5
“fundamental point” that these “bear no relation whatsoever on the conceptual level
to the modern astronomer’s equinox”. His recommendation for archaeologists was
to avoid using any “recipe book” of significant astronomical targets, but to describe
possible astronomical indications in the neutral quantitative terms of astronomical
declination.
He soon reworked this critique for the archaeoastronomical community in a
methodological essay entitled, “Whose equinox?” For this new audience, Clive
elaborated the alternative observational methods by which prehistoric people might
have observed and conceptualized the equinoxes, but re-emphasized that none of
these would determine our “true” equinox. Significantly, he noted that no systematic studies of groups of monuments of which he was aware showed any evidence
of orientations clustering around any of the approximations to the equinox. He concluded that, lacking any plausible models for a culture’s cosmological model, it
would “probably be helpful if the word ‘equinox’ were simply eliminated from
archaeoastronomers’ vocabulary”. (Ruggles, 1997b: S49).
Recently, Clive returned to the question of the equinoxes, conceding that in
Mesoamerica, where we have a detailed cosmological model and calendrical evidence for counting the passage of days, it is “not surprising that the temporal equinox appears to have been of some significance”. Nonetheless, he conceded that
while the “equinox” should not remain part of a “recipe book of potential horizon
targets”, it need not be totally eliminated from our vocabulary. “The equinox …
remains useful as a point of reference” for our investigations, as long as we do not
assume it was “a meaningful point of reference for them” (Ruggles, 2017: 134).
As it happens, the question of the equinoxes has become a recurring theme in this
volume, as Belmonte and Steele both shaped their chapters around the different
concepts of the equinox as evidenced by a wide range of circum-Mediterranean
sites (Belmonte) and by Mesopotamian astronomical texts (Steele). Boutsikas studied the orientation of Greek temples in the context of ancient Greek culture for
which we know that astronomers defined the equinoxes in terms of the equality of
the length of day and night. She concludes that the equinoxes, conceived as the
cosmologically significant time when days and nights are of equal length, seem to
be “the most likely candidate” for the orientation of Greek Doric temples. Finally,
Ghezzi, in his presentation of the Chankillo Solar Observatory and Ceremonial
Center, notes several heretofore neglected examples of equinoctial indications at the
site. These include observation of equinoctial sunrise in a prominent notch on the
distant natural horizon and a replication of this effect on the artificial horizon calendar by equinoctial sunrise in a narrow gap between towers 6 and 7. A third equinoctial effect was found in the light and shadow phenomena produced by sunlight
passing through slits in the pillars of the Temple of the Pillars.
If we can generalize from these studies of the equinoxes, it seems that the term
continues to be useful for our investigations, both as a guide for comparative investigations of how different cultures conceptualize the equinoxes and for investigations of how the “equinoctial” orientation of a culture’s structures may reflect that
culture’s known cosmological formulation of the equinoxes.
Clive Ruggles and the Development of Cultural Astronomy
“fundamental point” that these “bear no relation whatsoever on the conceptual level
to the modern astronomer’s equinox”. His recommendation for archaeologists was
to avoid using any “recipe book” of significant astronomical targets, but to describe
possible astronomical indications in the neutral quantitative terms of astronomical
declination.
He soon reworked this critique for the archaeoastronomical community in a
methodological essay entitled, “Whose equinox?” For this new audience, Clive
elaborated the alternative observational methods by which prehistoric people might
have observed and conceptualized the equinoxes, but re-emphasized that none of
these would determine our “true” equinox. Significantly, he noted that no systematic studies of groups of monuments of which he was aware showed any evidence
of orientations clustering around any of the approximations to the equinox. He concluded that, lacking any plausible models for a culture’s cosmological model, it
would “probably be helpful if the word ‘equinox’ were simply eliminated from
archaeoastronomers’ vocabulary”. (Ruggles, 1997b: S49).
Recently, Clive returned to the question of the equinoxes, conceding that in
Mesoamerica, where we have a detailed cosmological model and calendrical evidence for counting the passage of days, it is “not surprising that the temporal equinox appears to have been of some significance”. Nonetheless, he conceded that
while the “equinox” should not remain part of a “recipe book of potential horizon
targets”, it need not be totally eliminated from our vocabulary. “The equinox …
remains useful as a point of reference” for our investigations, as long as we do not
assume it was “a meaningful point of reference for them” (Ruggles, 2017: 134).
As it happens, the question of the equinoxes has become a recurring theme in this
volume, as Belmonte and Steele both shaped their chapters around the different
concepts of the equinox as evidenced by a wide range of circum-Mediterranean
sites (Belmonte) and by Mesopotamian astronomical texts (Steele). Boutsikas studied the orientation of Greek temples in the context of ancient Greek culture for
which we know that astronomers defined the equinoxes in terms of the equality of
the length of day and night. She concludes that the equinoxes, conceived as the
cosmologically significant time when days and nights are of equal length, seem to
be “the most likely candidate” for the orientation of Greek Doric temples. Finally,
Ghezzi, in his presentation of the Chankillo Solar Observatory and Ceremonial
Center, notes several heretofore neglected examples of equinoctial indications at the
site. These include observation of equinoctial sunrise in a prominent notch on the
distant natural horizon and a replication of this effect on the artificial horizon calendar by equinoctial sunrise in a narrow gap between towers 6 and 7. A third equinoctial effect was found in the light and shadow phenomena produced by sunlight
passing through slits in the pillars of the Temple of the Pillars.
If we can generalize from these studies of the equinoxes, it seems that the term
continues to be useful for our investigations, both as a guide for comparative investigations of how different cultures conceptualize the equinoxes and for investigations of how the “equinoctial” orientation of a culture’s structures may reflect that
culture’s known cosmological formulation of the equinoxes.
Clive Ruggles and the Development of Cultural Astronomy