest ships much closer in concept to viking longships, since they needed ships more amenable to sailing up rivers along the coast. Remains of them have been found in various places.

 

Roman arms and armour on the other hand did change frequently, considering that the Romans came across numerous enemies with different weaponry and fighting styles. Many of the old style arms and armour were made obsolete against these new opponents, thus military hardware need to be updated.

 

The changes in roman armour are usually of style rather than function. Helmets in particular went from a basic pot helm to the familiar legionary type, but even that had a great deal of variety. Later of course a more barbarian style helmet, a 'dark age' style (gothic? sarmatian? Persian?) was becoming prevalent.

 

This field is probably best reserved for cognitive archaeologists. I'm sure they would come to the conclusion that Hero's steam machines would have been seen in a different light by the ancients. While modern man would try to fit wheels on to his machinery and call it a 'steam engine', I'm sure the Romans and Greeks would have thought of it as nothing more than a amusement. Afterall, many of Hero's other inventions served no practical purpose, such as his 'singing bronze birds' and his 'mechanical amusement show'.

I agree, the amusement value was why hero made a living. He wasn't daft! I wonder if he himself saw any practical value to these contrivances or did he make them purely to entertain the wealthy clients? Since the use of 'talking tools' was so endemic to the graeco-roman world did people at that time really consider that machines could perform useful work? usually not apparently, although I do note the existence of a water driven stone cutter found at one quarry site. A few individuals were a little more enlightened obviously, especially if it was profitable.

Edited February 3, 2007 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

There were concerns that such infernal machinery might upset the gods.

 

Is there any evidence for this? You'd think Vulcan would be made quite happy by machinery.

 

This field is probably best reserved for cognitive archaeologists.

 

An intriguing idea. What have you read on the topic that you would recommend?

[Gaius Octavius]

What is a cognitive archaeologist?

[DecimusCaesar]

What is a cognitive archaeologist?

 

Sorry that I'm late in replying, Gaius.

 

Quoted from Archaeology: Theory, Methods and Practice:

 

"Cognitive archaeology - the study of past ways of thought from Material remains - is in many respects one of the newer branches of modern Archaeology."

 

It's an attempt at finding out what ancient peoples thought and how they would have approached different subjects such as Religion, Writing, technology etc. Afterall, their attitudes and beliefs would have been very different to ours in many ways, and similar in others.

Cognitive Archaeology has come under criticism from New wave Archaeologists who emphasise scientific methods and logic. They say you can't possibly know what ancient peoples were thinking, and cognitive methods are unprovable. Even so, it can be useful in some circumstances, especially when dealing with prehistoric peoples.

[Gaius Octavius]

DC, that will surely stir up the pot.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cognitive Archaeology has come under criticism from New wave Archaeologists who emphasise scientific methods and logic. They say you can't possibly know what ancient peoples were thinking, and cognitive methods are unprovable. Even so, it can be useful in some circumstances, especially when dealing with prehistoric peoples.

 

Cognitive archaeology is criticized by traditional archaeologists. "New wave Archaeologists" is a term you invented?

 

In any case, I hotly disagree that cognitive methods are unprovable: after at least a century and a half of research on cognitive processes, we now have detailed knowledge about the processes involved in vision, attention, memory, language, learning, motivation, and decision-making. These studies--which can be found in nearly every issue of Science and Nature and have been rewarded with several Nobel Prizes--laid the basis for almost everything we know today about functional neural anatomy.

 

None of this, of course, came from "cognitive archaeology", which is a realm of--at best--informed speculation.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, would you please give an example of 'cognitive methods' with regard to motivation or any other?