Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 1 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 1 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Ancient Lenses  (Read 9412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1298
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Ancient Lenses
« on: June 15, 2008, 09:33:20 am »
I’ve just finished reading Robert Temple’s Crystal Sun.  In the book he claims to have located more than 450 ancient lenses in museums from all around the world and that archaeologists and historians have ignored their obvious use in ancient times. Looking around the net I found him on the webpage of the rather dubious New Dawn Magazine. Here he states he attended the 8th International Congress of Egyptologists in Cairo in 2000, and went prepared to deliver a paper on ancient Egyptian optical technology. He says he was not allowed to deliver the paper because there was ‘no appropriate category’ and says he was the only historian of science present at the Congress of 1500 people, the rest being I assume, all Egyptologists or specialist Archeologists. So what is going on here? Is Mr. Temple to simply be dismissed as a later day Von Daniken or has he something valuable to say and is being defeated by professional snobbery? I know as a professional that it can be annoying when an amateur makes pronouncements that you believe are ill informed, but what if they are right and you are wrong? Don’t you have a duty to find out?
Over many years I have thought the production of a die for something like a hemiobol of 0.32g impossible without the use of a lens (I would need a lens to strike it)!
Mr. Temple’s book is well illustrated with pictures of many objects he claims are lenses but the thing that really makes me wonder is the pottery fragment of around the 5th century B.C. that appears to show someone using a telescope.

Steve
 

Offline Rich Beale

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
  • Nec Aspera Terrent
    • ROMA NUMISMATICS
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2008, 09:43:38 am »
Intriguing. A shame, or perhaps convenient, that it is only a fragment, and we cannot see the end of the object.

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2008, 10:34:01 am »
It is hard to believe.

Did ancient authors wrote something on lenses? Seemingly, no.
They were bestsellers at the time when telescope and microscope
was invented and every hint should be definitely found already at that time
and wwidely discussed.
Archeologists are not idiots: could you imagine one who does not understood that
a discovery of  any optical tool is of the greatest importance?

Offline Heliodromus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2177
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2008, 10:46:53 am »
That pottery fragment could depict anything - maybe a flute - but I'm sure that both the Greeks and Romans were aware of magnification and made use of it for coin & intaglio engraving. They could not have failed to observe that a round glass vessel full of water magnifies, or even a simple blob of glass allowed to cool into a natural shape. Whether they went further and ground lenses out of glass or maybe rock crystal is another matter, but it's hard to image that a civilization capable of producing the Antikythera mechanism and carved/polished intaglios couldn't have made the leap from a natural lens to a crafted one.

Ben

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2008, 10:58:26 am »
I agree, it is the most natural to expect but, to my understanding, there no evidences...
That is why a discovery of such an evidence will be a revolution in our knowledge.

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2008, 11:23:57 am »
I'm sure I read articles on ancient lenses in reputable publications, maybe even the Celator. I do not remember exactly though, so not much use.
Now that I think about it, I am sure Pliny or one of the ancient authors mentioned Nero using an eyeglass to watch gladiatorial games.
                                                              LordBest. 8)
                                   

Offline gallienus1

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1298
  • Hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2008, 07:27:17 am »
Just thinking about the way technology might have been used in the ancient world leads me to think that a technology such as optics could have been in common use but not recorded by historians of the time. My reasons are-

a.   The people that wrote history tended to be from the aristocracy. They looked with contempt on those that worked for a living through the practice of a skill. Therefore it should be of no surprise they make no mention of the working technology of their age. Ben mentions the Antikythera mechanism, yet there is no ancient record of such a device.

b.   We only have a tiny percentage of the books in use in ancient times. It could well be that mention of lens technology was often made. It is just that none of it has survived.

c.   The ancients that had a technology that made money would want to keep it in the family to unsure the family’s long term future. In a world without copyright laws it would make no sense to publicize your technology and let a rival get hold of it.

Steve

TomX

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2008, 12:38:25 pm »
Quote from: gallienus1 on June 16, 2008, 07:27:17 am

a.   The people that wrote history tended to be from the aristocracy. They looked with contempt on those that worked for a living through the practice of a skill. Therefore it should be of no surprise they make no mention of the working technology of their age. Ben mentions the Antikythera mechanism, yet there is no ancient record of such a device.


