the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
12 Jan 2021
12 Jan 2021
From mythology to science: the development of scientific hydrological concepts in the Greek antiquity and its relevance to modern hydrology
- Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechneiou 5, GR 157 80 Zographou, Greece
- Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Heroon Polytechneiou 5, GR 157 80 Zographou, Greece
Abstract. Whilst hydrology is a Greek term, it has not been in use in the Classical literature but much later, during the Renaissance, in its Latin version, hydrologia. On the other hand, Greek natural philosophers created robust knowledge in related scientific areas, to which they gave names such as meteorology, climate and hydraulics. These terms are now in common use internationally. Within these areas, Greek natural philosophers laid the foundation of hydrological concepts and the hydrological cycle in its entirety. Knowledge development was brought about by search for technological solutions to practical problems, as well as by scientific curiosity to explain natural phenomena. While initial explanations belong to the sphere of mythology, the rise of philosophy was accompanied by attempts to provide scientific descriptions of the phenomena. It appears that the first geophysical problem formulated in scientific terms was the explanation of the flood regime of the Nile, then regarded as a paradox because of the spectacular difference from the river flow regime in Greece and other Mediterranean regions, i.e., the fact that the Nile flooding occurs in summer when in most of the Mediterranean the rainfall is very low. While some of the early attempts to explain it were influenced by Homer’s mythical view (archaic period), eventually, Aristotle was able to formulate a correct hypothesis, which he tested through what it appears to be the first in history scientific expedition, in the turn from the Classical to Hellenistic period. This confirms the fact that the hydrological cycle was well understood during the Classical period yet it poses the question why Aristotle’s correct explanation had not been accepted and, instead, ancient and modern mythical views had been preferred up to the 18th century.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Nikos Mamassis
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Charles Curry, 12 Jan 2021
Although this appears to be an interesting and comprehensive contribution, it seems clearly outside the scope of HESS. I suggest submission to any one of a dozen or so journals on the history of science, where it will almost certainly find a wider audience.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 12 Jan 2021
Translator
Very interesting comment by Dr. Curry, which shows a particular view of the scope of HESS, hydrology and science in general (particularly, when he uses the unit “dozen” to count scientific journals).
The commenter may be interested to see that HESS hosts several Special Issues (https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/articles_and_preprints/scheduled_sis.html ). One (jointly hosted with HGSS -- https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/ ) is entitled History of Hydrology. By visiting its site, https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1018.html , he can verify that the paper was submitted for this Special Issue.
Thus, his objection is not for this particular paper but a more general one, i.e. a claim that the history of hydrology is not part of hydrology. Therefore, he should address his objection to the HESS editors.
Despite this, we thank him for reading our contribution and ranking it as interesting and comprehensive.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis -
EC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roberto Ranzi, 12 Jan 2021
The contribution of Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Nikos Mamassis was solicited. They started to contribute on this topic in a Special Session about the History of Hydrology at EGU in 2018 (how was different the world at that time!). This Special Issue is focused on the History of Hydrology so I don't see any problem to host this paper about the start of the conceptualisation of the hydrological cycle in the western civilisation for the discussion. Also other Editors did agree on this. The paper can also shed light on the reasons why the correct description of the hydrological cycle took so much time to be understood. Anonymous referees were solicited and the discussion is open.
Kind regards
Roberto Ranzi
Handling Editor
http://roberto-ranzi.unibs.it
- CC2: 'Reply on EC1', Charles Curry, 12 Jan 2021
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 12 Jan 2021
-
AC2: 'Some oversights in hess-2021-7', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 17 Jan 2021
We found several oversights in the manuscript, among which most serious is the mentor’s name in line 739; the correct name is Luzin, not Egorov. (Egorov’s story is also fascinating and is contained in the book by Graham and Kantor, 2009, too).
In the opening Chinese quotation in line 26, the English translation given corresponds to merely the first four-Chinese-character group. (The second four-character group is translated as “but to pursue appearances is to miss the source”; https://terebess.hu/english/hsin1.html ). We are grateful to John Ding for spotting this and writing to us, and to Lei Ye for his further explanations.
Other corrections:
lines 105-106: “as clearly seen in the above excerpt” should be deleted to avoid repetition.
lines 227 and 417: Cesar → Caesar
line 306: effective interpretation → effective interpretation of quantum physics
line 394: later authors → other authors
line 420: one → one is
lines 583-684: “that determine the long-term changes of the climate” should be placed in the end of the next sentence.
line 989: but they not → but they do not
footnote on p. 27: there is original sign → there is no original sign
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Matteo Settura, 09 Feb 2021
I find authors’ point extremely commendable, as I hold that it is necessary to curtail the habit of discrediting philosophical and scientific theories of the past. Unfortunately, this habit has spread among many workers in the field of science, and particularly among those who have no comprehensive knowledge of the historical context and of the epistemological presuppositions of such theories. In this view, the article meritoriously contributes to debunk the erroneous prejudice by which History of Science is often considered as something irrelevant to scientific activity.
