Reconstructed contents of Hipparchus's lost star catalogue

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested as a complete surviving object. It is a source-backed reconstruction of partial contents from ancient testimony, fragmentary witnesses, and modern imaging work.

Epistemic status

Source-backed inferred lost scientific catalogue / fragmentary technical-text reconstruction.

Summary

A lost star catalogue compiled by Hipparchus in the second century BCE is strongly warranted by ancient testimony, later astronomical use, and newly recovered fragmentary witnesses. The Inferpedia object is not a complete recovered catalogue, but the partial reconstructed content of a lost technical text: constellation boundaries, stellar coordinates, coordinate format, and transmission traces preserved through later manuscripts and astronomical writers.

What is being inferred

The inferred object is a partial content map for Hipparchus's lost star catalogue, including recoverable constellation descriptions and coordinate patterns where the witness tradition supports them.

What is attested

The complete catalogue is not extant. The attested material is fragmentary and mediated: Hipparchus's surviving Commentary, later astronomical references, P.Aberdeen 12, Aratus Latinus material, and Codex Climaci Rescriptus undertext interpreted by recent scholarship.

Why infer this entity

Multiple independent routes converge on a lost Hipparchan catalogue. Gysembergh, Williams, and Zingg argue that palimpsest material preserves catalogue coordinates; Schironi surveys a dispersed witness field; later notes and critiques show the reconstruction is active and contested rather than settled.

Evidence ledger

• Gysembergh, Williams, and Zingg identify Codex Climaci Rescriptus undertext as evidence for Hipparchus's lost catalogue, including Corona Borealis coordinate material.
• Schironi treats the catalogue as a mostly lost self-standing work and surveys fragmentary witnesses.
• Grasshoff and Hoffmann challenge the Hipparchus attribution and coordinate interpretation.
• Gysembergh, Williams, and Zingg's later note reaffirms the attribution and points to further evidence.
• The CNRS/Sorbonne release is retained as discounted public context for the decipherment route.

Counterarguments

The recovered catalogue is not complete. The Codex Climaci Rescriptus material is contested, and its terminology, coordinate system, and dating are debated. Ptolemy's later catalogue should not be treated as a simple copy of Hipparchus. Some witnesses are damaged, translated, excerpted, or numerically corrupt.

Confidence scores

• Direct attestation score: 56
• Existence warrant score: 88
• Specificity score: 74
• Reconstruction dependence score: 80
• Counterevidence score: 70

What would change the score

The score would rise if newly imaged palimpsest folios or papyri publish additional secure constellation entries with consistent Hipparchan coordinate features. It would fall if the Codex Climaci Rescriptus and P.Aberdeen material are convincingly reassigned to another ancient astronomical source or shown to be too corrupt for Hipparchan attribution.