You've pinned the tail on the donkey...

I've always been disappointed by the lack of writings in science and technology, especially
that of it's application to day-to-day living. The authors we have available are writing mostly
about political life and diaries of the "rich and famous", i.e., people of little importance.

When I go looking through ancient ruins I like to try to spot the technology of the people.
One interesting item was the plumbing at Knossos, Crete. It was modular design. A series of
flared tubes could be laid down quickly and easily to create underground plumbing. It's the
same system we use today. Clever design.

Last week I was reading de Architectura, Book X by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, and he was describing
a digital odometer with a milage recording feature that could be mounted to a chariot or wagon.
Chapter Nine.

Enormous batteries have been found in early Egyptian ruins. No idea what they did with them.

Genius was just as common in ancient times as it is today. There have probably been many inventions
that have been lost to the intermediate dark ages of war and the lack of literacy.

And, the last point is that most historians are liberal arts type people. They are bored and
confused by science and technology. It isn't a hot item for a lecture. Everybody will walk out to
take that cool cruise down the Nile while you are speaking. A real yawner for most folks.

Tom


ember

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2008, 02:17:12 pm »
Hi,

I have this obol of Alexander the Great that I can't even read without magnification.  It boggles the mind to think that someone could carve the reverse die without some sort of aid.

KINGS of MACEDON. Alexander III. 336-323 BC. AR Obol (9mm, 0.55 gm). Ake mint. Head of Herakles right, wearing lion's skin headdress / Zeus seated left, holding eagle and sceptre; Phoenician "ayin" and "kaph" in left field; Phoenician "tzadeh" beneath throne. Newell, Sidon and Ake, -; Price -; Müller -. EF, toned. Possibly unpublished.

Cheers,
Darcy

Offline slokind

  • Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 6654
  • Art is an experimental science
    • An Art Historian's Numismatics Studies
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2008, 08:26:17 pm »
Without research, but: Consider intaglio engraving of trasnlucent semi-precious stones, quartz in particular, way back to the bronze age, continuous tradition (not lost like granulation in gold, for example), and ask what are the chances that no one noticed what came of looking through lenticular stones?  I'd take for granted, actually, that the Mesopotamians and Egypitians either imparted it to the Greeks or the Milesians or other very clever eastern Greeks in the 8-7c BCE once they traded with Egypt under Dynasty XXVI shared it with Egyptians, each picking up techniques even before they spoke each others' languages.  They may initially have been suprised that both had their own traditions and knew what you could do with lenticular quartz.  Emery came from the volcanic Cyclades...
Pat L.

Offline Enodia

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2597
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2008, 03:26:33 am »
the use of lenses is something i have pondered since i began collecting ancients a little over twenty years ago.
i seemed incredible to me back then (and even now) that engravers (Kimon, for example) could impart their almost microscopic signatures so wonderfully into the details of such coins as the Syracusan dekadrachm without the use of a lens. i often fantasized about a piece of broken beer bottle falling onto an ancient newspaper and the imbiber thinking... 'eureka!'.
 :)

i also thought about the fantastic ability of such people to work in what must have been a very hard and difficult medium as a coin die with tools that can't have been any harder than the object of their labors.
amazing!

ember

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2008, 07:40:55 am »

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2008, 08:50:36 am »
Indeed, it is an interesting paper.
However, what is a distance between a lens as a toy and a lens which is
the  engraver tool?
To do such a precise work as was mentioned in the paper one needs also
high-precision lenses, some specific support... It is a whole technology! 

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2008, 05:22:22 pm »
Or maybe a slave to hold the lens while you peer through it?
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Dino

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Quaestor
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?
    • My Gallery
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2008, 05:50:45 am »
To do such a precise work as was mentioned in the paper one needs also
high-precision lenses, some specific support... It is a whole technology! 

I don't know about that.  Think of it as simply some magnification, even if imperfect, is better than none.

If the lenses were used for such detailed work though, it seems only natural to me that someone would come up ith some type of contraption to hold the lense in a handle or on a stand, etc. so that you'd get something that looks like your typical magnifying glass.  Has anything like that been found?

Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2008, 06:43:27 am »
If the lenses were used for such detailed work though, it seems only natural to me that someone would come up ith some type of contraption to hold the lense in a handle or on a stand, etc. so that you'd get something that looks like your typical magnifying glass. Has anything like that been found?
Surely any such holder may well have been made of wood.  Fitting a lens into a wooden holder would provide less chance of breakage than into a metal holder after all, and a lens is likely to have been a rare commodity that would have been protected if at all possible.  And if wood were used it would be unlikely that any remains of such a holder would be found I would have thought.
regards
Mark

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2008, 07:55:40 am »
I mentioned a technology.
This suggest a production of a high-quality lenses. I do not agrre with
the claim that just a manification is already beneficial.  Even a small
distortion of the image will lead to a disastrous outcome. Lenses with
a hole in the center presumably found somewhere are useless for a delicate job.

Suppose that the problem with the fabrication of lenses was solved.
How to use them?  Should they be fixed on a working table? How to manipulate
by hammer?   More reasonable to fix them on the head of the engraver...
The die should be alway in focus...
Problems seems to be too complicated and this is the reson that science
prefered the hypothesis that ancient dies were fabricated by naked eyes.   



ember

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2008, 08:33:40 am »
I'm not sure I agree, we have evidence of lenses and we have intricate work that seems to need a source of magnification in order to exist.  The ancients were completely capable of working out complicated problems and to suggest they weren't does them a great disservice.  The pyramids were constructed well before the time period we are discussing, and the logistics/engineering of those structures are much more daunting than    creating a serviceable magnification device.  I'm not suggesting these were readily available or cheap, but I think it's completely plausible they existed.  Man has always done his utmost to take difficult tasks and make them more manageable.

I suppose the best we can do is agree to disagree in this instance.

Darcy

Offline Dino

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Quaestor
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?
    • My Gallery
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2008, 08:42:30 am »
Here's a brief abstract.  full article available for purchase on he site for any interested.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SPIE.3299..424E

and another

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nwv20889m56nh086/

Offline Numerianus

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1181
  • I love this forum!
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2008, 09:05:21 am »
I have no doubts that the ancients could do a sophisticated devices.
However,  use of optics is very questionable.
Cutting dies, they  could use  use alternative  technics.
I have an idea: magnifying mirror!
Why not? Fixed device,  arbitrary large, the engraver see twice-mirrored hence real image 
on the future coin. This hypothesis explains why the  inversed  characters are very rare

ember

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2008, 09:11:41 am »
I won't argue how they magnified, just that I believe it was done.  I found another article on-line which suggested pin-hole magnification.  I couldn't access the article without subscribing to a very technical optics journal tho. :(

Offline Dino

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Quaestor
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Anyone have change for a hemidrachm?
    • My Gallery
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #21 on: June 18, 2008, 09:13:07 am »
Interesting theory.  Don't see why they couldn't use highly polished metal shaped to reflect and magnify.

But still, doesn't mean lenses weren't used instead or in addition.  

Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2008, 12:03:33 pm »
Problems seems to be too complicated and this is the reson that science
prefered the hypothesis that ancient dies were fabricated by naked eyes.

I would doubt that the issues of how to produce a contraption to use the lens would have taxed the Romans any more than the issues of how to logistically put the Pyramids together did the Egyptians.

People have always been good at spending time to find ways of making their lives easier, and spending some brain power on this issue would have been well worth it for the manually skilled celator.

regards

Mark

TomX

  • Guest
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2008, 12:05:43 pm »
Calgary Coins has an article about engravers and the author states the average
career span is about twenty years. I wonder if it is cut short by eye strain or something.
Twenty years isn't until retirement.

Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Ancient Lenses
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2008, 01:51:05 pm »
The average lifespan for a Roman male was approx 41 years. 

Usually around the late 30s/early 40s, many people these days find that they start to struggle with close up work like reading.  This is due to hardening of the lens, and sometime weakening of the eye muscles.  Back then the same could be expected to be true.

Put those 2 facts together and it may explain why 20 years or so was the average career span in that role.

regards

Mark

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity