Talk:Archaeoastronomy/Archive 1

Spelling
Which spelling is more correct, or at least more often used: Archeoastronomy or Archaeoastronomy? This article can be filed under either spelling, and a redirect applied to the other. -- April

Google finds 12,300 for Archaeoastronomy, but only 1,420 for Archeoastronomy. So the article should probably go under Archaeoastronomy, unless someone has a good reason for preferring the other spelling. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 29
 * Science News made reference to the term as ethnoastronomy in 1987, but I haven't seen it used that way. Perhaps the page could mention it in passing.  --Viriditas 04:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is kind of Anglocentric. Several Chinese astronomers have published in the last few years, usually in "Astronomy and Astrophysics - a European Journal"

I'll try to hunt up a few references. Also there is recent work on transits of Venus that should be mentioned. See:



among many references. The first recorded transit was in 1639

eclipses
Do these things belong on this page? I'm not cluey enough about either to add them myself. --Zero 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) use of eclipse records to date historical events
 * 2) use of historic eclipse trajectories to study past earth rotation


 * Archaeoastronomy should keep to the ancient practices themselves, it seems to me, but an aside on modern uses of ancient astronomical records, now just hinted at here, would be useful, and an emphatic link to Chronology, where the employment of this dating technique in the hands of historians is worth all the detail you can give it! --Wetman 18:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa
Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible re-write
I've written a "What is archaeoastronomy?" page for my own site. I'm happy to put it in Wikipedia, but this would mean a major re-write of the existing article, the creation of an extra page and culling of many external links. You can see the text at http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/archaeoastronomy/

I'd also pull the Some Old / New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored sections into a new page called Sites of Archaeoastronomical Significance and link to it via a See Also section. As for the external links most of them would go. I'm not convinced we need four separate links to James Q Jacobs's site. Many of the other links are very specific rather than being relevant to Archaeoastronomy in general. They might be good pages, but DMoz would be a better place to list them. The references would be replaced with the references used for the entry.

What is missing from the entry would be reference to things like the Orion's Belt theory. While I don't agree with them, people looking up von Daniken may refer to Wikipedia. A sub-section on pseudo-archaeology with links to the pseudo-archaeology entry and author pages like Bauval etc could be appended without problems.

I realise people will correct it as soon as I put it up, or that I could just put it up and leave it for someone to revert. I just thought with it being a big change and me being new here it would be a good idea to put up a notice first. I'm not trying to arrogantly run roughshod over the previous entry without consultation. If there's no major concerns then I'll add it in a couple of days. --Alunsalt 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about the subject to comment on your content, but the philosophy of wikipedia is to be bold. The existing article is not much better than a stub.  There is a biggish leader and then lists of links - a structured article will be an improvement.  Of course the revision shouldn't include original research - but the proposed article appears to contain sufficient references that I assume this is not the case.  If you are considering removing material, one way is to move it to this talk page, so that someone who strongly feels it is important doesn't need to revert your edit and can simply re-edit the old stuff into a suitable place in the new article.  You could do the same with the existing external references.  If you think the references are useful but very specific, one way to handle this is to use sub-headings under heading of external links - see Underwater archaeology for example.  The some old/new world sites article might be best as a List of... article?  You may get objectors to the idea of an article on pseudo-archaeology (either because people believe it and object to pseudo, or they believe it is pseudo and object to its inclusion at all).  Personally I agree with you, but it needs to be carefully worded.  Viv Hamilton 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The new version is up for people to pull apart. I don't know if it's over illustrated. Having previewed it uncountable times I've just realised the headings may not be up to style --Alunsalt 11:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alun, the new version is much better organized than the old one. It's focus on academic archeaeoastronomy is a radical change, but on balance, one for the better.  Thanks much, Steve McCluskey--141.153.125.219 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous State of Entry
''Below is cut'n'pasted the previous version of the Archaeoastronomy entry so that anyone can put stuff back in if they feel it's should be in the new entry. My plan is to use the category page for Archaeoastronomy to help link in material so I'll be flitting round other relevant entries to make sure they have an archaeoastronomy category link later. The only major cuts will be in external links which will be heavily pruned. I'll be cutting links that aren't to archaeoastronomical sites and to sites concerned specifically with one culture. For instance some of the James Q Jacobs links might be better on the Maya calendar page. I've stepped down the headings to fit them below the one which starts this section.''--Alunsalt 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy (also spelled Archeoastronomy) is the study of ancient or traditional astronomies in their cultural context, utilizing archaeological and anthropological evidence. Archaeoastronomy examines archaeological sites for evidence of astronomy in remote cultures, and anthropological and ethnohistorical evidence for evidence of astronomical practices in living cultures. The study of the astronomies of living traditional cultures is sometimes called Ethnoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy also focuses on modern astronomy, employing historical records of early astronomical observations to study past astronomical events, and employing astronomical data to clarify the historical record.