That is exactly why I think that the kind of exposition they have chosen, which resembles a survey or a general overview, may not be the most viable. I think that the article would gain incisiveness and efficacy if it were led by a fil rouge, a common thread. In other words, I would ask authors to identify one or more concepts defining Ancient Greeks’ epistemological approach to Hydrology and refer to it/them throughout the text.
It could be done answering questions such as: how did Aristotle get to his solution of the problem of the Nile’s overflowing? what does his strategy tell us about “observation”, “experience”, “deduction/induction” in the field of Hydrology? or, more generally, what could ancient Greek philosophers (with their successes and their errors) teach us about our “modern” epistemological approach in Scientific Hydrology? In short, some of their results were good, others were not; but what about the path and the principles by which those results were obtained? These are just a few hints to point the way. I’m not saying that this insight is entirely absent from the text, but I feel the lack of a pregnant conceptual framework. In my view, this is the most important. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing the plot in accumulating detail-problems and issues.
As for the epilogue, it advances an extraordinarily strong conclusion, claiming that the real opposition is not between science and authority, rather between science and public acceptance. However, I think that authority has, and it has always had, a decisive role in influencing the public acceptance, as the latter can never be considered spontaneous. In this context, the term “authority” does not refer to real individuals (Aristotle, Plato, or their alleged followers), rather to a set of principles which organise the way of acquiring and transmitting knowledge. Insofar as authority is an epistemological structure, a form of knowledge, the fact that a single claim by Aristotle was not accepted for a long time does not mean that we should dismiss the opposition between science and authority as a category to interpret the history of science.
I appreciated the authors’ writing, as I found it vivid and not devoid of a certain irony.
511: Strabo
622: Del moto e misura dell'acqua - italic
-
AC4: 'Reply to Matteo Settura on RC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
We thank Matteo Settura for the encouraging and very constructive comments. We agree with all comments, and we have addressed them in a revised manuscript. As an example, here is the modified version of the Epilogue, which hopefully addresses most of the reviewer's suggestions.
-
AC4: 'Reply to Matteo Settura on RC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2021
Dear Authors,
I read with interest the manuscript also because it collects several useful quotations in English and in the original Greek language about the development of hydrological concepts emancipating them from mythology. And it sheds light on history of some hydrological questions, as the concept of evaporation and precipitation, the hydrological cycle, the Nile paradox, the measurement of flow which are not precisely known to a wide audience of geo-scientists.
A solid evidence also with recent sources is given about how Aristotle (who suggested to Alexander of Macedonia to organize a campaign to Ethiopia to solve this scientific challenge) provided the right solution of the Nile paradox which created conceptual hydrological problems until the early 19th century.
The paper is too long to become a standard paper so I recommend to move the Appendixes A, B, C in a separated Supplemental material section.
I would also recommend to briefly mention in the abstract (shortening other sentences) the clear vision of Heron of Alexandria of the definition of flow of a spring as the product, or at least the combination, of wet area and velocity and the measurement of discharge with the volumetric method. A key concept of hydrometry which was lost throughout the moderm era until it was re-discovered by Leonardo da Vinci and Benedetto Castelli.
Some minor remarks or typing errors
362 I would add 'ancient' Egyptian
413 Ethiopia
609 area
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
We thank the anonymous reviewer for the encouraging and very constructive comments. We agree with all comments, and we have addressed them in a revised manuscript. As an example, here is the modified version of the abstract according to the reviewer's suggestion.
Abstract. Whilst hydrology is a Greek term, it has not been in use in the Classical literature but much later, during the Renaissance, in its Latin version, hydrologia. On the other hand, Greek natural philosophers (or, in modern vocabulary, scientists) created robust knowledge in related scientific areas, to which they gave names such as meteorology, climate and hydraulics. These terms are now in common use internationally. Greek natural philosophers laid the foundation of hydrological concepts and the hydrological cycle in its entirety. Knowledge development was brought about by search for technological solutions to practical problems, as well as by scientific curiosity. While initial explanations belong to the sphere of mythology, the rise of philosophy was accompanied by the quest for scientific descriptions of the phenomena. It appears that the first geophysical problem formulated in scientific terms was the explanation of the flood regime of the Nile, then regarded as a paradox because of the spectacular difference from the river flow regime in Greece, i.e., the fact that the Nile flooding occurs in summer when in most of the Mediterranean the rainfall is very low. While the early attempts were unsuccessful, Aristotle was able to formulate a correct hypothesis, which he tested through what appears to be the first in history scientific expedition, in the turn from the Classical to Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period brought advances in all scientific fields including hydrology, sample of which is the definition and measurement of flow discharge by Heron of Alexandria. These confirm the fact that the hydrological cycle was well understood in Ancient Greece yet it poses the question why correct explanations had not been accepted and, instead, ancient and modern mythical views had been preferred up to the 18th century.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Charles Curry, 12 Jan 2021
Although this appears to be an interesting and comprehensive contribution, it seems clearly outside the scope of HESS. I suggest submission to any one of a dozen or so journals on the history of science, where it will almost certainly find a wider audience.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 12 Jan 2021
Translator
Very interesting comment by Dr. Curry, which shows a particular view of the scope of HESS, hydrology and science in general (particularly, when he uses the unit “dozen” to count scientific journals).
The commenter may be interested to see that HESS hosts several Special Issues (https://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/articles_and_preprints/scheduled_sis.html ). One (jointly hosted with HGSS -- https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/ ) is entitled History of Hydrology. By visiting its site, https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/special_issue1018.html , he can verify that the paper was submitted for this Special Issue.
Thus, his objection is not for this particular paper but a more general one, i.e. a claim that the history of hydrology is not part of hydrology. Therefore, he should address his objection to the HESS editors.
Despite this, we thank him for reading our contribution and ranking it as interesting and comprehensive.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis -
EC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roberto Ranzi, 12 Jan 2021
The contribution of Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Nikos Mamassis was solicited. They started to contribute on this topic in a Special Session about the History of Hydrology at EGU in 2018 (how was different the world at that time!). This Special Issue is focused on the History of Hydrology so I don't see any problem to host this paper about the start of the conceptualisation of the hydrological cycle in the western civilisation for the discussion. Also other Editors did agree on this. The paper can also shed light on the reasons why the correct description of the hydrological cycle took so much time to be understood. Anonymous referees were solicited and the discussion is open.
Kind regards
Roberto Ranzi
Handling Editor
http://roberto-ranzi.unibs.it
- CC2: 'Reply on EC1', Charles Curry, 12 Jan 2021
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 12 Jan 2021
-
AC2: 'Some oversights in hess-2021-7', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 17 Jan 2021
We found several oversights in the manuscript, among which most serious is the mentor’s name in line 739; the correct name is Luzin, not Egorov. (Egorov’s story is also fascinating and is contained in the book by Graham and Kantor, 2009, too).
In the opening Chinese quotation in line 26, the English translation given corresponds to merely the first four-Chinese-character group. (The second four-character group is translated as “but to pursue appearances is to miss the source”; https://terebess.hu/english/hsin1.html ). We are grateful to John Ding for spotting this and writing to us, and to Lei Ye for his further explanations.
Other corrections:
lines 105-106: “as clearly seen in the above excerpt” should be deleted to avoid repetition.
lines 227 and 417: Cesar → Caesar
line 306: effective interpretation → effective interpretation of quantum physics
line 394: later authors → other authors
line 420: one → one is
lines 583-684: “that determine the long-term changes of the climate” should be placed in the end of the next sentence.
line 989: but they not → but they do not
footnote on p. 27: there is original sign → there is no original sign
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Matteo Settura, 09 Feb 2021
I find authors’ point extremely commendable, as I hold that it is necessary to curtail the habit of discrediting philosophical and scientific theories of the past. Unfortunately, this habit has spread among many workers in the field of science, and particularly among those who have no comprehensive knowledge of the historical context and of the epistemological presuppositions of such theories. In this view, the article meritoriously contributes to debunk the erroneous prejudice by which History of Science is often considered as something irrelevant to scientific activity.
That is exactly why I think that the kind of exposition they have chosen, which resembles a survey or a general overview, may not be the most viable. I think that the article would gain incisiveness and efficacy if it were led by a fil rouge, a common thread. In other words, I would ask authors to identify one or more concepts defining Ancient Greeks’ epistemological approach to Hydrology and refer to it/them throughout the text.
