Stars have always captivated mankind, but the study of how they have done so can be controversial...
Throughout time and place, human societies have paid attention to the sky, whether for survival reasons or in search of an explanation from a mythological, religious, or scientific perspective. From orientation and positioning on Earth to the symbolism behind celestial bodies, the impact that studying these phenomena has had on different societies is of great academic interest. Therefore, we will analyze a small part of this fascination with stars, specifically how it is studied today from an academic point of view. We will delve into the discipline of archaeoastronomy, which, due to its multidisciplinary nature, finds itself constantly questioning itself and what it encompasses.
Although the field has over a century of experience since the first works on the orientation of Egyptian pyramids in the 19th century (Esteban, 2003, p. 2), there is some debate about its scope of study. In fact, as professors Cerdeño Serrano and Rodríguez Caderot suggest (2009, p. 17), the discipline is currently undergoing a redefinition to establish its foundations and occupy a place in the scientific realm. This is an area that, due to its breadth and the various concepts associated with it, has not yet found a clear definition.
The logical assumption when examining the term is that it combines astronomical techniques with archaeological ones. In Edward Krupp's words:
«Interdisciplinary study of prehistoric, ancient, and traditional astronomy worldwide in its cultural context. This includes both written and archaeological sources, covering topics such as calendars; practical observation; celestial cults and myths; symbolic representation of events, concepts, and astronomical objects; astronomical orientation of tombs, temples, sanctuaries, and urban centers; traditional cosmology and ceremonial application of astronomical traditions».
(Belmonte Avilés, 2016, p. 1)
While this definition delves into the methods of study, Belmonte Avilés (2016, p. 1) notes that it is limited as it «leaves out the intersection of astronomy and social sciences in the fields of history of astronomy and ethnoastronomy», two areas he believes can provide valuable information. It is for this reason that he highlights the term of «cultural astronomy» as more appropriate for Krupp's definition, emphasizing the existence of various emerging branches from the combination of astronomy and social sciences, though they are always anthropological studies and not linked to astronomy proper (Belmonte Avilés, 2016, p. 1).
Academic Rolf Sinclair suggests a definition of archaeoastronomy as «the study of the interpretation that humans have made of celestial phenomena throughout history and prehistory, how they were used, and what role they played in their cultures» (Polcaro, 2009, p. 223). In it, he identifies some significant aspects of the discipline: archaeoastronomy mixes astronomy with archeology as Polcaro states. However, it is important to reiterate that it is always the former complementing the latter and never a branch of astronomy. Archaeoastronomy analyzes archaeological remains in correlation with star positions, adding an ethnological perspective by trying to link these correlations with the symbolism they might have had in the societies that built them. It also delves into different subfields arising from the union of astronomy and archaeology grouped under the term «cultural astronomy», distinguishing archaeoastronomy (under the definition presented earlier), ethnoastronomy (the influence that the interpretation of celestial phenomena has had on the folklore and traditions of current cultures), historical astronomy (the evolution of sky analysis techniques prior to the invention of the telescope) and history of astronomy (the history of the discipline born in the 17th century with Galileo's invention of the telescope in 1609).
César Esteban provides a more concise definition: «knowledge of the development of astronomy in prehistoric and ancient societies within their cultural context» (2003, p. 1), emphasizing once again the social dimension and adding the cultural context to the study. However, it should be noted that prior to Galileo's invention, we cannot speak of the discipline of astronomy, so these interpretations referred to cannot be considered proper.
Finally, it is worth highlighting a series of controversies present in the field. Rescuing Andrea Polcaro's argument (2009), there is certain controversy as to whether archaeoastronomy requires specific archaeological evidence. Despite the position of authors like Botswick and Judge (Polcaro, 2009, p. 223), others such as Aveni maintain that «historical and anthropological data should suffice to demonstrate the astronomical interest of a particular author» (Polcaro, 2009, p. 223). This brings us back to Krupp's earlier definition, which already highlighted the various methods that can be employed for interpretation. The author concludes by arguing that, for studies to be considered good practice, they must involve someone trained in archaeology to ensure the archaeological and anthropological dimension, and someone with astronomical training to guarantee accurate measurements and their correlation with studied objects (Polcaro, 2009, p. 224).
The other point to highlight are the limitations that the discipline encounters in this questioning of itself. Vito Francesco Polcaro points out how the lack of scientific rigor in some works associated with the field and the purely humanistic training of most archaeologists make the evidence presented by archaeoastronomy questioned by the academic community (2016, p. 2). Here once again comes to light what was recently mentioned about good practices, which further demonstrates how multidisciplinary archaeoastronomy is and requires serious and scientific work to yield relevant results.
Therefore, we must ask again: is archaeoastronomy simply the intersection between astronomy and social sciences? Apparently not. This blend of both fields generates various branches of knowledge that, despite their blurry boundaries (Belmonte Avilés, 2016, p. 3), can differentiate from one another. As we have seen, it integrates a human, cultural, and social dimension that sets it apart from other disciplines. Thus, based on the discussed literature, the following definition of archaeoastronomy has been elaborated:
«Archaeoastronomy is the intersection between astronomy and archeology that, through scientific and multidisciplinary methods, and considering cultural and archaeological context through various sources, seeks to understand the knowledge ancient societies had about celestial phenomena and how it influenced their cultures».
In conclusion, we can highlight how archaeoastronomy draws on the potential of the intersection between social and natural sciences, focusing exclusively on understanding how ancient societies analyzed and were influenced by stars, though the methodology employed in it is very diverse and often a source of controversy. It is for this reason that the discipline, which continues to expand, has an interesting future ahead.
Bibliography
Belmonte Avilés, J. A. (2016). Archaeoastronomy and its educational potential. In R. M. Ros & B. García (Eds.), 14 steps towards the Universe: Astronomy course for teachers and postgraduate students of sciences (pp. 180-187). Publicaciones de la red para la educación astronómica en la escuela NASE y Unión Astronómica Internacional (UAI).
Cerdeño Serrano, M. L., & Rodríguez Caderot, G. (2009). Archaeoastronomy: a new perspective in archaeological research. Revista Complutum, 20(2), 11-21.
Esteban, C. (2003). The archaeoastronomy in Spain. Anuario Astronómico del Observatorio de Madrid 2003.
Polcaro, A. (2009). Man and sky: Problems and methods of archaeoastronomy [Translation]. Archeologia e calcolatori, 20, 223-245.
Polcaro, V. F. (2016). The credibility of archaeoastronomy: a suggestion from pharmacology? [Translation]. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 16(4) 1-5.
Comments