A Short Guide to Archaeoastronomy

Archaeoastronomy is a bit of a mongrel discipline, a hybrid of archaeology, anthropology, astronomy and history. As with most archaeological tributaries, its professionalism is very much in its infancy, and can trace its roots back little further than a couple of centuries. The first archaeoastronomical assertions, many argue, were made by the 18th century antiquarian William Stukeley, when he deduced some sort of astronomical use for Stonehenge due to its apparent alignment to several celestial events. Interest in the religious and cultural significance of historic monuments grew, and in 1973 the term ‘archaeoastronomy’ was finally coined by American anthropologist Elizabeth Chesley Baity, at the behest of several scholars. Essentially, the discipline seeks to explore the anthropology of astronomy – that is, how past people made sense of celestial events and how these phenomena in turn affected them – rather than the mere history of astronomy.

Though civilization’s obsession with the stars can be clearly seen through incredible sites like the Pyramids and Chichen Itza, the love affair effectively began in year dot. Understandably it was one of the first things ever documented, and was the primary focus for a huge number of illustrious societies, such as the early Mesopotamians. Thus archaeoastronomy seeks not only to find out what these early peoples discovered about the skies, but also the anthropology of the profession itself, and the status astronomers held in the past. Pre-eminent expert Clive Ruggles attempts to explain archaeoastronomy on his website: “Archaeoastronomy is the study of beliefs and practices concerning the sky in the past, and especially in prehistory, and the uses to which people's knowledge of the skies were put.”

Vote Green... or Brown

Archaeoastronomy prides itself on its propensity to draw on a wide number of subjects to make discoveries. The Centre for Archaeoastronomy at the University of Maryland argues that one of the best aspects of the subject is that it can comprise some, if not all, of the following: “ancient and native calendar systems, concepts of time and space, mathematics, counting systems and geometry, surveying and navigational techniques as well as geomancy and the origins of urban planning.” As such, picking apart the nuances of archaeoastronomy’s methodology can be taxing, to say the least.

Difficulties aside, there do appear to be two main schools of practice: green, and brown. Green archaeoastronomy deals with the statistical surveying of ancient and prehistoric sites intrinsically; where the historical, and therefore anthropological, evidence is scant. Green archaeoastronomy grew up in Britain when antiquaries began to question the provenance and purpose of the country’s vast number of prehistoric sites like dolmens and stone circles, such as Stonehenge. Thus instead of being able to draw from human records and myth, green archaeoastronomers invariably approach their subject mathematically, running through hundreds of possibilities to see if a site throws up any links with the heavens.

The uses of dozens of sites have been strongly suggested by green archaeoastronomy, and there’s no question it has its place in understanding the interests of humanity before civilization. Yet many do not believe it to be a viable branch of the subject, as it fails to try to solve in any way the anthropological aspects of the sites it studies. In short, green archaeoastronomers might find an alignment between a stone circle and the midsummer sun, but that’s where the knowledge ends. Pre-eminent practitioner Clive Ruggles argues bluntly, “In many cases it doesn’t matter much to the progress of anthropology whether a particular archaeoastronomical claim is right or wrong because the information doesn’t inform the current interpretive questions.”

Evidently, then, archaeoastronomy is just as concerned with the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of early astronomy than merely establishing its existence. And Brown archaeoastronomy (by now you should be able to say it well enough – I can almost type it within a minute now) focuses on the epochs of human development whereby historical and ethnographical records are studied in relation to astronomical sites. In this way, brown archaeoastronomy has thrown up many theories and discoveries about the ancient Maya city of Chichen Itza, the Great Pyramids, and several Mesopotamian records which were the subject of most early cuneiform tablets, the first form of writing in the world.

A good example of the differences between green and brown archaeoastronomy is at Chichen Itza, and particularly the possible Maya observatory at El Caracol. Instead of looking at the building itself with relation to possible studies of the stars, brown archaeoastronomers evaluated human documents and ethnographic records to establish the importance of astronomy to the ancient civilization. In this way they have deduced that the Mayas held a cultish following of Venus through the distinctive colours on El Caracol. Similarly, archaeoastronomers have established astronomical significance at the ancient Incan city of Cusco via the geographical alignments of various buildings collated with ethnographic records.

Critics and Conclusions

It’s fair to say that archaeoastronomy is a derivative of archaeology. To make full use of its records, archaeoastronomers invariably have to use archaeological techniques and tools, and their evidence is worthless if not put into context with the equally important discipline of anthropology. Some scholars have even questioned its position as a separate study. Yet its supporters view it as a vital tool for understanding past peoples, and as such there are a number of entities which provide official avenues for both amateur and professional archaeoastronomers to work. The International Society for Archaeoastronomy & Astronomy in Culture (ISAAC) aims to enhance the status of the subject by linking it with other studies, as well as building ties with the archaeoastronomy fraternity. SEAC (in French; European Society for Astronomy in Culture) attempts the same with a focus on Europe. There is also a South American organisation, who wish to further the understanding of indigenous tribes through the understanding of their views on astronomy.

So there are plenty of people pushing the archaeoastronomy envelope, and though it may be difficult to define in its own right, the subject is an established discipline which draws in a myriad historical topics to get its message across. Indeed, archaeoastronomy may be the most complete historical discipline in existence.

Images by Raul Lopez and Franz St.
 

Read or leave comments

Interesting Articles

Ancient Astronomy

As long as civilization has existed, people have looked to the stars in wonder. Who were the earliest pioneers of astronomy, why did they want to know about the universe and did they get anything right?

Pythagoras and the Stars

He may be known to every schoolchild in the world for his work on triangles, but Pythagoras was one of the greatest astronomical innovators of the ancient world. Discover his teachings on crystal balls, morning stars and interplanetary music...

Chichen Itza

Chichen Itza has witnessed a thousand years of human civilization in South America. Its great pyramid 'El Castillo' is an iconic and instantly recognisable sight, while the 'cenote' sinkholes that give the place its name bear a macabre legacy of life and death.

Cuneiform - the Birth of Writing

Cuneiform was the Mesopotamian mother of modern writing, and one of the key developments in human history. But how and why was this earth-shattering paradigm ever invented?

Digs, Discovery and Disaster: A History of Archaeology at Stonehenge

Stonehenge has long been one of the world's most enigmatic icons - yet there has been a long line of archaeologists willing to chip away at its mystery. So what are Stonehenge's most famous excavations? And what have they revealed?