In the study of solar, lunar, and stellar alignments of monuments, numerous claims have been made that the megalithic monuments, such as Nabta Playa, Stonehenge and Newgrange, represent "ancient observatories," but the extent and nature of their use in that regard needs careful definition. Certainly, they are aligned with particular significance to the solstitial points.

The early development of this aspect of archaeoastronomy was influenced by Alexander Thom's studies of megalithic monuments of Britain, published in Megalithic sites in Britain (Oxford, 1967). Thom employed detailed surveys and statistical methods to investigate the calendric and astronomical functions of numerous Neolithic monuments. He claimed that these monuments incorporate alignments to points on the horizon where the sun and moon rise and set at seasonal extremes like midsummer, midwinter and the equinoxes. In addition to his work on Neolithic astronomy, he also proposed the megalithic yard as a standardized unit of measure. Although his work greatly influenced the development of archaeoastronomy, many of his conclusions (especially those implying highly precise observations) have been widely questioned.

Anthropological and ethnohistorical methods have been used to study astronomies in a wide range of cultures. Typical studies have examined the astronomical and calendric practices of the Hopi and Zuni of the Southwestern United States; the astronomy and cosmology of the Andean villagers of Misminay; the calendrical and divinatory practices of modern Maya priests, and the ambiguous lunar calendar of the Mursi of southwestern Ethiopia.

Archaeoastronomy has also considered the extensive records of ancient China for references to "guest stars". "Guest stars," or star-like objects which appeared in the night sky, were of great interest to the observers of ancient China and were often dutifully recorded. These events have been associated with many transitory phenomena, such as comets and, particularly, supernovae. Besides the insights such records provide into the significance of celestial phenomena in ancient cultures, they have also been found useful by modern astronomers.

Some Old World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

 * Angkor Wat
 * Arkaim
 * Ballochroy
 * Borobudur
 * Carnac, the Grand Menhir Brisé
 * Great Pyramids of Egypt
 * Kintraw
 * Minard, Brainport Bay, raising methodological issues
 * Newgrange
 * Nabta Playa
 * Sarmizegetusa Regia, Romania
 * Stonehenge and other structures apparently aligned to astronomical bodies and/or events

Some New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

 * Cahokia, City of the Sun.
 * Chaco Canyon, cardinal orientatons, meridian alignment, inter-pueblo alignments
 * Chichen Itza, the caracol
 * Monte Alban, zenith tube
 * Teotihuacan, the pecked-cross circles as survey-markers
 * Uxmal, Venus alignment of the "Governor's Palace"
 * Xochicalco, zenith tube
 * Many Maya sites that have an E Group (see Maya section on E Groups)
 * Tiwanaku, the Kalasasaya and its alignments

Some artifacts that throw light on archaeoastronomy

 * Ancient calendars based on astronomical observations
 * Antikythera mechanism
 * Nebra skydisk

Ethnoastronomy
Well, the recent change by Melchoir has raised the issue to the fore. Is Ethnoastronomy a separate entity from archaeoastronomy, deserving its own article, or is it part of it? Since it is already covered (to some extent) in this article, perhaps we should make the connection clearer. For the moment, I'm going to remove the disturbing red link to the non-existent article on Ethnoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have no idea, personally. But whatever the decision is, the intro must reflect it. Currently, we have an article on A that states "A is related to B, C, and D", while C and D are links to other articles and B is not. The omission frankly screams! Melchoir 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've revised the opening paragraph to reflect these comments. Take a look at the change to see if it deals with the problem adequately. --SteveMcCluskey 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Melchoir 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article
Congratulations to Alunsalt and indeed all contributors to this beautifully-written article: it makes for a compelling, well-structured and very informative read, and is sumptuously illustrated. I've listed it as a Good Article since it meets all the criteria. However, despite its ample good points, it only just satisfies the broadness criterion in my opinion. In particular, the following points need addressing when further developing the article:
 * Most pressingly, how scientific is archaeoastronomy? To what extent are conclusions based upon individual opinions?
 * Which academic centres are the most prominent for archaeoastronomical research? This is vital for context.
 * There are no direct quotations either regarding the discipline itself or from eminent archaeoastronomers.
 * A section is needed which elaborates on how archaeoastronomy compares and contrasts with each of its closely-related disciplines, as suggested in the introduction. In particular,  what sources tackle the ethnoastronomy/archaeoastronomy debate and among whom is there "no consensus"?
 * What are the major achievements within the discipline?
 * In ===Displays of Power===, the sentence "The use of astronomy at Stonehenge continues to be a matter of vigorous discussion" is opaque and needs context.

Some stylistic points of note:
 * There is Wikipedia consensus that footnote numbers should be placed after punctuation marks in the prose (except for brackets).
 * A redirect for ethnoastronomy is appropriate at the moment.
 * There should be a small introductory paragraph to the section ==Major topics of archaeoastronomical research==.
 * The image of Machu Picchu is beautiful, but it doesn't bear any obvious relevance to the prose it illustrates.

Anyway, I had a thoroughly good time reading this article, so cheers, and well done again. --Vinoir 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. The footnotes and redirect are in place. Perhaps a methodology section would tackle both the scientific/historical nature of archaeoastronomy and be a place to discuss ethnoastronomy? Clive's quote on archaeoastronomy spanning unbridled lunacy to something else (I'll have to look it up) would be a good intro to the methodology and arguments over how scientific one can be. --Alunsalt 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. A ==Methodology== section sounds ideal. If you ever need me for follow-up to the above comments, I'll be happy to oblige.  Probably the article will also be large enough for peer review at that point, and I think that Featured Article status is a realistic prospect for the article. --Vinoir 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to make a note of what I added, and to spellcheck. I'll try and do the latter tomorrow morning. Added are Methodology and Recreating the Sky sections. I wanted to try and show there's more to method than just measuring alignments, and try and get away from the astronomical shopping list idea. As a result I'm not happy with either section as they stand, but they're up for anyone else to knock about. I'm off campus at the moment too, but when I'm back possibly next week, I'll try filling out the references.


 * Other sections I thought to add are Major archaeoastronomical sites which could briefly discuss Stonehenge, Chichen Itza and Giza with links through to the main articles and also an Archaeoastronomy and Archaeology section for the end to say that while you can't use purely astronomical data to turn the archaeological world upside down, some things do make more sense when astronomy is considered e.g. Maya Venus Star Wars, Iron Age roundhouses and Polynesian navigation.

Should this article discuss problematic cases?
I've been following recent changes to the article over at Hindu astronomy, where there has been an effective rebuttal of the attempts to use archaeoastronomical methods to push the date of Indian astronomy back by over two millennia. Lying behind these attempts is a nationalist agenda to grant Indian astronomy priority and make it the source of Greek and Babylonian astronomy.

I don't like to see archaeoastronomy tarred by this kind of foolishness, yet the late David Pingree, an expert on Indian astronomy — who also did solid research on Greek, Babylonian, and even medieval European astronomy — spent a page of an excellent article on early science condemning "the scholars who perpetrate wild theories of prehistoric science and call themselves archaeoastronomers." (Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis, 83(1982):554-563, esp. p. 556; reprinted in Michael H. Shank, ed., The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000), pp.30-39.)

Perhaps the thing to do is add a section dealing with fallacies in Archaeoastronomy and discussing those standards that can help a reader critically evaluate such weak research. --SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I thought a section on pseudo-archaeoastronomy might be useful, but I'm not sure I'm the person to write it. I'll look up that article because I haven't read it and it looks really useful. --Alunsalt 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Write More on the 'Astrological Significance' of These Sites?
It seems that most of these sites were built for these cultures to express their 'cosmic admiration' or 'cosmic awe' for their God(s), so possibly these sites have much more astrological significance than people (i.e. modern, highly skeptical scientists) give them credit for. Perhaps we should include more about the astrological significance of these amazing structures in the main article. For instance, we know that many archaeoastronomical sites are astronomically amazing and significant in that they uncannily line up with the cycles of the sun, moon, and planets, but WHY would these cultures go through the laborious process of building these sites if they didn't attach any astrological and/or spiritual significance to them? Thank you for your time and suggestions. --172.150.63.12 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's sorry you don't have a user name so I could contact you directly. Perhaps there could be a section on the use of early astronomies for prognostication. There are two problems.  First, for most archaeoastronomical sites we don't have enough cultural context to say anything specific about the purposes to which they were put.  The second, and related, problem is to find secondary accounts regarding this topic in reliable sources that could be cited in the article.  I know the use of the Maya material for prognostication has been talked about by Tony Aveni and others but I'm pretty much at a loss for any good material on the other sites under discussion here. --SteveMcCluskey 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted to read more on the astrological significance of the sites, if it can be verified from a reliable source. As Steve says, there's not the cultural context there. For instance it would be weird if there wasn't some rich symbolism in the night sky of the builders of Stonehenge, but the complete lack of historical records means that we will never know what it was. Additionally ancient people are very good at being weird and proving everyone wrong.


