252
Heritage list. Cotte describes how Ruggles’ efforts changed the perception of
archaeoastronomy from a marginal sub-branch of archaeology, to a subject that has
impacted the preservation of heritage. The paper outlines his contribution to viewing astronomy beyond the modern concept of ‘true’ science—perceiving the discipline as a modern achievement cut off from its past—by embracing its historic
development through the millennia. The paper also considers Ruggles’ contribution
in attracting awareness and establishing the astronomical significance of an array of
remarkable sites across the globe, eventually resulting in their listing as World
Heritage sites.
This aspect of Ruggles’ work is exemplified in Ghezzi’s paper, which presents
the importance of cultural astronomy in heritage through an analysis of the site of
Chankillo in Peru, a site on which Ghezzi and Ruggles collaborated for a number of
years. The discussion offered on Chakillo as a unique example of a calendric observatory and a site which encompasses the significance of landscape, astronomical
practices, and ancient engineering, demonstrates aptly the cultural impact of astronomy. This impact is twofold: first as a science—for enabling ancient societies to
structure and organize their existence by tracking the seasons and timekeeping—
and secondly through the immense cognitive impact of astronomy in allowing
ancient societies to understand and comprehend the cosmos, particularly when
combined with religion. For ancient cultures, astronomy and religious practice have
a particularly tight relationship demonstrating in the most palpable manner the
inseparability of astronomy from the shaping of cosmovisions, and thus from forging and maintaining identities. The discussion on the carefully timed and staged
religious performances at Chankillo, resulting in hierophany, enhanced the sense of
identity and cohesion within the group, whilst reaffirming the established social and
religious outlook of these peoples.
The final paper in this section, by Gudrun Wolfschmidt, offers an outward outlook towards the future development of the Heritage of Astronomy by considering
future submissions of Observatories to the UNESCO World Heritage List, dating
between the Renaissance and the twentieth century. Although it focuses on observatories which bear significant cultural importance, the paper considers also the
instruments associated with these structures, offering thus a complete and valuable
list for potential future work on the Heritage of Astronomy. The paper addresses the
UNESCO requirement that renders ineligible for the World Heritage list candidates
which are either missing the original buildings or are heavily damaged. It suggests
a resolution by proposing the inclusion of such sites in an independent IAU list of
cases of “outstanding Astronomical Heritage”, for which the condition of preserved
architecture is not a requirement.
Part III Heritage
Heritage list. Cotte describes how Ruggles’ efforts changed the perception of
archaeoastronomy from a marginal sub-branch of archaeology, to a subject that has
impacted the preservation of heritage. The paper outlines his contribution to viewing astronomy beyond the modern concept of ‘true’ science—perceiving the discipline as a modern achievement cut off from its past—by embracing its historic
development through the millennia. The paper also considers Ruggles’ contribution
in attracting awareness and establishing the astronomical significance of an array of
remarkable sites across the globe, eventually resulting in their listing as World
Heritage sites.
This aspect of Ruggles’ work is exemplified in Ghezzi’s paper, which presents
the importance of cultural astronomy in heritage through an analysis of the site of
Chankillo in Peru, a site on which Ghezzi and Ruggles collaborated for a number of
years. The discussion offered on Chakillo as a unique example of a calendric observatory and a site which encompasses the significance of landscape, astronomical
practices, and ancient engineering, demonstrates aptly the cultural impact of astronomy. This impact is twofold: first as a science—for enabling ancient societies to
structure and organize their existence by tracking the seasons and timekeeping—
and secondly through the immense cognitive impact of astronomy in allowing
ancient societies to understand and comprehend the cosmos, particularly when
combined with religion. For ancient cultures, astronomy and religious practice have
a particularly tight relationship demonstrating in the most palpable manner the
inseparability of astronomy from the shaping of cosmovisions, and thus from forging and maintaining identities. The discussion on the carefully timed and staged
religious performances at Chankillo, resulting in hierophany, enhanced the sense of
identity and cohesion within the group, whilst reaffirming the established social and
religious outlook of these peoples.
The final paper in this section, by Gudrun Wolfschmidt, offers an outward outlook towards the future development of the Heritage of Astronomy by considering
future submissions of Observatories to the UNESCO World Heritage List, dating
between the Renaissance and the twentieth century. Although it focuses on observatories which bear significant cultural importance, the paper considers also the
instruments associated with these structures, offering thus a complete and valuable
list for potential future work on the Heritage of Astronomy. The paper addresses the
UNESCO requirement that renders ineligible for the World Heritage list candidates
which are either missing the original buildings or are heavily damaged. It suggests
a resolution by proposing the inclusion of such sites in an independent IAU list of
cases of “outstanding Astronomical Heritage”, for which the condition of preserved
architecture is not a requirement.
Part III Heritage