206
cluster is quite tight, so it is possible that these orientations were determined by
astronomical considerations, but since these cannot be solar or lunar, they may have
been stellar and, quite possibly, not towards the same constellation or star. A further
in-depth analysis of each of the specific cults and sanctuaries concerned might
reveal more, but the length of such a study cannot be accommodated here.
4 Discussion
The analysis presented here reveals that if any general astronomical concerns were
responsible for the placement of Greek Doric temples, the equinoxes seem to be the
most likely candidate. Since the mid-90s when Clive Ruggles posed the question
‘whose equinox’ to conclude that archaeoastronomers should altogether do away
with the term ‘equinox’ until models of ‘conceptual structures’ are developed for
prehistoric cultures (Ruggles, 1997: 130), the concern of imposing cultural biases in
ancient observational astronomy has been revisited a number of times (e.g.
González-García & Belmonte, 2006; Ruggles, 2017: 134; and Belmonte and Steele
chapters 2 and 3 respectively, this volume). These studies have offered compelling
discussions on the meaning of the equinoxes when interpreting structural orientations and of potential cultural biases in such conclusions. As also noted elsewhere
in this volume, the concept of the equinox is far from straightforward and could, in
fact, mark three different occasions (see Steele chapter 3 this volume pp. 35–49) or
as many as four (Ruggles, 1997: 127–128), since in a number of ancient cultures we
do not know the precise occasion which would be defined as the equinox. This is not
the case though for ancient Greece, where the equinox was identified as the time
when the sun was located at the intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial equator
(e.g. Steele chapter 3 this volume pp. 35–49).
In Greek culture, it was not only the change in the seasons and length of light and
darkness that was of importance, but also the precise time in the year, when the day
and night are of equal length. This moment in the year had eschatological significance in Greek cosmology, denoting an ideal state of balance and equality and the
idea of a world composed of two opposite forms—light and day—which in ideal
conditions are of equal length. Days and nights of equal length were believed to
exist in the Valley of the Blessed in the underworld, but are also present in
Pythagorean texts, which promote a notion of ‘light and darkness having equal
shares in the cosmos’.
7
Similarly, the belief in the importance of the equality of light
and darkness is particularly prominent in Greek religious literature. Pindar, in particular, has been argued to have used the ‘equinox as the form of the ideal cosmic
equality’ (Woodbury, 1966: 607), since it appears that the importance of equal day
and night is a persistent idea in his Second Olympian Ode (Pindar, Olympian,
7
ἰσόμοιρά τ’ εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φῶς καὶ σκότος, Diogenes Laertius 8.26; also in Aristotle,
Metaphysics 1.986a22; Parmenides B9.3-4VS; Boutsikas, 2020: 163 n. 49).
E. Boutsikas
cluster is quite tight, so it is possible that these orientations were determined by
astronomical considerations, but since these cannot be solar or lunar, they may have
been stellar and, quite possibly, not towards the same constellation or star. A further
in-depth analysis of each of the specific cults and sanctuaries concerned might
reveal more, but the length of such a study cannot be accommodated here.
4 Discussion
The analysis presented here reveals that if any general astronomical concerns were
responsible for the placement of Greek Doric temples, the equinoxes seem to be the
most likely candidate. Since the mid-90s when Clive Ruggles posed the question
‘whose equinox’ to conclude that archaeoastronomers should altogether do away
with the term ‘equinox’ until models of ‘conceptual structures’ are developed for
prehistoric cultures (Ruggles, 1997: 130), the concern of imposing cultural biases in
ancient observational astronomy has been revisited a number of times (e.g.
González-García & Belmonte, 2006; Ruggles, 2017: 134; and Belmonte and Steele
chapters 2 and 3 respectively, this volume). These studies have offered compelling
discussions on the meaning of the equinoxes when interpreting structural orientations and of potential cultural biases in such conclusions. As also noted elsewhere
in this volume, the concept of the equinox is far from straightforward and could, in
fact, mark three different occasions (see Steele chapter 3 this volume pp. 35–49) or
as many as four (Ruggles, 1997: 127–128), since in a number of ancient cultures we
do not know the precise occasion which would be defined as the equinox. This is not
the case though for ancient Greece, where the equinox was identified as the time
when the sun was located at the intersection of the ecliptic and the celestial equator
(e.g. Steele chapter 3 this volume pp. 35–49).
In Greek culture, it was not only the change in the seasons and length of light and
darkness that was of importance, but also the precise time in the year, when the day
and night are of equal length. This moment in the year had eschatological significance in Greek cosmology, denoting an ideal state of balance and equality and the
idea of a world composed of two opposite forms—light and day—which in ideal
conditions are of equal length. Days and nights of equal length were believed to
exist in the Valley of the Blessed in the underworld, but are also present in
Pythagorean texts, which promote a notion of ‘light and darkness having equal
shares in the cosmos’.
7
Similarly, the belief in the importance of the equality of light
and darkness is particularly prominent in Greek religious literature. Pindar, in particular, has been argued to have used the ‘equinox as the form of the ideal cosmic
equality’ (Woodbury, 1966: 607), since it appears that the importance of equal day
and night is a persistent idea in his Second Olympian Ode (Pindar, Olympian,
7
ἰσόμοιρά τ’ εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φῶς καὶ σκότος, Diogenes Laertius 8.26; also in Aristotle,
Metaphysics 1.986a22; Parmenides B9.3-4VS; Boutsikas, 2020: 163 n. 49).
E. Boutsikas