68
6 Conclusions
We must now consider how to apply the correlates derived from the Hopi horizon
markers to evaluate the significance of purported archaeoastronomical sites.
The distances found for Hopi horizon markers vary widely from about 5–127 km,
depending on the topography of the particular village, so we cannot specify a specific distance criterion; rather any site within this range of distances could be considered acceptable as a potential astronomical marker. The one limiting aspect of
the distance correlate is that all agricultural or ceremonial horizon markers
9
are
found at the most distant part of the local horizon. Any potential natural marker less
than 5 km from the observer, or which does not define the limits of the local horizon,
must be considered suspect.
To the extent that the form of Hopi horizon markers is strongly influenced by the
local topography of the Hopi country, which yields a horizon of relatively flat plateaus and deeply incised valleys, we cannot insist on the subtle relief found in most
Hopi horizon markers. Other, more striking forms of horizon markers are found
among the Hopi horizon markers and are a priori more acceptable. The surprising
result of this investigation is that scarcely perceptible horizon markers, near the
limits of human perception, cannot be ruled out as potential astronomical markers.
In ethnoastronomical investigations, we may find a culture’s names for sites that
are potentially horizon markers. As with the form of a horizon marker, the name of
a marker is not determinative. However, given the rarity of astronomical names in
the Hopi examples, a name that corresponds to a potential astronomical observation
would be a strong indicator of the astronomical use of a horizon marker.
The Hopi horizon calendars, especially the very well-documented calendar of
First Mesa, clearly meet Cotte and Ruggles’s (2011: 271–272) criteria for the most
credible category of archaeoastronomical site: one that is generally accepted within
the scholarly community. Although some details of these calendars remain to be
determined, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Hopi horizon markers were used
to mark the passing of time. It would not be unwarranted to claim that the First Mesa
planting and ceremonial markers establish the most well-documented solar horizon
calendar known. The correlates derived from these markers provide criteria in
response to Ruggles’s (2015) call for “more sophisticated methods to assess
archaeoastronomical credibility [that]… reflect the current state of theory and practice in the discipline.”
Acknowledgments I am grateful for the long-term assistance of many experts on Hopi language
and culture, both academics and Hopi people. I also thank the American Philosophical Society for
access to the papers of Elsie Clews Parsons and to the National Anthropological Archives for
access to the Fewkes – Stephens correspondence. Finally, I thank my wife, Connie, for her years
of careful editing which made this paper, and others on the Hopi, much clearer than they would
otherwise be.
9 The two cosmological markers of the Sun’s Houses, where ritual offerings are deposited at the
solstices, are not the most distant points at the solstitial directions (McCluskey, 1990).
S. C. McCluskey
6 Conclusions
We must now consider how to apply the correlates derived from the Hopi horizon
markers to evaluate the significance of purported archaeoastronomical sites.
The distances found for Hopi horizon markers vary widely from about 5–127 km,
depending on the topography of the particular village, so we cannot specify a specific distance criterion; rather any site within this range of distances could be considered acceptable as a potential astronomical marker. The one limiting aspect of
the distance correlate is that all agricultural or ceremonial horizon markers
9
are
found at the most distant part of the local horizon. Any potential natural marker less
than 5 km from the observer, or which does not define the limits of the local horizon,
must be considered suspect.
To the extent that the form of Hopi horizon markers is strongly influenced by the
local topography of the Hopi country, which yields a horizon of relatively flat plateaus and deeply incised valleys, we cannot insist on the subtle relief found in most
Hopi horizon markers. Other, more striking forms of horizon markers are found
among the Hopi horizon markers and are a priori more acceptable. The surprising
result of this investigation is that scarcely perceptible horizon markers, near the
limits of human perception, cannot be ruled out as potential astronomical markers.
In ethnoastronomical investigations, we may find a culture’s names for sites that
are potentially horizon markers. As with the form of a horizon marker, the name of
a marker is not determinative. However, given the rarity of astronomical names in
the Hopi examples, a name that corresponds to a potential astronomical observation
would be a strong indicator of the astronomical use of a horizon marker.
The Hopi horizon calendars, especially the very well-documented calendar of
First Mesa, clearly meet Cotte and Ruggles’s (2011: 271–272) criteria for the most
credible category of archaeoastronomical site: one that is generally accepted within
the scholarly community. Although some details of these calendars remain to be
determined, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Hopi horizon markers were used
to mark the passing of time. It would not be unwarranted to claim that the First Mesa
planting and ceremonial markers establish the most well-documented solar horizon
calendar known. The correlates derived from these markers provide criteria in
response to Ruggles’s (2015) call for “more sophisticated methods to assess
archaeoastronomical credibility [that]… reflect the current state of theory and practice in the discipline.”
Acknowledgments I am grateful for the long-term assistance of many experts on Hopi language
and culture, both academics and Hopi people. I also thank the American Philosophical Society for
access to the papers of Elsie Clews Parsons and to the National Anthropological Archives for
access to the Fewkes – Stephens correspondence. Finally, I thank my wife, Connie, for her years
of careful editing which made this paper, and others on the Hopi, much clearer than they would
otherwise be.
9 The two cosmological markers of the Sun’s Houses, where ritual offerings are deposited at the
solstices, are not the most distant points at the solstitial directions (McCluskey, 1990).
S. C. McCluskey