 * There is also a danger that in specifying astrology rather than ritual you risk putting a modern preconception back onto the past. Astrology is not a universal belief system, in the case of Graeco-Roman astrology it relies on some fairly basic assumptions about the use fo mathematics which don't transfer to other cultures. I'll give it some thought. I did wonder if something could be added in the Displays of power section. Unfortunately the only suitable thing I can think of is some work on the Tellus relief at the Ara Pacis, but that's not verifiable as it hasn't been published yet. --Alunsalt 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article status questioned
This article's status as a Good Article has been disputed. Please see the current discussion at WP:GA/R If you feel that you can improve the article so it meets good article standards please do. If you would like to contribute to the discussion of this article, please see good article reviews. Thank you. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per consensus reached here, the article has been delisted. Giggy  Talk 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached and archived within a couple of hours as far as I can tell from the discussion here. I accept the decision, and probably would have voted for delisting, but it may have been better to let people who'd worked on the article know that the discussion was underway. It might be helpful if are people who noted the missing citations edit the article to point out where the problems are. I could certainly fill out some citations for some statements, but for the next few months I doubt I'll be bothered. I don't think anyone was being intentionally rude, but giving 24 hours notice might make people in other time zones feel their contributions are valued. --Alunsalt 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry you didn't get a notice. Generally you recieve one when it's listed, but this time Zeus1234 missed it.  If you like, I'll un-delist it, and give you a few days to make changes etc.  Giggy  Talk 06:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments on the GA/R review, the article has been delisted. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once you are able to work on the article and correct the issues, you may renominate it at WP:GAC. Please see the GA criteria to assist in bringing the article up to GA quality. Best regards, LARA  ♥LOVE  03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about a ref
Can someone with access to Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy check something out? Our ref says the article "Prehistoric and Early Historic Cultural Change at Brugh na Bóinne" is by Grogan and on pages 126-132, but this listing says Eogan and 105-132. I notice they've published together in that journal before. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't check that till early April. I wonder if it could be a two-part article as Gabriel Cooney cites it in his 2006 Antiquity paper, but I may have messed up that reference. Alunsalt (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a PhD dissertation on the web from U. Minnesota (John Angus Soderberg, Feeding Community: urbanization, religion, and zooarchaeology at Clonmacnoise, an early medieval Irish monastery, 2003) cites it as:


 * Eogan, G. 1991. Prehistoric and Early Historic Culture Change at Brugh Na Boinne. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 91 C: 105-132.


 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be the clincher; Gabriel Cooney, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 107C, 215–225, cites it with Eogan as the author


 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Eogan looks ok to me. Alun Salt (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the copy in our library. The article "Prehistoric and Early Historic Cultural Change at Brugh na Bóinne" is by George Eogan on pages 105–132. It includes an appendix, "Radiocarbon dates from Brugh na Bóinne", by Eoin Grogan on pages 126–132. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we replace the methodology section?
Following Wandalstouring's comments I'm wondering if we should replace the Methodology section. When I wrote it I was very consciously trying to avoid clichés and and of those is the clash of the statistically-led approaches with the ethnohistorically-led approaches. There are people working with hybrid approaches now. On the other hand the Schaefer/Aveni papers in the 2006 Oxford volume revive the Green vs. Brown debates of the eighties. Additionally it's still common to find papers with titles like "The orientation of 456 tombs" especially with European work. I think I may have got it wrong and that there's a good reason why these ideas became clichés.

The replacement would go after the Iwaniszewski quote with: There is no one way to do Archaeoastronomy. The divisions between archaeoastronomers tend not to be between the physical scientists and the social scientists. Instead it tends to depend on the location of kind of data available to the researcher. In the Old World, there is little data but the sites themselves; in the New World, the sites were supplemented by ethnographic an historic data. The effects of the isolated development of archaeoastronomy in different places can still often be seen in research today. Research methods can be classified as falling into one of two approaches, though more recent projects often use techniques from both categories.

Green Archaeoastronomy
Green Archaeoastronomy is named after the cover the book Archaeoastronomy in the Old World. It is primarily statistically led and is a particularly approach for prehistoric sites where the social evidence is relatively scant compared to the historic period. The basic methods were developed by Alexander Thom during his extensive surveys of British megalithic sites.

Thom wished to examine whether or not prehistoric peoples used high-accuracy astronomy. He believed that by using horizon astronomy, observers could make estimates of dates in the year to a specific day. The observation would require finding a place where on a specific data the sun set into a notch on the horizon. A common theme would be a mountain which blocked the Sun, but on the right day would allow the tiniest fraction to re-emerge on the other side for a 'double sunset'. The animation below shows two sunsets at a hypothetical site, one the day before the summer solstice and one at the summer solstice, which has a double sunset.



To test this idea he surveyed hundreds of stone rows and circles. Any individual alignment could indicate a direction by chance, but he planned to show that together the distribution of alignments was non-random, showing that there was an astronomical intent to the orientation of at least some of the alignments. His results indicated the existence of eight, sixteen, or perhaps even thirty-two uniformly-spaced days in the year. The two solstices, the two equinoxes and four cross-quarter days, days half-way between a solstice and the equinox, became known as the Celtic calendar. While not all these conclusions have been accepted, it has had an enduring influence on archaeoastronomy, especially in Europe.

Euan MacKie has most strongly supported Thom's analyses adding to which he added an archaeological context by comparing Neolithic Britain to the Mayan civilisation to argue for a stratified society in this period. To test his ideas he conducted a couple of excavations at proposed prehistoric observatories in Scotland. Kintraw is a site notable for its four metre high standing stone. Thom proposed that this was a foresight to a point on the distant horizon between Beinn Shianaidh and Beinn o'Chaolias on Jura. This Thom argued was a notch on the horizon where a double sunset would occur at midwinter. However, from ground level the site of the standing stone, this sunset would be obscured by a ridge in the landscape. The viewer would need to be raised by two metres. Therefore another observation platform was needed. This was identified across a gorge where a platform formed from small stones. The lack of artefacts caused concern for some archaeologists and the petrofabric analysis was inconclusive, but further research at Maes Howe and on the Bush Barrow Lozenge leads MacKie to conclude that while the term 'science' may be anachronistic, Thom was broadly correct upon the subject of high-accuracy alignments.

In contrast Clive Ruggles has argued that there are problems with the selection of data in Thom's surveys. meaning that the arguments for high accuracy astronomy are unproven. A deeper criticism of Green archaeoastronomy is that while it can answer if there was likely to be an interest in astronomy in past times, its lack of a social element means that it struggles to answer why people would be interested which makes it of limited use to people asking questions about the society of the past. Keith Kintigh wrote: "To put it bluntly, in many cases it doesn’t matter much to the progress of anthropology whether a particular archaeoastronomical claim is right or wrong because the information doesn’t inform the current interpretive questions." Nonetheless the study of alignments remains a staple of archaeoastronomical research, especially in Europe.

Brown Archaeoastronomy
In contrast to the largely alignment-orientated statistically-led methods of Green archaeoastronomy, Brown archaeoastronomy has been identified as being closer to the history of astronomy or to cultural history, insofar as it draws on historical and ethnographic records to enrich its understanding of early astronomies and their relations to calendars and ritual. The many records of native customs and beliefs made by the Spanish chroniclers means that Brown archaeoastronomy is most often associated with studies of astronomy in the Americas.

One famous site where historical records have been used to interpret sites is Chichen Itza. Rather than analysing the site and seeing which targets appear popular, archaeoastronomers have instead examined the ethnographic records to see what features of the sky were important to the Mayans and then sought archaeological correlates. One example which could have been overlooked without historical records is the Mayan interest in the planet Venus. This interest is attested to by the Dresden codex which contains tables with information about the Venus's appearances in the sky. These cycles would have been of astrological and ritual significance as Venus was associated with Quetzalcoatl or Xolotl. Associations of architectural features with settings of Venus can be found in Chichen Itza.

The Temple of the Warriors bears iconography depicting feathered serpents associated with Quetzalcoatl or Kukulcan. This means that the building's alignment towards the place on the horizon where Venus first appears in the evening sky (when it coincides with the rainy season) may be meaningful. Aveni claims that another building associated with the planet Venus in the form of Kukulcan, and the rainy season at Chichen Itza is the Caracol. This is a building with circular tower and doors facing the cardinal directions. The base faces the most northerly setting of Venus. Additionally the pillars of a stylobate on the building's upper platform were painted black and red. These are colours associated with Venus as an evening and morning star. However the windows in the tower seem to have been little more than slots, making them poor at letting light in, but providing a suitable place to view out.

Aveni states that one of the strengths of the Brown methodology is that it can explore astronomies invisible to statistical analysis and and offers the astronomy of the Incas as another example. The empire of the Incas was conceptually divided using ceques radial routes emanating from the capital at Cusco. Thus there are alignments in all directions which would suggest there is little of astronomical significance, However, ethnohistorical records show that the various directions do have cosmological and astronomical signifance with various points in the landscape being significant at different times of the year. In eastern Asia archaeoastronomy has developed from the History of Astronomy and much archaeoastronomy is searching for material correlates of the historical record. This is due to the rich historical record of astronomical phenomena which, in China, stretches back into the Han dynasty, in the second century BC.

A criticism of this method is that it can be statistically weak. Schaefer in particular has questioned the how robust the claimed alignments in the Caracol are.


 * Now follows the old methodology section re-written as the Sources section

Because archaeoastronomy is about the many and various ways people interacted with the sky, there are a diverse range of sources giving information about astronomical practices.

Alignments
A common source of data for archaeoastronomy is the study of alignments. This is based on the assumption that the axis of alignment of an archaeological site is meaningfully orientated towards an astronomical target. Brown archaeoastronomers may justify this assumption through reading historical or ethnographic sources, while Green archaeoastronomers tend to prove that alignments are unlikely to be selected by chance, usually by demonstrating common patterns of alignment at multiple sites.

An alignment is calculated by measuring the azimuth, the angle from north, of the structure and the altitude of the horizon it faces The azimuth is usually measured using a theodolite or a compass. A compass is easier to use, though the deviation of the Earth’s magnetic field from true north, known as its magnetic declination must be taken into account. Compasses are also unreliable in areas prone to magnetic interference, such as sites being supported by scaffolding. Additionally a compass can only measure the azimuth to a precision of a half a degree.

A theodolite can be considerably more accurate if used correctly, but it is also considerably more difficult to use correctly. There is no inherent way to align a theodolite with North and so the scale has to be calibrated using astronomical observation, usually the position of the Sun. Because the position of celestial bodies changes with the time of day due to the Earth’s rotation, the time of these calibration observations must be accurately known, or else there will be a systematic error in the measurements. Horizon altitudes can be measured with a theodolite or a clinometer.

Artefacts
For artifacts such as the Sky Disc of Nebra, alleged to be a Bronze Age artifact depicting the cosmos, the analysis would be similar to typical post-excavation analysis as used in other sub-disciplines in archaeology. An artifact is examined and attempts are made to draw analogies with historical or ethnographical records of other peoples. The more parallels that can be found, the more likely an explanation is to be accepted by other archaeologists.

A more mundane example is the presence of astrological symbols found on some shoes and sandals from the Roman Empire. The use of shoes and sandals is well known, but Carol van Driel-Murray has proposed that astrological symbols etched onto sandals gave the footwear spiritual or medicinal meanings. This is supported through citation of other known uses of astrological symbols and their connection to medical practice and with the historical records of the time.

Another well-known artifact with an astronomical use is the Antikythera mechanism. In this case analysis of the artifact, and reference to the description of similar devices described by Cicero, would indicate a plausible use for the device. The argument is bolstered by the presence of symbols on the mechanism, allowing the disc to be read.

Art and Inscriptions
Art and inscriptions may not be confined to artefacts, but also appear painted or inscribed on an archaeological site. Sometimes inscriptions are helpful enough to give instructions to a site's use. For example an inscription on one Greek stele has been translated as:"Patron set this up for Zeus Epopsios. Winter solstice. Should anyone wish to know: off ‘the little pig’ and the stele the sun turns." From Mesoamerica come Mayan and Aztec codices. These are folding books made from Amatl. processed tree bark on which are glyphs in Mayan or Aztec script. The Dresden codex contains infromation regarding the Venus cycle, confirming its important to the Mayans.

More problematic are those cases where the movement of the Sun at different times and seasons causes light and shadow interactions with petroglyphs. A widely known example is the Sun Dagger of Fajada Butte at which a glint of sunlight passing over a spiral petroglyph. The location of the dagger on the petroglyph varies throughout the year. At the solstices a dagger can be seen either through the heart of the spiral or to either side of it. It is proposed that this petroglyph was created to mark these events. Recent studies have identified many similar sites in the US Southwest and Northwestern Mexico. It has been argued that the number of solstitial markers at these sites provides statistical evidence that they were intended to mark the solstices. If no ethnographic nor historical data are found which can support this assertion then acceptance of the idea relies upon whether or not there are enough petroglyph sites in North America that such a correlation could occur by chance. It is helpful when petroglyphs are associated with existing peoples. This allows ethnoastronomers to question informants as to the meaning of such symbols.

Ethnographies
As well as the materials left by peoples themselves, there are also the reports of other who have encountered them. The historical records of the Conquistadores are a rich source of information about the precolumbian Americans. Ethnographers also provide material about many other peoples.

Aveni uses the importance of zenith passages as an example of the importance of ethnography. For peoples living between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn there are two days of the year when the noon Sun passes directly overhead and casts no shadow. In parts of Mesoamerica this was considered a significant day as it would herald the arrival of rains, and so play a part in the cycle of agriculture. This knowledge is still considered important amongst Mayan indians living in Central America today. The ethnographic records suggested to archaeoastronomers that this day may have been important to the ancient Mayans. Alignments to the sunrise and sunset on the day of the zenith passage have been found in Mayan cities such as Chichen Itza. There are also shafts known as 'zenith tubes' which illuminate subterranean rooms when the sun passes overhead found at places like Monte Alban and Xochicalco. It is only through the ethnography that we can speculate that the timing of the illumination was considered important in Mayan society.

Ethnographies also caution against over-interpretation of sites. At Pueblo Bonito, in Chaco Canyon can be found a petroglyph with a star, crescent and hand. It has been argued that this is a record of the 1054 Supernova. However anthropological evidence suggests this is not the case. The Zuni who live in the region mark sun-watching stations with a crescent, star, hand and sundisc, which can also be found at the site. . The local peoples appear to have adopted the supernova explanation after it was suggested by visitors to the site.

Ethnoastronomy is also an important field outside of the Americas. For example anthropological work with aboriginal Australians is producing much information about their indigenous astronomies and about their interaction with the modern world including a new genre of Aboriginal UFO stories.

Additional References
To an extent the approach is dated, but it would be a less woolly way of tackling methodology. The problem is keeping the explanations fairly brief to avoid over-stretching the article. This approach would leave open the possibility of later articles on specific archaeoastronomical approaches. Does this look reasonable, or is it too radical a change?


 * I've had doubts about the way I've laid this out too. Specifically, I'm not sure the Hybrid Methods can go in. While I think it would be useful, I don't think it would fit under WP:V and WP:SYN. If we drop Hybrid, would this be a better introduction for the section?
 * There is no one way to do Archaeoastronomy. The divisions between archaeoastronomers tend not to be between the physical scientists and the social scientists. Instead it tends to depend on the location of kind of data available to the researcher. In the Old World, there is little data but the sites themselves; in the New World, the sites were supplemented by ethnographic an historic data. The effects of the isolated development of archaeoastronomy in different places can still often be seen in research today. Research methods can be classified as falling into one of two approaches, though more recent projects often use techniques from both categories.
 * Then we leave it as Green and Brown and drop Blue and Hybrid. Also instead of replacing one section with another, we rename the current Methodology section Source Materials or similar and re-name the sub-headings, Alignments, Art, Artefacts and add an extra Ethnography sub-heading. Hopefully that would address Wandalstourings concerns about the Methodology section, and help improve the weakness in the article's lack of material on ethnography and explain why archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy share the same entry. Does this sound ok? Alun Salt (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alun, I've made some changes above to stress the importance of the difference in available data, which is correlated with the places people are studying. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just finished the first draft of the re-write. If the above is passable then I (or someone else) can replace the current methodology section with it. I thought to leave it a while for other editors to improve it, then put the article up for peer-review assuming the edit-warring has stopped. Alun Salt (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving?
Would it make sense to archive sections of the talk page now?

I was thinking initially the sections from the start to Good article status questioned inclusive as well as the draft of the re-write and this section which would be redundant once the archiving is done. Alun Salt (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be the way to go, as it leaves most of the dispute on the talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ethnoastronomy
currently redirects here, shouldn't this be a separate article? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a pretty strong overlap between these two aspects of Cultural astronomy, so I'd say let it stand. If enough ethnoastronomical material is added that it deserves a separate article, that might be the time to split them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget-- astronomy is hard science.
Astronomy itself is a science, and has nothing to do with cultural interpretations. There was some confusing wording in the introduction that I've tried to fix. The sentences cited the 2005 Ruggles work, which did not contain the implication that astronomy is subject to cultural interpretation. While the methods of measuring stellar and planetary movement and the interpretation of the results may have changed over the centuries, the universe still acts the same regardless of your culture. --RabidDeity (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Astronomy, as a science, isn't to be confused with nature. Although the universe hasn't changed, human interpretations of it -- which is what astronomies are -- have changed in different times and cultures.  I'll go back to Ruggles's book to see what he has to say about this.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ruggles, as an astronomer turned archaeologist, says quite clearly (2005, p. 22) that "what different groups of people perceive as important in the sky, and what significance they ascribe to it, is highly culture-dependent." Although his examples are largely prehistoric and ethnographic, he does not exclude modern astronomy from that description.  Elswewhere  (1999, p. 155) he does distinguish the approaches between "the external, 'objective' view of the world underlying modern astronomy [and] the internalized, contextually rich nature of most non-Western world views."  Non-western cultures' symbolic understandings of phenomena in the sky were "their science, and by striving to understand symbolic associations in the material record aspects of it may begin to be revealed to us."


 * I think your recent change needs some polishing to reflect this nuanced archaeoastronomical point of view. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good points. Modern astronomy strives to be scientifically objective, but as with any human work likely isn't without bias. Most markedly, the distinction between astronomy and astrology is very much a recent one. In the interests of keeping this as clear to uninformed readers as possible (yet restraining from cultural judgments) I'd like to maintain a distinction between objective, empirical observations (the science of astronomy) and the distribution of and interpretation of those observations-- the human factor, the cultural significance of astronomy, the field of archaeoastronomy upon which Ruggles seems to place emphasis. In this light, could you suggest improvements to the introduction to make it more polished? --RabidDeity (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to draw a distinction between science and non-science is a difficult problem. Your suggested distinction in which astronomy is observations and the distribution and interpretation of those observations is something else seems to miss the distinction that Ruggles, and most archaeoastronomers, make.  Two examples:
 * We know that the Hopi made precise solar observations, but they did it in a religious context, were those observations astronomy? I once didn't think so, but now I'm convinced that they are.
 * We know Kepler interpreted Tycho Brahe's observations, certainly those interpretations were astronomy.
 * Can we come up with a better distinction or -- as I would favor (McCluskey 2005) -- do all the archaeoastronomical examples in this article reflect the different ways that different peoples do astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's much clearer now. I just wanted to avoid falling into the trap of the definition being not distinguished enough from astronomy or historical astronomy, which is a distinction that appears to have been argued to death here already. Good job, and thanks. --RabidDeity (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sun Dagger site
See Talk:Fajada Butte - this may not be what the artist Sofaer claims it is. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, Despite the many controversies surrounding the Fajada Butte Sun Dagger, it is the best studied example of a class of such sites that are found throughout the Southwestern US. I think we should retain the image as representative of that kind of site.
 * BTW, calling Sofaer an artist suggests that she doesn't know the astronomy. Most people who do archaeoastronomy have training in other fields; Sofaer studied art.  She is a strong advocate for "her site" and I think some of her claims are wrong, but she does know what she's talking about.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. We need to somehow make it clear in this article that it's disputed. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just compared the changes to the article, and I find that recent edits by Bheldthor make strong claims that "its explicit light markings that record all of the key events of both the solar and lunar cycles: summer solstice, winter solstice, equinox, and the major and minor lunar standstills." The section probably can be improved by reverting those recent edits.  It will probably still need further work, however. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this get to fa?
This is an absolutely fantastic looking article, and a quick browse tells me it seems well written too. How far is it from FA status? IBE (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Karahunj
I believe there should be a section dedicated to Karahunj (Zorats Karer) since its most widely accepted theory is that it was used as an astronomical site. There should be more reason to be on this page than Stonehenge. Arzashkun (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems uncontroversial that the site represents an example of an archaeoastronomical site. However a reference in one book and a show on the history channel do not necessarily a major example make. I'd say the best course of action here would be to balance WP:DUE and WP:BOLD in other words, if you want to add information on Zorats Karer please do so, but if it seems to have an undue amount of attention keep in mind that it might be shortened on you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is the primary article concerning archaeoastronomy, and only discusses major sites of archaeoastronomical interest, limiting its treatment to a few well-attested and extensively studied sites. Ruggles (Ancient Astronomy, p. 65) describes Carahunge cautiously as having "been interpreted as an Armenian Stonehenge", and does not strongly endorse the site.
 * Since this article does not discuss every claimed archaeoastronomical site, Karahunj probably does not belong here. It is already discussed in its own article and may be suitable for the List of archaeoastronomical sites by country. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Senemut or Senenmut
In this article and its links this name (Senenmut) is spelled with or without the second 'n'. In the Metropolitan Museum page (a scan of the ceiling) it is Senenmut. wsflo@o2.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.182.102.232 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's Senenmut in that article, and it's Senemut in Astronomical ceiling of Senemut Tomb, not just in its title, but in deliberate override of text in a wikilink to the Senenmut article. What's up? The Senenmut article lists two alternate spellings, but not this one. The prime Google lists automatically assume you're looking for Senenmut if you type Senemut, but I presume there's a better way to settle what is the scholarly norm. I just don't have that expertise. Evensteven (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress Authorities page gives Senenmut as the primary heading and Senmut and Sn.n.mwt as alternates. As always, it gives some sources for each.
 * On a second point, the discussion of Senenmut's tomb seems tangential to archaeoastronomy and would seem to fit better in history of astronomy, where there already is a figure showing the star chart from Senenmut's tomb. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers. Your second point seems right to me, for what that's worth. In two days I haven't been able to get the LoCA link to work, but starting a new search at the website certainly produces a primary entry for Senenmut. No corresponding hit for Senemut. So I suppose I ought to pose the question: is there a reason why the article "Astronomical ceiling of Senemut Tomb" should not be moved to "Astronomical ceiling of Senenmut Tomb"? Of course, its contents would require name changing throughout also. Evensteven (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Archaeoastronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218140644/http://www.archeociel.com:80/nouvelle.htm to http://www.archeociel.com/nouvelle.htm


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043749/http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm to http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm


 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antiquityofman.com/Orion_Fairall.html


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043749/http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm to http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm


 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021090940/http://aaatec.org/archive.html to http://aaatec.org/archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources checked to the best of my ability. One link failed.Netherzone (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)