It could be done answering questions such as: how did Aristotle get to his solution of the problem of the Nile’s overflowing? what does his strategy tell us about “observation”, “experience”, “deduction/induction” in the field of Hydrology? or, more generally, what could ancient Greek philosophers (with their successes and their errors) teach us about our “modern” epistemological approach in Scientific Hydrology? In short, some of their results were good, others were not; but what about the path and the principles by which those results were obtained? These are just a few hints to point the way. I’m not saying that this insight is entirely absent from the text, but I feel the lack of a pregnant conceptual framework. In my view, this is the most important. Otherwise, there is a danger of losing the plot in accumulating detail-problems and issues.
As for the epilogue, it advances an extraordinarily strong conclusion, claiming that the real opposition is not between science and authority, rather between science and public acceptance. However, I think that authority has, and it has always had, a decisive role in influencing the public acceptance, as the latter can never be considered spontaneous. In this context, the term “authority” does not refer to real individuals (Aristotle, Plato, or their alleged followers), rather to a set of principles which organise the way of acquiring and transmitting knowledge. Insofar as authority is an epistemological structure, a form of knowledge, the fact that a single claim by Aristotle was not accepted for a long time does not mean that we should dismiss the opposition between science and authority as a category to interpret the history of science.
I appreciated the authors’ writing, as I found it vivid and not devoid of a certain irony.
511: Strabo
622: Del moto e misura dell'acqua - italic
-
AC4: 'Reply to Matteo Settura on RC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
We thank Matteo Settura for the encouraging and very constructive comments. We agree with all comments, and we have addressed them in a revised manuscript. As an example, here is the modified version of the Epilogue, which hopefully addresses most of the reviewer's suggestions.
-
AC4: 'Reply to Matteo Settura on RC1', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-7', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Mar 2021
Dear Authors,
I read with interest the manuscript also because it collects several useful quotations in English and in the original Greek language about the development of hydrological concepts emancipating them from mythology. And it sheds light on history of some hydrological questions, as the concept of evaporation and precipitation, the hydrological cycle, the Nile paradox, the measurement of flow which are not precisely known to a wide audience of geo-scientists.
A solid evidence also with recent sources is given about how Aristotle (who suggested to Alexander of Macedonia to organize a campaign to Ethiopia to solve this scientific challenge) provided the right solution of the Nile paradox which created conceptual hydrological problems until the early 19th century.
The paper is too long to become a standard paper so I recommend to move the Appendixes A, B, C in a separated Supplemental material section.
I would also recommend to briefly mention in the abstract (shortening other sentences) the clear vision of Heron of Alexandria of the definition of flow of a spring as the product, or at least the combination, of wet area and velocity and the measurement of discharge with the volumetric method. A key concept of hydrometry which was lost throughout the moderm era until it was re-discovered by Leonardo da Vinci and Benedetto Castelli.
Some minor remarks or typing errors
362 I would add 'ancient' Egyptian
413 Ethiopia
609 area
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
We thank the anonymous reviewer for the encouraging and very constructive comments. We agree with all comments, and we have addressed them in a revised manuscript. As an example, here is the modified version of the abstract according to the reviewer's suggestion.
Abstract. Whilst hydrology is a Greek term, it has not been in use in the Classical literature but much later, during the Renaissance, in its Latin version, hydrologia. On the other hand, Greek natural philosophers (or, in modern vocabulary, scientists) created robust knowledge in related scientific areas, to which they gave names such as meteorology, climate and hydraulics. These terms are now in common use internationally. Greek natural philosophers laid the foundation of hydrological concepts and the hydrological cycle in its entirety. Knowledge development was brought about by search for technological solutions to practical problems, as well as by scientific curiosity. While initial explanations belong to the sphere of mythology, the rise of philosophy was accompanied by the quest for scientific descriptions of the phenomena. It appears that the first geophysical problem formulated in scientific terms was the explanation of the flood regime of the Nile, then regarded as a paradox because of the spectacular difference from the river flow regime in Greece, i.e., the fact that the Nile flooding occurs in summer when in most of the Mediterranean the rainfall is very low. While the early attempts were unsuccessful, Aristotle was able to formulate a correct hypothesis, which he tested through what appears to be the first in history scientific expedition, in the turn from the Classical to Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period brought advances in all scientific fields including hydrology, sample of which is the definition and measurement of flow discharge by Heron of Alexandria. These confirm the fact that the hydrological cycle was well understood in Ancient Greece yet it poses the question why correct explanations had not been accepted and, instead, ancient and modern mythical views had been preferred up to the 18th century.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Demetris Koutsoyiannis, 27 Mar 2021
Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Nikos Mamassis
Demetris Koutsoyiannis and Nikos Mamassis
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 730 | 328 | 23 | 1,081 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 730
- PDF: 328
- XML: 23
- Total: 1,081
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
