Misplaced Pages

Talk:Archaeoastronomy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:34, 29 December 2007 editBreadh2o (talk | contribs)612 edits →definition and genesis of archaeoastronomy← Previous edit Revision as of 02:38, 29 December 2007 edit undoBreadh2o (talk | contribs)612 edits →definition and genesis of archaeoastronomyNext edit →
Line 181: Line 181:
According to Emeritus Professor of Archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester , <blockquote>Archaeoastronomy is the study of beliefs and practices relating to the sky in the past, especially in prehistory, and the uses to which people's knowledge of the skies was put.</blockquote> To me, at least, Ruggles' thumbnail definition seems more inclusive than what the lead paragraph of the WP article implies. Specifically, archaeologists tend to dismiss any otherwise legitimate instance of potential archaeoastronomical inquiry absent an archaeological or anthropological component, such as ''a priori'' excavations or established cultural context. Does the archaeo- prefix appended to root word, -astronomy, automatically confer an archaeological basis, in fact? Or is it implicit of a form of early, "archaic" practice, as distinguished from the practice of "modern" astronomy? This leads to my other noted issue dealing with the primary sentence under the WP article's heading '''History of archaeoastronomy''':<blockquote>Archaeoastronomy is almost as old as archaeology itself.</blockquote> A statement which is not only vague, but misleading, as well. The term used to describe this specialized field of study originated in the late 20th century, while '''archaeology''' as a discipline defined by that term has been around much longer. Considering folks have been digging things out of the earth and salvaging shipwrecks in shallow waters for ages, a sloppy form of archaeology has been practiced for a long, long time. Among noted antiquarians participating in the unnamed field of what was to later become archaeoastronomy was Everett W. Fish, M.D., whose 1880 book predated by 4 years the WP article's citation of Norman Lockyer's work on Egyptian temples. Yet Fish is unacknowledged and deserves credit for what might well have inspired Lockyer for all we know.<br /> According to Emeritus Professor of Archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester , <blockquote>Archaeoastronomy is the study of beliefs and practices relating to the sky in the past, especially in prehistory, and the uses to which people's knowledge of the skies was put.</blockquote> To me, at least, Ruggles' thumbnail definition seems more inclusive than what the lead paragraph of the WP article implies. Specifically, archaeologists tend to dismiss any otherwise legitimate instance of potential archaeoastronomical inquiry absent an archaeological or anthropological component, such as ''a priori'' excavations or established cultural context. Does the archaeo- prefix appended to root word, -astronomy, automatically confer an archaeological basis, in fact? Or is it implicit of a form of early, "archaic" practice, as distinguished from the practice of "modern" astronomy? This leads to my other noted issue dealing with the primary sentence under the WP article's heading '''History of archaeoastronomy''':<blockquote>Archaeoastronomy is almost as old as archaeology itself.</blockquote> A statement which is not only vague, but misleading, as well. The term used to describe this specialized field of study originated in the late 20th century, while '''archaeology''' as a discipline defined by that term has been around much longer. Considering folks have been digging things out of the earth and salvaging shipwrecks in shallow waters for ages, a sloppy form of archaeology has been practiced for a long, long time. Among noted antiquarians participating in the unnamed field of what was to later become archaeoastronomy was Everett W. Fish, M.D., whose 1880 book predated by 4 years the WP article's citation of Norman Lockyer's work on Egyptian temples. Yet Fish is unacknowledged and deserves credit for what might well have inspired Lockyer for all we know.<br />
<br /> <br />
Has anyone wrestled, as I have, with the irony of somehow trying to unnaturally weld archaeology to astronomy resulting in the odd-fellow derivative, '''archaeoastronomy'''? Just consider how practitioners of each field posture themselves in their studies and what they choose to observe, respectively. An archaeologist's focus is generally downward, deeper into the earth, and their focus is to note in detail and to preserve things from any alteration; while an astronomer's focus is upward and outward into the skies above, and their focus is with changing and dynamic, usually cyclical, celestial phenomena, decidedly non-static in nature. In the end, archaeoastronomy is neither a hybrid merging of a discipline and a science, nor is it something to be considered in a clinical, academic vacuum absent an appreciation for myth, mysticism and astrology which played strong roles in ancient cultures. When complex petroglyphic sundials and shadowcasts tied to annual cusps such as the solstices and equinoxes, alongside translated messages in an alphabet known to exist in western Europe but which archaeologists admonish has no business appearing in mid-America presumably cocooned from ], this too must qualify as deserving serious archaeoastronomical research. Why permit the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists to summarily veto legitimate inquiry into a collection of related anomalous sites simply because they are systemically disinterested in investigating such treasures (or unable to do so authoritatively) themselves?<br /> Has anyone wrestled, as I have, with the irony of somehow trying to unnaturally weld archaeology to astronomy resulting in the odd-fellow derivative, '''archaeoastronomy'''? Just consider how practitioners of each field posture themselves in their studies and what they choose to observe, respectively. An archaeologist's focus is generally downward, deeper into the earth, and their focus is to note in detail and to preserve things from any alteration; while an astronomer's focus is upward and outward into the skies above, and their focus is with changing and dynamic, usually cyclical, celestial phenomena, decidedly non-static in nature. In the end, archaeoastronomy is neither a hybrid merging of a discipline and a science, nor is it something to be considered in a clinical, academic vacuum absent an appreciation for myth, mysticism and astrology which played strong roles in ancient cultures. When complex petroglyphic sundials and shadowcasts tied to annual cusps such as the solstices and equinoxes, alongside translated messages in ] known to exist in western Europe but which archaeologists admonish has no business appearing in mid-America presumably cocooned from ], this too must qualify as deserving serious archaeoastronomical research. Why permit the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists to summarily veto legitimate inquiry into a collection of related anomalous sites simply because they are systemically disinterested in investigating such treasures (or unable to do so authoritatively) themselves?<br />
<br /> <br />
A very important aspect of archaeoastronomy not addressed in any detail in the WP article is the issue of intentionality of solar or lunar alignments. Purely random or coincidental observed alignments should be discounted, but what criteria must apply to establish confidence observed alignments were intentionally conceived by a human architect? I can propose some guidelines by others, but first want to open up my perspectives to discussion and feedback before considering the wisdom of editing the article itself.] (]) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) A very important aspect of archaeoastronomy not addressed in any detail in the WP article is the issue of intentionality of solar or lunar alignments. Purely random or coincidental observed alignments should be discounted, but what criteria must apply to establish confidence observed alignments were intentionally conceived by a human architect? I can propose some guidelines by others, but first want to open up my perspectives to discussion and feedback before considering the wisdom of editing the article itself.] (]) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:38, 29 December 2007

Former good articleArchaeoastronomy was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 30, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconParanormal B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spelling

Which spelling is more correct, or at least more often used: Archeoastronomy or Archaeoastronomy? This article can be filed under either spelling, and a redirect applied to the other. -- April

Google finds 12,300 for Archaeoastronomy, but only 1,420 for Archeoastronomy. So the article should probably go under Archaeoastronomy, unless someone has a good reason for preferring the other spelling. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 29

Science News made reference to the term as ethnoastronomy in 1987, but I haven't seen it used that way. Perhaps the page could mention it in passing. --Viriditas 04:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is kind of Anglocentric. Several Chinese astronomers have published in the last few years, usually in "Astronomy and Astrophysics - a European Journal"

I'll try to hunt up a few references. Also there is recent work on transits of Venus that should be mentioned. See:

among many references. The first recorded transit was in 1639

eclipses

Do these things belong on this page?

  1. use of eclipse records to date historical events
  2. use of historic eclipse trajectories to study past earth rotation

I'm not cluey enough about either to add them myself. --Zero 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy should keep to the ancient practices themselves, it seems to me, but an aside on modern uses of ancient astronomical records, now just hinted at here, would be useful, and an emphatic link to Chronology, where the employment of this dating technique in the hands of historians is worth all the detail you can give it! --Wetman 18:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible re-write

I've written a "What is archaeoastronomy?" page for my own site. I'm happy to put it in Misplaced Pages, but this would mean a major re-write of the existing article, the creation of an extra page and culling of many external links. You can see the text at http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/archaeoastronomy/

I'd also pull the Some Old / New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored sections into a new page called Sites of Archaeoastronomical Significance and link to it via a See Also section. As for the external links most of them would go. I'm not convinced we need four separate links to James Q Jacobs's site. Many of the other links are very specific rather than being relevant to Archaeoastronomy in general. They might be good pages, but DMoz would be a better place to list them. The references would be replaced with the references used for the entry.

What is missing from the entry would be reference to things like the Orion's Belt theory. While I don't agree with them, people looking up von Daniken may refer to Misplaced Pages. A sub-section on pseudo-archaeology with links to the pseudo-archaeology entry and author pages like Bauval etc could be appended without problems.

I realise people will correct it as soon as I put it up, or that I could just put it up and leave it for someone to revert. I just thought with it being a big change and me being new here it would be a good idea to put up a notice first. I'm not trying to arrogantly run roughshod over the previous entry without consultation. If there's no major concerns then I'll add it in a couple of days. --Alunsalt 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to comment on your content, but the philosophy of wikipedia is to be bold. The existing article is not much better than a stub. There is a biggish leader and then lists of links - a structured article will be an improvement. Of course the revision shouldn't include original research - but the proposed article appears to contain sufficient references that I assume this is not the case. If you are considering removing material, one way is to move it to this talk page, so that someone who strongly feels it is important doesn't need to revert your edit and can simply re-edit the old stuff into a suitable place in the new article. You could do the same with the existing external references. If you think the references are useful but very specific, one way to handle this is to use sub-headings under heading of external links - see Underwater archaeology for example. The some old/new world sites article might be best as a List of... article? You may get objectors to the idea of an article on pseudo-archaeology (either because people believe it and object to pseudo, or they believe it is pseudo and object to its inclusion at all). Personally I agree with you, but it needs to be carefully worded. Viv Hamilton 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The new version is up for people to pull apart. I don't know if it's over illustrated. Having previewed it uncountable times I've just realised the headings may not be up to style --Alunsalt 11:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Alun, the new version is much better organized than the old one. It's focus on academic archeaeoastronomy is a radical change, but on balance, one for the better. Thanks much, Steve McCluskey--141.153.125.219 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous State of Entry

Below is cut'n'pasted the previous version of the Archaeoastronomy entry so that anyone can put stuff back in if they feel it's should be in the new entry. My plan is to use the category page for Archaeoastronomy to help link in material so I'll be flitting round other relevant entries to make sure they have an archaeoastronomy category link later. The only major cuts will be in external links which will be heavily pruned. I'll be cutting links that aren't to archaeoastronomical sites and to sites concerned specifically with one culture. For instance some of the James Q Jacobs links might be better on the Maya calendar page. I've stepped down the headings to fit them below the one which starts this section.--Alunsalt 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy (also spelled Archeoastronomy) is the study of ancient or traditional astronomies in their cultural context, utilizing archaeological and anthropological evidence. Archaeoastronomy examines archaeological sites for evidence of astronomy in remote cultures, and anthropological and ethnohistorical evidence for evidence of astronomical practices in living cultures. The study of the astronomies of living traditional cultures is sometimes called Ethnoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy also focuses on modern astronomy, employing historical records of early astronomical observations to study past astronomical events, and employing astronomical data to clarify the historical record.

In the study of solar, lunar, and stellar alignments of monuments, numerous claims have been made that the megalithic monuments, such as Nabta Playa, Stonehenge and Newgrange, represent "ancient observatories," but the extent and nature of their use in that regard needs careful definition. Certainly, they are aligned with particular significance to the solstitial points.

The early development of this aspect of archaeoastronomy was influenced by Alexander Thom's studies of megalithic monuments of Britain, published in Megalithic sites in Britain (Oxford, 1967). Thom employed detailed surveys and statistical methods to investigate the calendric and astronomical functions of numerous Neolithic monuments. He claimed that these monuments incorporate alignments to points on the horizon where the sun and moon rise and set at seasonal extremes like midsummer, midwinter and the equinoxes. In addition to his work on Neolithic astronomy, he also proposed the megalithic yard as a standardized unit of measure. Although his work greatly influenced the development of archaeoastronomy, many of his conclusions (especially those implying highly precise observations) have been widely questioned.

