Title and author of burned, still-rolled scroll decoded after nearly 2,000 years
CNN —
Researchers working to decipher the contents of a burned, still-rolled scroll have uncovered both the author and the title of the text nearly 2,000 years after it was buried in the Mount Vesuvius eruption.
The scroll — named PHerc. 172 — is one of hundreds from the ancient Roman town of Herculaneum, which was buried under volcanic debris when Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD, according to the Vesuvius Challenge, an initiative focused on decoding the texts of the Herculaneum scrolls without needing to unroll them.
Preserved under mud and ash in a villa believed to have been once owned by the father-in-law of Julius Caesar, the scrolls were discovered by an Italian farmer in the 18th century.
Burned so badly they were carbonized, they are extremely fragile. Over the years, scholars have tried a range of methods to unroll them, including using weights, chemicals, gases and pulverization, though this often led to the scrolls being damaged or destroyed.
The Vesuvius Challenge was launched in 2023 to encourage researchers from around the world to try and decipher the scrolls by virtually unwrapping and decoding them.
Now, Marcel Roth and Micha Nowak, graduate students from Germany's University of Würzburg, have uncovered the title and author of PHerc. 172. Vesuvius Challenge researcher Sean Johnson made the same discovery around the same time, and both findings were independently reviewed by the competition's papyrological team, according to a Tuesday press release from Oxford University's Bodleian Libraries, where the scroll is housed.
The text deciphered identifies the scroll as 'On Vices' by the Greek philosopher Philodemus, according to the Vesuvius Challenge. It is a part of Philodemus' ethical treatise known in full as 'On Vices and Their Opposite Virtues and In Whom They Are and About What,' and could even be the first book in the series, though this is not yet clear.
Oxford University's Bodleian Libraries suggests that the book number could 'plausibly' be read as an alpha, which would indicate that the scroll is book one in the series, but it could also be other numbers, such as a delta, which would mean it is book four.
Scholars have generally thought that the first book of 'On Vices' was a text called 'On Flattery,' but the content of PHerc. 172 does not correspond with this.
Philodemus, according to the Bodleian Libraries, was an Epicurean philosopher whose teachings 'emphasise the pursuit of pleasure as central to a good life.' The majority of the scrolls found preserved in the Herculaneum villa were his works, Bodleian Libraries said.
Michael McOsker, a researcher in papyrology at University College London, who is also a member of the Vesuvius Challenge papyrology team, called the new discovery a 'very exciting development.'
'Other books from the On Vices and their Opposite Virtues are known from the papyri that were physically unrolled — best known are On Property Management (book 9, presumably the opposite virtue to greed) and On Arrogance (book 10, presumably the opposite vice to having a correct evaluation of yourself), but there are others too,' McOsker said.
'This will be a great opportunity to learn more about Philodemus' ethical views and to get a better view of the On Vices as a whole, especially if it turns out to be the first book,' McOsker said.
This find, the first time a scroll's title has been read, is the latest from the Vesuvius Challenge.
In October 2023, the first full word from one of the unopened ancient papyri was decoded with the help of computer technology and advanced artificial intelligence. The word was 'πορφυρας' or 'porphyras,' which is Greek for purple.
And in February, researchers investigating columns of text from PHerc. 172 identified the word 'διατροπή,' meaning 'disgust,' which appears twice within a few columns of text, the Bodleian Libraries said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New study suggests common assumption about aging could be wrong
A long-standing belief about the body's natural response to aging may be wrong, a new study suggests. Inflammaging is a chronic, low-grade form of inflammation that develops with advancing age. Inflammation protects the body from injury or infection. Chronic inflammation is thought to speed up the ageing process and contribute to various health conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes, Researchers have long believed that most older people will suffer from inflammageing as they age. However the study, published in Nature Age this week, found that people in nonindustrialized areas experience inflammation differently than those in urban areas and there may be another cause behind it. Researchers compared the lives of two indigenous, nonindustrialized populations - the Tsimane from the Bolivian Amazon and the Orang Asli from Peninsular Malaysia - with two groups from Italy and Singapore. Researchers compared blood samples from about 2,800 adults between 18 and 95 in the four groups. They found that chronic inflammation may not be linked explicitly to ageing, but rather that diet, lifestyle and environmental factors are more significant factors than previously thought. The study also showed that inflammation in the nonindustrialized groups did not appear to increase as subjects got older. Alan Cohen, associate professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University and co-author of the study, said the findings suggest inflammation is 'more complex than we currently understand.' 'The Tsimane and Orang Asli differ from us in all these ways,' he told The Independent. 'The insight of our study is not to say we need to be more active, but to challenge the idea that we understand biology well and can micromanage it. 'So it's a warning – don't follow the latest trends of eating foods specifically to reduce inflammation, or whatever else the trend of the week may be.' However, other experts shared a word of caution before jumping to conclusions from the study. Vishwa Deep Dixit, director of the Yale Center for Research on Aging, told the New York Times it's not surprising that people less exposed to pollution would see lower rates of chronic disease. The findings should lead to valuable discussion but would need further study 'before we rewrite the inflammaging narrative,' professor of pharmacology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Bimal Desai added.
