208
computed simulations. Unlike computed simulations, astronomical observations are
subject to weather conditions and atmospheric extinction and refraction (and light
pollution in modern times), not to mention the height of the local horizon, all of
which can render an event invisible for several days. Indeed, discrepancies between
Thales’ observation of the Pleiades’ setting and that of Anaximander are noted. It
has been estimated that Thales was 10 days late when he saw the Pleiades set,
whereas Anaximander had supposedly sharp eyesight and saw the star cluster set
less than half an hour before sunrise (Wenskus, 1990: 53, 60). However, it seems
unlikely that stars of the magnitude of the Pleiades could have been observed in the
west half an hour before sunrise, no matter how sharp eyesight one possessed.
Instead, it has been proposed, that the aim of the two ancient astronomers, was not
to fix the precise moment in time when the Pleiades were observed to set cosmically, but instead, to estimate their true cosmical setting, since these astronomers
wanted to calculate the precise occurrence of astronomical events, rather than note
the time they were able to observe them. In doing so, they had to estimate when they
thought the star cluster would set, by estimating the time needed to elapse between
the last observed setting and the true setting. This estimated calculation could have
caused their 10-day discrepancy (Couprie, 2011: 19).
For archaeoastronomers, a discrepancy of 10 days is regarded too great considering that the measurements of structural orientations are quoted to within a few minutes of arc, in order to argue for the significance of precise alignments. Here could
lie another culturally determined approach. What we, in modern day, consider as
significant (i.e. extremely precise orientations to provide very accurate alignments),
may not have been as significant to the ancient cultures on which our conclusions
are inflicted. A few days earlier or a few days later may have been perfectly acceptable to ancient cultures, which may on occasion have been more concerned with
true rather than apparent occurrences. To continue on the same example, this idea
may be present also in Pliny’s account of Hesiod, whose date of the cosmical setting
of the Pleiades, would, in fact, have witnessed the star cluster set almost 2 h after
sunrise. On the other hand, Hesiod, was not an astronomer and it is not certain that
he had observed for himself the dates he provided for the various risings and settings in his Works and Days. Neither do we know whether he had collected these
dates from farmers and subsequently provided them as second hand information.
Furthermore, as we saw in the discussion on the cosmological importance of the
equinox in ancient Greek culture, once these astronomical observations enter the
religious sphere, the symbolic, and cosmological significance they acquire, detaches
them from their astronomical function. In the religious sphere, the emphasis is
placed on the meaning of these occurrences in the specific ritual context and the
cognitive associations sought for the participants, rather than their value in timekeeping for which accuracy is required.
We see then that in the case of ancient Greece, as many as three different types
of equinoxes may have existed—practical, cosmological and astronomical. As far as
Greek religion and astronomy are concerned, all three types seem to indicate that
E. Boutsikas
computed simulations. Unlike computed simulations, astronomical observations are
subject to weather conditions and atmospheric extinction and refraction (and light
pollution in modern times), not to mention the height of the local horizon, all of
which can render an event invisible for several days. Indeed, discrepancies between
Thales’ observation of the Pleiades’ setting and that of Anaximander are noted. It
has been estimated that Thales was 10 days late when he saw the Pleiades set,
whereas Anaximander had supposedly sharp eyesight and saw the star cluster set
less than half an hour before sunrise (Wenskus, 1990: 53, 60). However, it seems
unlikely that stars of the magnitude of the Pleiades could have been observed in the
west half an hour before sunrise, no matter how sharp eyesight one possessed.
Instead, it has been proposed, that the aim of the two ancient astronomers, was not
to fix the precise moment in time when the Pleiades were observed to set cosmically, but instead, to estimate their true cosmical setting, since these astronomers
wanted to calculate the precise occurrence of astronomical events, rather than note
the time they were able to observe them. In doing so, they had to estimate when they
thought the star cluster would set, by estimating the time needed to elapse between
the last observed setting and the true setting. This estimated calculation could have
caused their 10-day discrepancy (Couprie, 2011: 19).
For archaeoastronomers, a discrepancy of 10 days is regarded too great considering that the measurements of structural orientations are quoted to within a few minutes of arc, in order to argue for the significance of precise alignments. Here could
lie another culturally determined approach. What we, in modern day, consider as
significant (i.e. extremely precise orientations to provide very accurate alignments),
may not have been as significant to the ancient cultures on which our conclusions
are inflicted. A few days earlier or a few days later may have been perfectly acceptable to ancient cultures, which may on occasion have been more concerned with
true rather than apparent occurrences. To continue on the same example, this idea
may be present also in Pliny’s account of Hesiod, whose date of the cosmical setting
of the Pleiades, would, in fact, have witnessed the star cluster set almost 2 h after
sunrise. On the other hand, Hesiod, was not an astronomer and it is not certain that
he had observed for himself the dates he provided for the various risings and settings in his Works and Days. Neither do we know whether he had collected these
dates from farmers and subsequently provided them as second hand information.
Furthermore, as we saw in the discussion on the cosmological importance of the
equinox in ancient Greek culture, once these astronomical observations enter the
religious sphere, the symbolic, and cosmological significance they acquire, detaches
them from their astronomical function. In the religious sphere, the emphasis is
placed on the meaning of these occurrences in the specific ritual context and the
cognitive associations sought for the participants, rather than their value in timekeeping for which accuracy is required.
We see then that in the case of ancient Greece, as many as three different types
of equinoxes may have existed—practical, cosmological and astronomical. As far as
Greek religion and astronomy are concerned, all three types seem to indicate that
E. Boutsikas