Anthropological and ethnohistorical methods have been used to study astronomies in a wide range of cultures. Typical studies have examined the astronomical and calendric practices of the Hopi and Zuni of the Southwestern United States; the astronomy and cosmology of the Andean villagers of Misminay; the calendrical and divinatory practices of modern Maya priests, and the ambiguous lunar calendar of the Mursi of southwestern Ethiopia.

Archaeoastronomy has also considered the extensive records of ancient China for references to "guest stars". "Guest stars," or star-like objects which appeared in the night sky, were of great interest to the observers of ancient China and were often dutifully recorded. These events have been associated with many transitory phenomena, such as comets and, particularly, supernovae. Besides the insights such records provide into the significance of celestial phenomena in ancient cultures, they have also been found useful by modern astronomers.

Some Old World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

Some New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

Some artifacts that throw light on archaeoastronomy

References

  • Clive Ruggles, Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland
  • Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture

External links

Note: I don't recall this last entry being in the article I replaced. It's been added, unsigned, by E. Wayne. --Alunsalt 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnoastronomy

Well, the recent change by Melchoir has raised the issue to the fore. Is Ethnoastronomy a separate entity from archaeoastronomy, deserving its own article, or is it part of it? Since it is already covered (to some extent) in this article, perhaps we should make the connection clearer. For the moment, I'm going to remove the disturbing red link to the non-existent article on Ethnoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no idea, personally. But whatever the decision is, the intro must reflect it. Currently, we have an article on A that states "A is related to B, C, and D", while C and D are links to other articles and B is not. The omission frankly screams! Melchoir 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've revised the opening paragraph to reflect these comments. Take a look at the change to see if it deals with the problem adequately. --SteveMcCluskey 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! Melchoir 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations to Alunsalt and indeed all contributors to this beautifully-written article: it makes for a compelling, well-structured and very informative read, and is sumptuously illustrated. I've listed it as a Good Article since it meets all the criteria. However, despite its ample good points, it only just satisfies the broadness criterion in my opinion. In particular, the following points need addressing when further developing the article:

  • Most pressingly, how scientific is archaeoastronomy? To what extent are conclusions based upon individual opinions?
  • Which academic centres are the most prominent for archaeoastronomical research? This is vital for context.
  • There are no direct quotations either regarding the discipline itself or from eminent archaeoastronomers.
  • A section is needed which elaborates on how archaeoastronomy compares and contrasts with each of its closely-related disciplines, as suggested in the introduction. In particular, what sources tackle the ethnoastronomy/archaeoastronomy debate and among whom is there "no consensus"?
  • What are the major achievements within the discipline?
  • In ===Displays of Power===, the sentence "The use of astronomy at Stonehenge continues to be a matter of vigorous discussion" is opaque and needs context.

Some stylistic points of note:

  • There is Misplaced Pages consensus that footnote numbers should be placed after punctuation marks in the prose (except for brackets).
  • A redirect for ethnoastronomy is appropriate at the moment.
  • There should be a small introductory paragraph to the section ==Major topics of archaeoastronomical research==.
  • The image of Machu Picchu is beautiful, but it doesn't bear any obvious relevance to the prose it illustrates.

