6
2 Archaeology, Archaeoastronomy, and Cultural Astronomy
Initially known for his work at sites in the British Isles, Clive soon expanded his
research to include projects in Africa, mainland Europe, South America, and, most
recently, Hawai’i. Among these projects are several that go beyond traditional
archaeoastronomy into mainstream landscape archaeology (e.g. mapping Nazca
lines in Peru (Ruggles & Saunders, 2012)), ethnography (e.g. investigating traditional time reckoning among the Mursi (Turton & Ruggles, 1978) and Hawai’ian
star names (Johnson, Mahelona, & Ruggles, 2015), and combining textual sources
with archaeological and ethnographical evidence (e.g. the study of ancient Georgian
astronomical heritage (Simonia, Ruggles, & Chagunava, 2008)).
Two studies bear particular mention. With Ivan Ghezzi, Clive undertook a
detailed study of the site and landscape of Chankillo in northern Peru. They convincingly demonstrated the presence of clear and deliberate solar alignments incorporated into the design of the site (Ghezzi & Ruggles, 2007, 2011). Provocatively,
they described the site as a “solar observatory”. The term “observatory” has often
been used uncritically by archaeoastronomers to describe a large number of different types of structures. It is problematic for several reasons: aside from the danger
of anachronism in applying a modern term to an ancient context, the world invokes
the idea of “scientific observation”, which was surely not the purpose of most
ancient interactions with the sky. It also implies that the function of the structure
was first and foremost as a place to make astronomical observations. Clive was of
course well aware of these issues—a long and productive conversation about them
took place between Clive, John Steele, and several others at a workshop at Durham
University in 2005—but made a strong case that Chankillo is one of the few ancient
sites where this term can justifiably be used. Ghezzi returns to Chankillo in his contribution to this volume.
In his recent work with Patrick Kirch on an ancient temple system on Maui,
Hawai’i (Kirch & Ruggles, 2019), Ruggles has brought the study of archaeoastronomy to its fullest conclusion: as a tool of analysis rather than an end in itself.
Instead of trying to primarily reconstruct the astronomical knowledge of the ancient
Hawai’i, here Ruggles uses archaeoastronomical evidence from ancient structures
in order to address cultural questions about the people who built and lived with
them. Archaeoastronomy is no longer an end in itself but has become part of a
broader archaeology.
3 Astronomical Heritage
As former president of both Commission 41 on Historical Astronomy and
Commission four on World Heritage and Astronomy of the International
Astronomical Union, Clive has been at the forefront of efforts to preserve astronomical heritage in all forms. He has taken on the role of connecting the astronomical
E. Boutsikas et al.
2 Archaeology, Archaeoastronomy, and Cultural Astronomy
Initially known for his work at sites in the British Isles, Clive soon expanded his
research to include projects in Africa, mainland Europe, South America, and, most
recently, Hawai’i. Among these projects are several that go beyond traditional
archaeoastronomy into mainstream landscape archaeology (e.g. mapping Nazca
lines in Peru (Ruggles & Saunders, 2012)), ethnography (e.g. investigating traditional time reckoning among the Mursi (Turton & Ruggles, 1978) and Hawai’ian
star names (Johnson, Mahelona, & Ruggles, 2015), and combining textual sources
with archaeological and ethnographical evidence (e.g. the study of ancient Georgian
astronomical heritage (Simonia, Ruggles, & Chagunava, 2008)).
Two studies bear particular mention. With Ivan Ghezzi, Clive undertook a
detailed study of the site and landscape of Chankillo in northern Peru. They convincingly demonstrated the presence of clear and deliberate solar alignments incorporated into the design of the site (Ghezzi & Ruggles, 2007, 2011). Provocatively,
they described the site as a “solar observatory”. The term “observatory” has often
been used uncritically by archaeoastronomers to describe a large number of different types of structures. It is problematic for several reasons: aside from the danger
of anachronism in applying a modern term to an ancient context, the world invokes
the idea of “scientific observation”, which was surely not the purpose of most
ancient interactions with the sky. It also implies that the function of the structure
was first and foremost as a place to make astronomical observations. Clive was of
course well aware of these issues—a long and productive conversation about them
took place between Clive, John Steele, and several others at a workshop at Durham
University in 2005—but made a strong case that Chankillo is one of the few ancient
sites where this term can justifiably be used. Ghezzi returns to Chankillo in his contribution to this volume.
In his recent work with Patrick Kirch on an ancient temple system on Maui,
Hawai’i (Kirch & Ruggles, 2019), Ruggles has brought the study of archaeoastronomy to its fullest conclusion: as a tool of analysis rather than an end in itself.
Instead of trying to primarily reconstruct the astronomical knowledge of the ancient
Hawai’i, here Ruggles uses archaeoastronomical evidence from ancient structures
in order to address cultural questions about the people who built and lived with
them. Archaeoastronomy is no longer an end in itself but has become part of a
broader archaeology.
3 Astronomical Heritage
As former president of both Commission 41 on Historical Astronomy and
Commission four on World Heritage and Astronomy of the International
Astronomical Union, Clive has been at the forefront of efforts to preserve astronomical heritage in all forms. He has taken on the role of connecting the astronomical
E. Boutsikas et al.