10
astronomical phenomenon—arguing that what we may at first think of as significant
features on the horizon are not necessarily the same as what other cultures consider
significant. Discussing the extensive ethnographic evidence for Hopi horizon based
observations of the sun, McCluskey proposes archaeological correlates for evaluating the significance of purported archaeoastronomical sites.
In his paper López argues that even the most basic approaches to the sky can be
radically different in different societies. Whereas western academic astronomy,
based on a worldview that assumes the separation between nature / culture / supernature, understands the events of the celestial space as “astronomical phenomena,”
using ethnographic evidence Lopez shows that Moqoit experience and theories
about the cosmos are based on the social relations between diverse intentional
beings, which are fundamentally modeled by asymmetries in power (quesaxanaxa).
He contrasts signs (carrying messages concerning important issues) with phenomena (and their scientific explanations). He points out that in order to address academically how “different cultures construct knowledge about the sky and other
areas of existence…, we are impelled to deconstruct the assumptions on which our
experience of the world is grounded, in order to understand those cultures according
to their own logics.”
In the final paper of this section, Shipley shows how the same issue raised by
Ruggles of ensuring we do not impose modern western astronomical ideas on other
cultures must also be considered when considering ancient texts. Even concepts
such as the cardinal directions may have different meanings—and be expressed in
different ways in different contexts—in ancient or non-western societies. Shipley’s
problem as a translator of Greek texts of making the directional terms of a different
culture meaningful to a modern, English speaking, audience is analogous to the
cultural astronomer’s task of making a culture’s astronomical concepts intelligible
to a modern audience. His concern with unpacking Greek directional terms around
the compass is not unlike Ruggles’ concern with unpacking the various meanings of
the term “equinox” in archaeoastronomical studies.
References
Ruggles, C. L. N. (1997). Whose Equinox? Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy
Supplement 22, S45–S50.
Ruggles, C. L. N. (2015). Establishing the Credibility of Archaeoastronomical Sites. Proceedings
of the International Astronomical Union, 11(A29A), 97–99.
Part I Methodology
astronomical phenomenon—arguing that what we may at first think of as significant
features on the horizon are not necessarily the same as what other cultures consider
significant. Discussing the extensive ethnographic evidence for Hopi horizon based
observations of the sun, McCluskey proposes archaeological correlates for evaluating the significance of purported archaeoastronomical sites.
In his paper López argues that even the most basic approaches to the sky can be
radically different in different societies. Whereas western academic astronomy,
based on a worldview that assumes the separation between nature / culture / supernature, understands the events of the celestial space as “astronomical phenomena,”
using ethnographic evidence Lopez shows that Moqoit experience and theories
about the cosmos are based on the social relations between diverse intentional
beings, which are fundamentally modeled by asymmetries in power (quesaxanaxa).
He contrasts signs (carrying messages concerning important issues) with phenomena (and their scientific explanations). He points out that in order to address academically how “different cultures construct knowledge about the sky and other
areas of existence…, we are impelled to deconstruct the assumptions on which our
experience of the world is grounded, in order to understand those cultures according
to their own logics.”
In the final paper of this section, Shipley shows how the same issue raised by
Ruggles of ensuring we do not impose modern western astronomical ideas on other
cultures must also be considered when considering ancient texts. Even concepts
such as the cardinal directions may have different meanings—and be expressed in
different ways in different contexts—in ancient or non-western societies. Shipley’s
problem as a translator of Greek texts of making the directional terms of a different
culture meaningful to a modern, English speaking, audience is analogous to the
cultural astronomer’s task of making a culture’s astronomical concepts intelligible
to a modern audience. His concern with unpacking Greek directional terms around
the compass is not unlike Ruggles’ concern with unpacking the various meanings of
the term “equinox” in archaeoastronomical studies.
References
Ruggles, C. L. N. (1997). Whose Equinox? Journal for the History of Astronomy, Archaeoastronomy
Supplement 22, S45–S50.
Ruggles, C. L. N. (2015). Establishing the Credibility of Archaeoastronomical Sites. Proceedings
of the International Astronomical Union, 11(A29A), 97–99.
Part I Methodology