Gizmodo
8 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Experimental Propulsion Tech Could Reach Mysterious Planet Beyond Pluto in 10 Years
On November 14, 2003, astronomers spotted what was at the time the most distant known object orbiting the Sun. They called it Sedna after the Inuit goddess of the ocean. It's a cold, reddish dwarf planet that drifts billions of miles away from the Sun during its 10,000-year orbit before coming in for a relatively close approach to our star. Its next perihelion is happening in July 2076, and astronomers want to take advantage of this rare encounter by flying a mission to the mysterious object. A team of researchers from Italy suggests mission concepts that could reach Sedna in seven to 10 years using cutting-edge technology. In a paper available on the pre-print website arXiv, they illustrate two experimental propulsion concepts that involve a nuclear fusion rocket engine and a new take on solar sailing technology. The propulsion technologies could cut down travel time to Sedna by more than 50% compared to traditional methods of space travel, allowing scientists a unique opportunity to gather clues about the early formation of the solar system and probe the theoretical Oort Cloud. When it was discovered, Sedna was around 8 billion miles (13 billion kilometers) from the Sun. (Pluto, the most famous dwarf planet, has an average distance of 3.7 billion miles from the Sun.) Sedna is known as a Trans-Neptunian object, a group of objects that orbit the Sun farther out than Neptune. It has an extremely eccentric orbit: at its farthest distance, Sedna is 84 billion miles away from the Sun, or 900 times the distance between Earth and our star. During its closest approach, Sedna will be around 7 billion miles away from the Sun, nearly three times farther than Neptune. That's still far, but it's close enough for a spacecraft to reach the celestial object before it fades back into ultra-distant darkness. Spacecraft have traveled farther distances before. Voyager 1 and 2 started their interstellar journey in 1977 and have traveled 15 billion miles and 12.7 billion miles thus far. It took Voyager 2 around 12 years to reach Neptune. Based on current technology, scientists estimate it would take around 20-30 years to reach Sedna during its closest approach, while using Venus, Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune as gravity assists. That would mean the launch window to reach Sedna is fast approaching, with no clear plans yet in place. Instead, the researchers behind the new study suggest alternative methods to get us there faster. The first is the Direct Fusion Drive (DFD) rocket engine, which is currently under development at Princeton University's Plasma Physics Laboratory. The fusion-powered rocket engine would produce both thrust and electrical power from a controlled nuclear fusion reaction, providing more power than chemical rockets. 'The DFD presents a promising alternative to conventional propulsion, offering high thrust-to-weight ratio and continuous acceleration,' the researchers write in the paper. 'However, its feasibility remains subject to key engineering challenges, including plasma stability, heat dissipation, and operational longevity under deep-space radiation.' They add that, while advances are being made for fusion-based propulsion, it's still unclear whether it can support long-duration missions and provide power for onboard instruments. The second concept builds on existing solar sail technology, which is still experimental in its own right. Solar sails are powered by photons from the Sun, harnessing energy produced by light and using it to propel spacecraft forward. The researchers suggest coating the solar sails with material that, when heated, releases molecules or atoms and provides propulsion in a process known as thermal desorption. The solar sail, assisted by Jupiter's gravity, could reach Sedna in seven years due to its ability to continuously accelerate without the need to carry heavy fuel, according to the paper. The idea does come with its own set of challenges. 'While solar sailing has been extensively studied for deep-space applications, its feasibility for a Sedna mission requires assessment in terms of long-duration structural integrity, propulsion efficiency, and power availability for science operations,' the paper reads. Despite a slight time advantage, the solar sail mission would only allow for a flyby of Sedna, while the DFD engine could insert a spacecraft into the dwarf planet's orbit for a longer mission. Either mission would provide us with the first direct observations of the previously unexplored region and help scientists better understand the larger boundary that houses the solar system.
