Clive Ruggles’ classic paper “Whose Equinox?” drew attention to the problem of
modern preconceptions of what is a significant astronomical event or phenomenon
within the study of cultural astronomy (Ruggles, 1997). Crucially, it highlighted
that just because an astronomical event is apparently obvious and significant in our
astronomy, it need not be so in other astronomies and worldviews. The papers in this
section explore this topic further, arguing that whether or not a phenomenon is significant and how it is defined is culturally dependent, and indeed that different ideas
about a phenomenon may even exist within a culture.
Responding directly to Ruggles’ challenge to the ambiguous concept of the equinox, Belmonte presents a wide ranging and precise investigation of the variety of
“equinoctial” concepts indicated by structures oriented to the “East” in a wide range
of cultures in the Mediterranean region and beyond. Rather than reject the term
outright, as Ruggles (1997: S49) had proposed, Belmonte prefers “to keep it with
different levels of meaning and understanding.”
Steele also addresses the issue of the meaning of “equinox” in a different culture.
He examines Mesopotamian astronomical texts asking “were the solstices and/or
equinoxes defined calendrically, i.e., by their position in the year, temporally, i.e.,
by the length of daylight, or spatially, either with reference to the place on the horizon when the sun rises or sets or to the intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial
equator, or by a combination of these possibilities?” He concludes that in
Mesopotamia the solstices and equinoxes were primarily conceived in terms of "the
length of day and night: the solstices were the days on which the day was the longest
or shortest and the equinoxes were those days when day and night were of the same
length. A secondary definition of the solstices was as the days on which the sun rose
at its most northerly or southerly point on the horizon; there does not seem to have
been a similar definition of the equinoxes referring to the sun rising due east or setting due west."
McCluskey’s paper responds to Ruggles’ (2015) call for “more sophisticated
methods” to assess the credibility of archaeoastronomical sites that “reflect the current state of theory and practice in the discipline.” He examines what can constitute
a horizon marker—a point on the horizon used to indicate a direction towards an
Part I
Methodology
modern preconceptions of what is a significant astronomical event or phenomenon
within the study of cultural astronomy (Ruggles, 1997). Crucially, it highlighted
that just because an astronomical event is apparently obvious and significant in our
astronomy, it need not be so in other astronomies and worldviews. The papers in this
section explore this topic further, arguing that whether or not a phenomenon is significant and how it is defined is culturally dependent, and indeed that different ideas
about a phenomenon may even exist within a culture.
Responding directly to Ruggles’ challenge to the ambiguous concept of the equinox, Belmonte presents a wide ranging and precise investigation of the variety of
“equinoctial” concepts indicated by structures oriented to the “East” in a wide range
of cultures in the Mediterranean region and beyond. Rather than reject the term
outright, as Ruggles (1997: S49) had proposed, Belmonte prefers “to keep it with
different levels of meaning and understanding.”
Steele also addresses the issue of the meaning of “equinox” in a different culture.
He examines Mesopotamian astronomical texts asking “were the solstices and/or
equinoxes defined calendrically, i.e., by their position in the year, temporally, i.e.,
by the length of daylight, or spatially, either with reference to the place on the horizon when the sun rises or sets or to the intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial
equator, or by a combination of these possibilities?” He concludes that in
Mesopotamia the solstices and equinoxes were primarily conceived in terms of "the
length of day and night: the solstices were the days on which the day was the longest
or shortest and the equinoxes were those days when day and night were of the same
length. A secondary definition of the solstices was as the days on which the sun rose
at its most northerly or southerly point on the horizon; there does not seem to have
been a similar definition of the equinoxes referring to the sun rising due east or setting due west."
McCluskey’s paper responds to Ruggles’ (2015) call for “more sophisticated
methods” to assess the credibility of archaeoastronomical sites that “reflect the current state of theory and practice in the discipline.” He examines what can constitute
a horizon marker—a point on the horizon used to indicate a direction towards an
Part I
Methodology