Practitioners, academics, three professional bodies, conferences, researchers and popular authors, use different data, methods and definitions in archaeo astronomy. All agree that cosmology and calendars are part of culture, and culture is the larger part of this inter-disciplinary science. Here is an introduction to some people and approaches, to answer: What is archaeo astronomy?
[UPDATE ON PRESENTATIONS: Saturday 3 March 2018: How I found Mindprint, the universal structure in arts and culture. Edmond Furter will demonstrate how he discovered the standard repertoire of subconscious behaviour in recurrent archetypal characters in art and rock art, at the Luminosus Society in Pretoria on Saturday 3 March. The venue is at Anam Cara, 134 Lys Street, Rietondale, at 1:45 for 2pm. Book with Delina on 083 336 4705, at R180 including tea.
The initial presentation will be followed later in 2018 by a workshop on archaeo astronomy, and how to identify archetypes in ancient and modern artefacts.
One of the workshops will be a series of four talks in Roodepoort, Johannesburg, including a USB stick with 200 examples. The series of is an an anual introduction and update to the latest developments in archaeo astronomy, artefact analysis, and spatial structure in ancient sites. Book on edmondfurter at gmail dot com]
Some archaeo astronomers
John Aubrey, 1663; Monumenta Brittanica. He studied the Stonehenge site plan. In 1678 he studied astronomical orientations in the orientation of churches. Henry Chauncy in 1700 followed the same approach. Modern researchers revealed that Greek temples were oriented east-west, to the equinoxes, but by their diagonals (corner to opposite corner), not by their sides. Byzantine and Roman churches were oriented with their altar windows to sunrise on the feast day of the saints they celebrate.
Richard Proctor and Charles Piazzi Smyth investigated astronomical orientations of some Egyptian pyramids.
William Stukeley studied the Stonehenge site plan: “Monuments were built with astronomy in mind.”
Heinrich Nissen, 1800s, was perhaps the first archaeo astronomer.
Richard Hinckley Allen, 1899; Star names and their meanings. This book is still the standard source on star lore. He revealed that all cultures had 18, 24, 28 or 32 decanal asterisms, or hour stars, related to myths, read east to west, against the monthly or zodiac direction.
Norman Lockyer, 1906, surveyed and studied the Stonehenge site plan. “Pyramids and stone circles are astronomically oriented.” He is considered the father of archaeo astronomy.
Engineer Prof Alexander Thom. 1950s; Megalithic sites in Britain. Megalithic lunar observatories. He published these books before his first visit to Stonehenge in 1973. “Megalithic man had highly developed knowledge of geometry… intellectually in line with the greatest civilisations of antiquity.” However these megaliths may post-date Roman occupation in the British Isles (Ferguson 1872). Thom had used the Newcombe assumed curve of relatively stable obliquity variance (still used in astronomy automation today), to compute ancient sunrise and sunset angles at stone circles, incidentally feeding the UK need for local cultural pedigree, other than European, Viking, and Roman. Druids and ‘Merlins’, based on Pictish, Irish, Norse and French resistance against Rome and Catholicism, became popular and attracted many authors. Thom also surveyed at Rennes le Chateau in southern France; “There is a pattern in the landscape.” Ruggles later found that Thom’s claims of accurate astronomy were not fully supported by stone monument site plans.
Gerald Hawkins, 1965; Stonehenge decoded. He demonstrated that the interaction of sun and moon cycles were readable and calculable among complex concentric circles of markers.
Neugebauer and Parker, 1969; Egyptian astronomical texts. Still the standard source on calendric lore. The book, in two volumes, splitting text and illustrations, reveals that Egyptian priests had three somewhat different sets of decanal asterisms, or hour stars, related to myths, and read east to west, against the monthly or zodiac direction. Each of the three sets had different variants in each era, revealing that sets larger than 16, are unstable and prone to mutation. They did not find any reason for the instability of astronomical labels. Variant sets of decans arise “by some method hitherto unrecognised”, or are “arbitrary”. Most Popular authors avoid the subject of decans, although they appear in all cultures, and correspond to many gods. Furter (2014, 2016) demonstrates our compulsion to scramble attributes, especially in sets larger than 16, which all cultures elaborate into artificial group identity. We use styling in a similar way, to appropriate social behaviour as if it were unique. For an image and list of Assyrian decans, see the article on the Gobekli ‘zodiac’ on http://www.stoneprint.wordpress.com.
The term archaeo astronomy was first used in 1972 by Elizabeth Chesley Baity, at the suggestion of Euan MacKie. The compulsion to study ancient cosmology is older.
Euan MacKie tested Smyth’s idea of a Stone Age ‘computer’. He excavated at Kintraw stones in Argyllshire, and found a winter solstice alignment. Most monuments have only very basic astronomical local alignments to sun, moon, or Venus, despite their reputation for being complex proto-science. Modern archaeo astronomers have found a few artefacts capable of calculating the saros cycle of eclipses, but they are very few, and surprisingly small and simple.
Ancient ‘aliens’ became big business
Aliens, a persistent feature of B-rated Hollywood movies and serials, overwhelmed popular science in the 1970s with the provocative fundamentalist ‘archaeology’ of Erich von Daniken and a long list of imitators. They presented enigmatic artefacts, buildings and texts as coded science and lost technology.
Zecharia Sitchen presented Babylonian mythic text translations as history. Hollywood moved the science fiction genre to big budget special effects blockbusters. Chris de Burgh’s hit song, A spaceman cane travelling, was one of the symptoms that the lines between myth, legend, religion, popular science and fiction were blurred. A theme park at Interlaken in Switzerland build a circle of structures to symbolise the main civilisations that supposedly somehow sprang from alien sources. By 2010, Sitchen’s books were officially re-classified as novels. By 2016 there were signs that the ancient alien craze was subsiding (see Graham Hancock’s declaration of his position against Zecharia Sitchen’s pseudo-scientific ‘facade’ on his website, or in Furter 2016; Stoneprint p50 -51). The ‘aliens’ brigade typically concentrate on general correspondences, tutelary characters (a constant feature in all mythology), and diffusion; not on astronomy or culture. The readership that Von Daniken had created, is still served by fundamentalist media articles and websites, typically lacking astronomy.
The rift between science and popular science had become wider during the ‘ancient aliens’ phase, but the rift between archaeology and astronomy showed no signs of narrowing.
European stone monuments apparently lack myth (also named ethnography), in the context of its ‘dark age’ monuments, thus antiquarians (now named archaeologists) study astronomical alignments.
American ruins have abundant texts, including gods, legendary rulers, history, and calendars.
Anthony Aveni found European and American archaeo astronomical methods, research questions, and results so different, that the Oxford conference proceedings were published as two separate volumes. He refers to himself as an ethno astronomer, and his subject as innate cosmology in cultural identity.
Clive Ruggles is one of the leaders in the genre. He noted: ‘Archaeo astronomy is not the study of ancient astronomy. It considers symbolical cultural interpretations of phenomena in the sky… It is a field with academic work of high quality at one end, but uncontrolled speculation bordering on lunacy at the other… it tends to set academics in different disciplines at loggerheads.”
John Michell wrote Short history of astro archaeology: “The status of research into ancient astronomy had improved over the past two centuries, from lunacy, to heresy, to interesting notion, to the gates of orthodoxy. “ But his view is probably too optimistic.
Archaeo astronomy has many approaches
The three professional bodies maintain some of the divisions in the trans-disciplinary field. Iopscience.iop.org offers this explanation: “Sophia Centre, the only UK institution offering a broader MA including this field, labels it ‘the study of the incorporation of celestial orientation, alignments or symbolism in human monuments and architecture”.
“It merges aspects of anthropology, ethno-astronomy, or cultural astronomy.
“In the past decades it has been rejected by archaeology.
“It embraced solid scientific and statistical methodology to raise its credibility.
“Post-modern archaeo astronomy embraces the pluralism of academic approaches to landscape and ancient people.”
Terpconnect.umd.edu has a different definition; “The study of astronomical practices, celestial lore, mythologies, religions, and world-views of ancient cultures… about interaction with the cosmos.
“There is active cooperation between professionals and amateurs from many backgrounds and cultures.” This is true in astronomy, but not in academic archaeology or anthropology.
“The study of concepts of time and space, geometry, geomancy, and the origins of urban planning.” The inclusion of building sites in this view, is developed in Furter, 2016; Stoneprint. Urban planning is revealed as not only resulting from physical and social compromises, nor from a coding conspiracy, but from the collective subconscious expression of archetypal structure, similar to artworks, where individual artists express a cultural version of the universal structure.
Most archaeologists are academics involved in limited research determined by a ‘school’, aimed at finding facts, and incidentally artefacts.
Indiana Jones is a fictional ‘archaeologist’ cracking fictional ‘codes’, loosely based on Vendel Jones, an explorer using historical clues to find artefacts, and incidentally facts.
Archaeo astronomy uses the tools and theories of archaeology, anthropology, ecology, astronomy, statistics, history, cognition, and psychology, to find and explain aspects of ancient scientific, technological, and cultural behaviour, and of the visible cultural record, including artefacts, landscape, and building sites. Some researchers found “cognition and landscape considered together,” to reveal “cosmic order in the roads of settlements.”
Robert Temple wrote Sirius Mystery, on Dogon ethno astronomy, when he was in his twenties. He then became a historian, orientalist and cultural scientist. In Netherworld, he explored the implications of divination systems. Elsewhere he explored the function of the Sphinx pond at Giza, and the role of Anubis in mythology.
Some archaeo astronomy keywords and terms
“Alignments of ancient architecture and landscapes.”
“The field now includes the relation of astronomy to art, literature, and religion.” See Furter 2014, 2016, including art analysis, a Mishnah verse, and a Babylonian temple building ritual poem.
“Even cosmology is not primarily astronomical; cosmology is equally philosophical, psychological and physical.” See Furter 2016; “Cosmology is not only in the sky”.
George Gummerman and Miranda Warburton: “AA is the study of a group’s conception of themselves in relation to the heavens, or social cosmology.” This statement clearly indicates cultural identity.
Todd Bostwick: “Archaeo astronomy is anthropology, the study of human behaviour.” See Furter 2014, 2016, on subconscious behaviour.
Paul Bahn; “AA is an area of cognitive archaeology.”
Art historian Richard Poss; ‘Astronomical’ rock art of the North American Southwest should be read by employing “the hermeneutic traditions of western art history and art criticism.” Since all cultures had and have art, he may as well call for the study of Australian rock art by using any or all the cultural crafts of the world.
Correspondence theory looks for similarities
Graham Hancock is the leading correspondence theorist, reading some sacred site layouts as star maps. He currently writes on ancient meteorite impacts, reading some ancient sites as observatories.
Engineer Robert Bauval studied some Egyptian star lore in the context of site plans.
Andrew Collins emphasises the role that the constellation Cygnus may have played in ancient site orientations.
Andis Kaulins is a lawyer, archaeo astronomer, and hyper diffusionist. He finds constellation maps in artefacts, cup marks, rock profiles and site layouts, theorising an ancient international survey mission.
Wayne Herschel reads many ancient and modern sites as cryptic maps of the Pleiades open cluster, to ‘commemorate that we are ancient aliens, from a planet near the Pleiades.’ He started seeing visions of corresponding shapes after an off-road motorcycle sports accident.
Archaeo astronomical common ground?
Archaeo astronomers disagree widely on the characterisation of the discipline. All three scientific bodies note “the study of culture and cosmology”. Ruggles and Saunders proposed the label Cultural Astronomy.
Most European archaeo astronomers who rely on geometrical data (horizon angles), have been accused of missing the cultural context of social practice.
American archaeo astronomers who rely on their abundant ethnographic and historical evidence, may neglect some practical geometrical data.
Stanislaw Iwaniszewski wrote in frustration: “Such diversity requires the invention of some all-embracing theory. I was naïve in thinking that such a thing was ever possible.”
Divisions between archaeo astronomers follow the kind of data used.
The forgotten archaeo astronomer
Astronomy automation uses modern values for the rate or precession, which is known from Nasa data to be slightly speeding up, and may have been much slower in the distant past. Astronomy automation programmes assume a narrow oscillation of obliquity after Stockwell, as adopted by Newcombe. But Egyptian, Chinese, Hindu, Greek, Arabic, Medieval, historic and Mayan data contradict the ‘Newcombe’ curve. Obliquity had reduced at a slowing rate, indicating a larger bump, and initially fast righting; and a semi-oscillation of 599 years (Dodwell 2010, in Setterfield). In the Dodwell graph, the curve should be wavy due to the semi-oscillation. In addition to these astronomical uncertainties, in an era 5000 years before the earliest and rarest Babylonian and Egyptian astronomical data, earth’s orbital diameter may have been larger, and the moon’s orbit larger, and time slower. There was a different equation of time, or Delta-T in geological time (Williams et al 1998), which may have extended into prehistoric time. Thus automation errors grow exponentially larger further back. Dodwell was an Australian archaeo astronomer who could not find a publisher. His work was posted on a website posthumously by Setterfield, assisted by his family. If his obliquity curve eventually finds acceptance, some data would be overturned, and a whole new set of data that was unexpected and invisible in ancient buildings before, may become available.
GRAPH: Earth obliquity on a horizontal scale of 200 years per column, and a vertical scale of degrees and 5 minutes of arc per row; from ancient, medieval and historic monumental orientations and observation records (Dodwell 2010). The earliest, isolated value (lower left notation) of a Karnak midsummer sunset of BC 2045, may have been dated too early (Rohl 2007), and its value of 25 degrees 10’ may be an error of interpretation, such as a lunar or stellar, instead of a solar orientation. The seven earliest orientations average at 24 degrees 2’, thus the curve may be shallower, implying a ‘bump’ at about BC 10 000, not BC 3000. The shallow curve on top is Stockwell’s and Newcombe’s assumption, apparently supported by recent European data.
Structural anthropology revives Plato, Jung and Levi-Strauss
A new kind of data entered archaeo astronomy with Edmond Furter’s structural art analysis (2014, Mindprint) and building site analysis (2016, Stoneprint), demonstrating that many supposed ‘astronomical’ features in culture are actually archetypal, and expressed by subconscious behaviour. Constellations and calendars do not inform myth and art, but all media have a repertoire of variant expressions of archetype.
Archetypal or structural approaches to culture, particularly universal recurrent features, have always been suppressed by conscious paradigms, particularly evolution, diffusion and their implied support of cultural and racial superiority in the colonial era. Some sciences had shaken off that subjective baggage, but it lingered in popular science and in research programmes.
Plato’s allegory of the ‘cave wall’ of indirect perception, and the philosophical concept of archetype was partially revived about 1900 when James George Frazer demonstrated that many details in myths of peoples thousands of miles and millennia apart, corroborated and explained one another.
Carl Jung in the 1940s revealed that all people dream essentially the same characters and episodes. Claude Levi-Strauss in the 1970s theorised that we have an innate tendency to categorise things and behaviours by a set of universal natural templates, without consciously intending or learning to do so.
Jung noted the main difference between the two approaches in Memories, Dreams, Reflections: “Archetype is an ir-representable, unconscious, pre-existent form, part of the inherited structure of the psyche, and can manifest itself spontaneously anywhere, at any time. Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined [by cultural influences or experience]. This does not influence their content, but only their form, and only to a limited degree.” If subconscious impulses play a role in art, myth, ritual and building sites, then even written records, stated aims, and interviews with artists do not explain the ancient or modern cultural record. Also, treasured cultural ‘differences’ and ‘development’ become meaningless, since archetype is universal, and changes only in style, and in the position of the seasons precessing through the cosmos. Many archaeo astronomers have written about precession, usually as a conscious, scientific element in iconography, but having to explain the lack of scientific or mythical records of precession as due to encoding, and thus a conspiracy.
Gobekli Tepe and the ‘first zodiac’ race
Since about 2010, the excavation of Gobekli Tepe (BC 9000 -8000) offered Younger Dryas civilisation data to bridge the previous vacuum between sparse Ice Age cultures (BC 20 000) and Sumerian civilisation (BC 4000). The few rare archaeo astronomical interpretations and dating applications of kiva type buildings in villages such as Catal Huyyuk (including an Age Cancer-Gemini dating), were soon joined by a variety of widely divergent interpretations of Gobekli art and houses. Archaeology could not exclude potential astronomical elements in this apparently enigmatic site, giving inter-disciplinary and popular science approaches a new lease on life. By 2017, Gobekli had become a test bench, and battleground, of archaeo astronomy, replacing the Giza pyramids as focal point.
Gobekli Tepe ‘zodiac’ interpreters include Timothy Stephany; Engineer Paul D Burley, supported and expanded by Graham Hancock; Andrew Collins; Andis Kaulins; Wayne Herschel; Dr Eng Martin Sweatman and co-author D Tsikritsis.
See a review of the Gobekli ‘scorpion and vulture zodiac’ saga, with widely different ‘conclusions’, and wild dating conclusions, and incredible ‘statistical’ claims, on http://www.stoneprint.wordpress.com. See also the storm of protest against the Sweatman and Tsikritisis MAA Journal paper, on Tepetelegrams (where Stephaney had started the series of contradictory astronomical interpretations of Gobekli artworks a few years ago).
Sciences remain in boxes
A round table discussion at a recent conference, was titled: “Archaeologists versus archaeo astronomers, or new best buddies?” The moderator was Fabio Silva (University of Wales, Trinity Saint David). The practitioners agreed that:
 Few archaeologists engage with the skyscape;
 Many people misunderstand how simple astronomy is to track in a society;
 Emphasis on mathematics and statistics has given a misleading impression of some cultures [as if they were mathematicians];
 There is a lack of corroborating archaeological detail in many archaeo astronomy papers;
 Archaeo astronomy has a mistaken association with popular fringe pseudo-archaeology.
- This article is an extract from a presentation by Edmond Furter at the July 2017 Archaeo Astronomy talks in Johannesburg.
Allen, RH. 1899 Star names and their meanings. Lost Library, Glastonbury
Collins, Andrew. 2014 Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods. USA. Bear & Co
Cotterell, Maurice. 1994 The amazing lid of Palenque. Books Hill Perry
Dacke, M, Byrne, et al 2013. Dung Beetles Use the Milky Way for Orientation. Current Biology 23 (4) p298
De Santillana G, Von Deschend H. 1969 Hamlet’s Mill: An essay on myth and the frame of time. Boston: Gambit [Icelandic sky myth]
Fergusson, J. 1872 Old stone monuments. Lost Library [stone circles are late Bronze and Iron Age]
Frazer, J.G. 1890. 1993 Golden Bough. Ed James.Wordsworth, London
Furter, E. 2014 Mindprint, the subconscious art code. Lulu.com, USA [archetypal features in art and rock art]
Furter, E. 2014 More examples of structural art analysis. www.mindprintart.wordpress.com
Furter, E. 2015 Art is magic. Expression 10, Dec. Atelier Etno, Italy
Furter, E. 2015 Mindprint in mushroom, psiclocybin, peyote, mescalin, sugar, and chocolate art. http://www.mindprintart.wordpress.com
Furter, E. 2015 Rock art expresses cultural structure. Expression 9. Atelier Etno, Italy
Furter, E. 2015 Rock art: Where, When, Why, to Whom. Ed. E. Anati. Atelier Etno
Furter, E. 2015 Structural rock art analysis. Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), Harare. Univ of Zimbabwe, in press 2017
Furter, E. 2016 Abstract signs in art as shorthand for cultural structure. Expression 13, Atelier Etno, Italy [the magazine layout scrambles captions and text to be corrected in the book: Meaning of abstract signs]
Furter, E. 2016 Stoneprint. Four Equators Media. [archetypal features in building sites]
Furter, E. 2016 Colonial artists re-style the same characters. Expression 14, Atelier Etno, Italy
Furter, E. 2017 Pregnant is the most consistent typological gender. Expression 15, Atelier Etno, Italy
Furter, E. 2017 Recurrent characters in art reveal objective meaning. Expression 16
Gombrich, EH. 1960 Art and illusion: a study in the psychology of pictorial
Gombrich, EH. 1979. 1984 Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Cornell University Press
Gombrich, EH. 1981 Image and the Eye
Grof, S, and Richard Tarnas. 2006 Cosmos and Psyche. Viking
Hawkins, GS. 2007 Beyond Stonehenge. Oxbow
Holberg. 2007 Babylonian kudurru icons
Jung, CG. Memories, dreams reflections
Jung, CG. 1934, 1954 Archetypes of the collective unconscious. CW
Jung, CG. 1950 Synchronicity; an a-causal connecting principle, treatise
Jung, CG. 1964 Man and his symbols. Dell
Jung, CG. 2006 Readings in the History of Æsthetics, Ch 26; Art as Archetypal Form. Open source,
Kaulins, Andis. Etruscan Bronze liver of Piacenza deciphered. Lexiline
Keynes, JM. 1947 Newton the Man
Knight C, and Butler A. 2010 Civilisation one. Watkins
Knight, C, and R Lomas. 2000 Uriel’s machine. Arrow, London
Knight-Jadczyk, Laura. 2015 Cassiopaea.org [‘circular’ dating of Stonehenge]
Kuhn, Thomas. 1966 Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed, Univ Chicago Press
Le Grice, Keiron. 2009 Birth of a New Discipline, Archetypal Cosmology in Historical Perspective, IN Archai: Journal of Archetypal Cosmology, vol1 nu1
Leach, E. 1970 Claude Levi-Strauss. University of Chicago Press
Lesser, George. 1957, 1964 Gothic cathedrals and sacred geometry. A Tiranti
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1969 Raw and the cooked
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1973 From honey to ashes
Levi-Strauss. Claude. 1981 Naked man
Malvill, McKim J. 1998. Megaliths and Neolithic astronomy in southern Egypt; with Fred Wendorf,
McLuan, M. 1964 Understanding Media: The extensions of man
Mees, AW. 2007, 2011 Der Sternenhimmel von Magdalenenberg. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 54, Mainz, p217-264
Mitroff, II. 1983 Archetypal social systems analysis on the deeper structure of human systems; Academy of management review, 8(3):387-397
Neugebauer, Otto; and R Parker. 1969 Egyptian astronomical texts 3; Decans, planets, constellations and zodiacs. Brown Univ
Phillipson, DW. 2003 Aksum, an archaeological introduction and guide. British Institute in Eastern Africa. Kul Graphics, Nairobi
Popper, Karl. 1963 Conjectures and Refutations. London. Routledge
Price-Williams, D, 1987 Waking dream. In Edgar, IR. Cambridge Univ Press
Ranieri, M. 2014 Digging the archives; orientation of Greek temples and their diagonals. In: Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol 14, No3, 15-27
Rask, Katie. A Door God or Two: new interpretation of ‘cvl’ on the Piacenza liver. Florida State Univ
Rohl, D. 2007 Lords of Avaris. Century
Silvius. Liver of Piacenza. Ethericwarriors, spazioinwind.liberto.it
Steele, RS. 1982 Freud and Jung: Conflicts of interpretation. Routledge
Sylva, F. 2002, 2013 Secrets in the fields. Invisible Temple (Kindle)
Temple, R. 2009 Sphinx mystery. Inner Traditions
Temple, R. 2000 Crystal sun. Arrow [ancient telescope lenses]
Temple, R. 2003 Netherworld. Random House [divination and the structure of perception and reality]
Temple, R. Sirius mystery [Dogon and other Sirius lore. An immature work, far surpassed by his later books]
Von Ehrenfels, Christian. 1890 On Gestalt Qualities
Wendorf F, and R Schild. 1997 Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Wylie, Alison. 1989 Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s options, beyond objectivism and relativism. Phil of Social Sciences 19, n1, March