Forbes
15 hours ago
- Forbes
New Science Shows Why Some People Just Don't Care About Climate
TURIN, ITALY - OCTOBER 11: Fridays for future protesters take part during the Fridays For Future' ... More Climate Protest on October 11, 2024 in Turin, Italy. Fridays for the Future movement is protesting in main squares in urban centers across on world to denounce perceived governments inaction towards climate change. (Photo by) What if the real obstacle to climate action isn't just political polarization, misinformation, or economic inertia—but personality? A recent study from Dalhousie University suggests that personality traits—specifically those associated with the so-called 'Dark Triad' of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—may significantly influence whether someone believes climate change is real. It's a striking idea. Not just that our politics shape our perception of science, but that the architecture of our psychology might help determine whether we accept or reject climate change altogether. The study, led by political scientist Scott Pruysers and published in Climatic Change, surveyed more than 1,700 Canadians and asked them to rank agreement with statements like 'Climate change is a scam' or 'Government should do more to address climate change.' Then it compared these answers to participants' self-assessed personality traits—using more than 160 descriptors to build out a detailed psychological profile. The results were sobering: 22% of Canadians surveyed agreed that human-caused climate change is exaggerated, and over 10% disagreed that government should be doing more to address it. Those most skeptical of climate change scored higher on scales associated with narcissism (self-importance), Machiavellianism (manipulativeness), and psychopathy (callousness). In contrast, climate believers were more likely to show traits like honesty, emotionality, openness, and humility. In other words, it's not just what you believe about climate change that matters—it's who you are. People with more empathy believe in climate change; people who lack it, don't. We're used to thinking about climate skepticism as a product of ideology, disinformation, or economic interest—and those things matter, deeply. The study acknowledges this too. In fact, the biggest single predictor of climate denial wasn't personality, but political ideology: those on the right of the spectrum were far more likely to reject climate science than those on the left. Men were more skeptical than women. Education and income also helped shape belief. But here's the twist: the second strongest predictor of climate skepticism was not age, education, or income. It was openness—a personality trait associated with curiosity, creativity, and willingness to consider new ideas. That means the shape of your character may be more determinative than your diploma or your paycheck when it comes to how you think about the planet's future. This matters, because climate action is not just a technological problem—it's a human one. As the world races to decarbonize, behavioral change is becoming just as critical as innovation. And if personality plays a role in shaping belief, then it also influences whether people are willing to make sacrifices, adopt greener habits, or vote for climate-forward policies. There's no vaccine for narcissism. We can't legislate openness. You can't change people's personalities. But we can design systems and messages that meet people where they are. Advances in artificial intelligence—particularly in analyzing social media behavior—could allow for micro-targeted communications tailored to personality types. That could mean, for example, emphasizing the status signaling of eco-friendly behavior to appeal to narcissists ('drive this EV to show you're ahead of the curve'), or using stories of personal harm and community disruption to engage those who may not respond to statistics. In fact, we already do this—just not systematically. Advertisers have long known that emotion and identity sell more than facts. The climate movement, historically grounded in scientific consensus and future-oriented morality, is starting to adopt this logic. Climate-conscious brands now market solar panels and electric cars not just as responsible choices, but as aspirational ones. Policymakers are experimenting with incentives and social norms to drive change. To be clear: this doesn't mean all climate skeptics are sociopaths. The study doesn't pathologize individuals—it works on a spectrum. Most of us have at least a few drops of the Dark Triad in us, just as we all have moments of altruism or doubt. But it does mean that the old model—present data, expect belief—isn't enough. The climate crisis is a test of our technologies, our institutions, and increasingly, our psychologies. If we want to reach the remaining skeptics, we may need to stop preaching and start profiling—not to divide, but to understand. The planet doesn't care why you act, only that you do. But to get there, we need to understand who doesn't care—and why.