Anyway, I had a thoroughly good time reading this article, so cheers, and well done again. --Vinoir 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The footnotes and redirect are in place. Perhaps a methodology section would tackle both the scientific/historical nature of archaeoastronomy and be a place to discuss ethnoastronomy? Clive's quote on archaeoastronomy spanning unbridled lunacy to something else (I'll have to look it up) would be a good intro to the methodology and arguments over how scientific one can be. --Alunsalt 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff. A ==Methodology== section sounds ideal. If you ever need me for follow-up to the above comments, I'll be happy to oblige. Probably the article will also be large enough for peer review at that point, and I think that Featured Article status is a realistic prospect for the article. --Vinoir 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to make a note of what I added, and to spellcheck. I'll try and do the latter tomorrow morning. Added are Methodology and Recreating the Sky sections. I wanted to try and show there's more to method than just measuring alignments, and try and get away from the astronomical shopping list idea. As a result I'm not happy with either section as they stand, but they're up for anyone else to knock about. I'm off campus at the moment too, but when I'm back possibly next week, I'll try filling out the references.
Other sections I thought to add are Major archaeoastronomical sites which could briefly discuss Stonehenge, Chichen Itza and Giza with links through to the main articles and also an Archaeoastronomy and Archaeology section for the end to say that while you can't use purely astronomical data to turn the archaeological world upside down, some things do make more sense when astronomy is considered e.g. Maya Venus Star Wars, Iron Age roundhouses and Polynesian navigation.

Should this article discuss problematic cases?

I've been following recent changes to the article over at Hindu astronomy, where there has been an effective rebuttal of the attempts to use archaeoastronomical methods to push the date of Indian astronomy back by over two millennia. Lying behind these attempts is a nationalist agenda to grant Indian astronomy priority and make it the source of Greek and Babylonian astronomy.

I don't like to see archaeoastronomy tarred by this kind of foolishness, yet the late David Pingree, an expert on Indian astronomy — who also did solid research on Greek, Babylonian, and even medieval European astronomy — spent a page of an excellent article on early science condemning "the scholars who perpetrate wild theories of prehistoric science and call themselves archaeoastronomers." (Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis, 83(1982):554-563, esp. p. 556; reprinted in Michael H. Shank, ed., The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000), pp.30-39.)

Perhaps the thing to do is add a section dealing with fallacies in Archaeoastronomy and discussing those standards that can help a reader critically evaluate such weak research. --SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought a section on pseudo-archaeoastronomy might be useful, but I'm not sure I'm the person to write it. I'll look up that article because I haven't read it and it looks really useful. --Alunsalt 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Write More on the 'Astrological Significance' of These Sites?

It seems that most of these sites were built for these cultures to express their 'cosmic admiration' or 'cosmic awe' for their God(s), so possibly these sites have much more astrological significance than people (i.e. modern, highly skeptical scientists) give them credit for. Perhaps we should include more about the astrological significance of these amazing structures in the main article. For instance, we know that many archaeoastronomical sites are astronomically amazing and significant in that they uncannily line up with the cycles of the sun, moon, and planets, but WHY would these cultures go through the laborious process of building these sites if they didn't attach any astrological and/or spiritual significance to them? Thank you for your time and suggestions. --172.150.63.12 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sorry you don't have a user name so I could contact you directly. Perhaps there could be a section on the use of early astronomies for prognostication. There are two problems. First, for most archaeoastronomical sites we don't have enough cultural context to say anything specific about the purposes to which they were put. The second, and related, problem is to find secondary accounts regarding this topic in reliable sources that could be cited in the article. I know the use of the Maya material for prognostication has been talked about by Tony Aveni and others but I'm pretty much at a loss for any good material on the other sites under discussion here. --SteveMcCluskey 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be delighted to read more on the astrological significance of the sites, if it can be verified from a reliable source. As Steve says, there's not the cultural context there. For instance it would be weird if there wasn't some rich symbolism in the night sky of the builders of Stonehenge, but the complete lack of historical records means that we will never know what it was. Additionally ancient people are very good at being weird and proving everyone wrong.
There is also a danger that in specifying astrology rather than ritual you risk putting a modern preconception back onto the past. Astrology is not a universal belief system, in the case of Graeco-Roman astrology it relies on some fairly basic assumptions about the use fo mathematics which don't transfer to other cultures. I'll give it some thought. I did wonder if something could be added in the Displays of power section. Unfortunately the only suitable thing I can think of is some work on the Tellus relief at the Ara Pacis, but that's not verifiable as it hasn't been published yet. --Alunsalt 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article status questioned

