65
marker. One of the markers, Neveqtsomo (two hills side by side) illustrates this
effect (Fig. 7). Seen from First Mesa, the highest points of the two hills appear to be
separated by about 42 arc min. It takes about two days for the Sun to traverse this
distance along the horizon, indicating that the place of sunrise can be determined
with at least this precision. Estimates of the Sun’s rising at the low point between
the two hills would allow for even greater precision.
5.2 Form of the Marker as an Archaeological Correlate
Thom and Thom (1980) proposed a typology of horizon markers or foresights, as
they called them. Seeking to establish highly precise astronomical observations,
they proposed a model in which the form of the marker governed the way the upper
or lower limb of the Sun or Moon appeared to graze the markers on the horizon.
Most of the calendar markers used by the Hopi can be placed in the Thoms’ type V,
where the Sun “appears or disappears behind a small irregularity in an otherwise
relatively flat part of horizon.” A few markers fall in other categories: Kwiitsala, for
example, might be considered as a variant of type I, where the “limb reappears
momentarily in a notch” (Ruggles, 1983: S9) and the cosmological marker for winter solstice sunset is a valley in a distant range of mountains (McCluskey, 1990:
S5–S7) that can be placed in type IIIa. Thus we find that the majority of the markers
used in this well-documented horizon calendar would fit into a category that Ruggles
(1983: S27) considered to be least effective. The flat surfaces and occasional vertical edges provided by the mesas of Hopi country differ from the more irregular
profiles found in surveys of British megalithic sites. When we couple this with the
steeper rising and setting of the Sun at Hopi versus British latitudes (35° N vs. 55°
N), the Thom model is not strictly applicable to the Hopi case.
Our approach to the form of the markers, as summarized in Table 2, is to consider
their general shape, for example a mound, a notch, or a more complicated shape,
and two elements of their dimensions: the angular width of the marker, as measured
from one extreme azimuth to the other, and the angular height or the marker, as
measured from its lowest to its highest point.
Fig. 7 Neveqtsomo (Two Mounds Side by Side). Google Earth ground view; vertical exaggeration 3:1
The Hopi Calendar and Some Archaeological Correlates of Horizon Markers
marker. One of the markers, Neveqtsomo (two hills side by side) illustrates this
effect (Fig. 7). Seen from First Mesa, the highest points of the two hills appear to be
separated by about 42 arc min. It takes about two days for the Sun to traverse this
distance along the horizon, indicating that the place of sunrise can be determined
with at least this precision. Estimates of the Sun’s rising at the low point between
the two hills would allow for even greater precision.
5.2 Form of the Marker as an Archaeological Correlate
Thom and Thom (1980) proposed a typology of horizon markers or foresights, as
they called them. Seeking to establish highly precise astronomical observations,
they proposed a model in which the form of the marker governed the way the upper
or lower limb of the Sun or Moon appeared to graze the markers on the horizon.
Most of the calendar markers used by the Hopi can be placed in the Thoms’ type V,
where the Sun “appears or disappears behind a small irregularity in an otherwise
relatively flat part of horizon.” A few markers fall in other categories: Kwiitsala, for
example, might be considered as a variant of type I, where the “limb reappears
momentarily in a notch” (Ruggles, 1983: S9) and the cosmological marker for winter solstice sunset is a valley in a distant range of mountains (McCluskey, 1990:
S5–S7) that can be placed in type IIIa. Thus we find that the majority of the markers
used in this well-documented horizon calendar would fit into a category that Ruggles
(1983: S27) considered to be least effective. The flat surfaces and occasional vertical edges provided by the mesas of Hopi country differ from the more irregular
profiles found in surveys of British megalithic sites. When we couple this with the
steeper rising and setting of the Sun at Hopi versus British latitudes (35° N vs. 55°
N), the Thom model is not strictly applicable to the Hopi case.
Our approach to the form of the markers, as summarized in Table 2, is to consider
their general shape, for example a mound, a notch, or a more complicated shape,
and two elements of their dimensions: the angular width of the marker, as measured
from one extreme azimuth to the other, and the angular height or the marker, as
measured from its lowest to its highest point.
Fig. 7 Neveqtsomo (Two Mounds Side by Side). Google Earth ground view; vertical exaggeration 3:1
The Hopi Calendar and Some Archaeological Correlates of Horizon Markers