This article's status as a Good Article has been disputed. Please see the current discussion at WP:GA/R If you feel that you can improve the article so it meets good article standards please do. If you would like to contribute to the discussion of this article, please see good article reviews. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus reached here, the article has been delisted. Giggy 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus was reached and archived within a couple of hours as far as I can tell from the discussion here. I accept the decision, and probably would have voted for delisting, but it may have been better to let people who'd worked on the article know that the discussion was underway. It might be helpful if are people who noted the missing citations edit the article to point out where the problems are. I could certainly fill out some citations for some statements, but for the next few months I doubt I'll be bothered. I don't think anyone was being intentionally rude, but giving 24 hours notice might make people in other time zones feel their contributions are valued. --Alunsalt 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry you didn't get a notice. Generally you recieve one when it's listed, but this time Zeus1234 missed it. If you like, I'll un-delist it, and give you a few days to make changes etc. Giggy 06:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments on the GA/R review, the article has been delisted. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once you are able to work on the article and correct the issues, you may renominate it at WP:GAC. Please see the GA criteria to assist in bringing the article up to GA quality. Best regards, LARA♥LOVE 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

definition and genesis of archaeoastronomy

According to Emeritus Professor of Archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester Clive Ruggles,

Archaeoastronomy is the study of beliefs and practices relating to the sky in the past, especially in prehistory, and the uses to which people's knowledge of the skies was put.

To me, at least, Ruggles' thumbnail definition seems more inclusive than what the lead paragraph of the WP article implies. Specifically, archaeologists tend to dismiss any otherwise legitimate instance of potential archaeoastronomical inquiry absent an archaeological or anthropological component, such as a priori excavations or established cultural context. Does the archaeo- prefix appended to root word, -astronomy, automatically confer an archaeological basis, in fact? Or is it implicit of a form of early, "archaic" practice, as distinguished from the practice of "modern" astronomy? This leads to my other noted issue dealing with the primary sentence under the WP article's heading History of archaeoastronomy:

Archaeoastronomy is almost as old as archaeology itself.

A statement which is not only vague, but misleading, as well. The term used to describe this specialized field of study originated in the late 20th century, while archaeology as a discipline defined by that term has been around much longer. Considering folks have been digging things out of the earth and salvaging shipwrecks in shallow waters for ages, a sloppy form of archaeology has been practiced for a long, long time. Among noted antiquarians participating in the unnamed field of what was to later become archaeoastronomy was Everett W. Fish, M.D., whose 1880 book The Egyptian Pyramids: An Analysis of A Great Mystery predated by 4 years the WP article's citation of Norman Lockyer's work on Egyptian temples. Yet Fish is unacknowledged and deserves credit for what might well have inspired Lockyer for all we know.


Has anyone wrestled, as I have, with the irony of somehow trying to unnaturally weld archaeology to astronomy resulting in the odd-fellow derivative, archaeoastronomy? Just consider how practitioners of each field posture themselves in their studies and what they choose to observe, respectively. An archaeologist's focus is generally downward, deeper into the earth, and their focus is to note in detail and to preserve things from any alteration; while an astronomer's focus is upward and outward into the skies above, and their focus is with changing and dynamic, usually cyclical, celestial phenomena, decidedly non-static in nature. In the end, archaeoastronomy is neither a hybrid merging of a discipline and a science, nor is it something to be considered in a clinical, academic vacuum absent an appreciation for myth, mysticism and astrology which played strong roles in ancient cultures. When complex petroglyphic sundials and shadowcasts tied to annual cusps such as the solstices and equinoxes, alongside translated messages in a Celtic alphabet known to exist in western Europe but which archaeologists admonish us has no business appearing in mid-America presumably cocooned from global diffusionism by ancient seafarers, this too must qualify as deserving serious archaeoastronomical research. Why permit the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists to summarily veto legitimate inquiry into a collection of related anomalous sites simply because they are systemically disinterested in investigating such treasures (or unable to do so authoritatively) themselves?

A very important aspect of archaeoastronomy not addressed in any detail in the WP article is the issue of intentionality of solar or lunar alignments. Purely random or coincidental observed alignments should be discounted, but what criteria must apply to establish confidence observed alignments were intentionally conceived by a human architect? I can propose some guidelines by others, but first want to open up my perspectives to discussion and feedback before considering the wisdom of editing the article itself.Breadh2o (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: