Talk:Archaeoastronomy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:18, 29 December 2007 editBreadh2o (talk \| contribs)612 edits →Definition, Genesis and Intentionality of archaeoastronomy ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:26, 9 September 2024 edit undoJohnsoniensis (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users720,824 edits rating
(467 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{ArticleHistory
			{{Article history
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
	\|action1date=2006-05-07		\|action1date=2006-05-07
Line 8:		Line 9:
	\|action2=GAR		\|action2=GAR
	\|action2date=2007-08-30		\|action2date=2007-08-30
	\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:~~Good_article_review~~/~~Archive_28~~#Archaeoastronomy		\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Good article review/Archive 28#Archaeoastronomy
	\|action2result=delisted		\|action2result=delisted
	\|action2oldid=154614918		\|action2oldid=154614918
	\|currentstatus=DGA
	\|topic=History}}

			\|action3=PR
	{{WikiProject Paranormal\|class=B}}
			\|action3date=01:59, 6 May 2008
	==Spelling==
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Archaeoastronomy/archive1
	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. ]
			\|action3result=reviewed
			\|action3oldid=210305474

			\|action4=GAN
	Google finds 12,300 for Archaeoastronomy, but only 1,420 for Archeoastronomy. So the article should probably go under ], unless someone has a good reason for preferring the other spelling. --], 2002 Jan 29
			\|action4date=16:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
	:Science News made to the term as ''ethnoastronomy'' in 1987, but I haven't seen it used that way. Perhaps the page could mention it in passing. --] 04:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Talk:Archaeoastronomy/GA1
			\|action4result=listed
			\|action4oldid=416920459

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

			\|action5 = GAR
	I'll try to hunt up a few references. Also there is recent work on transits of Venus that should be mentioned. See:
			\|action5date = 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
			\|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archaeoastronomy/1
			\|action5result = delisted
			\|action5oldid = 1225279118
			\|currentstatus = DGA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=b\|1=
			{{WikiProject Archaeology\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Anthropology\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject History of Science\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Astronomy\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Astrology\|importance=mid}}
			}}

			== New Maya video trailer ==


			Hi {{ping\|Originalwana}} I'm a bit puzzled by the Maya video trailer you added to the article. It's an attractive piece of art, but its interpretation is speculative and the video doesn't say much about the astronomy of the Maya and says nothing about the evidence for their astronomy. Furthermore, the caption is totally misleading; it may describe what's in the planetarium show for which it is a trailer, but it certainly doesn't describe the video, which says nothing about the six Maya temples mentioned in the caption. I'm tempted to just delete it but, if it had an accurate caption, it is such a nice video that it might belong somewhere in the article. --] (]) 21:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
	among many references. The first recorded transit was in 1639
			:The trailer is an invitation to obtain the from the ], rather than a description of Maya archaeoastronomy. Since it does not add significant useful or relevant information to the article, it comes close to ]. --] (]) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	==eclipses==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	Do these things belong on this page?
	# use of eclipse records to date historical events
	# use of historic eclipse trajectories to study past earth rotation
	I'm not cluey enough about either to add them myself. --] 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	:] 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 ], where the employment of this dating technique in the hands of historians is worth all the detail you can give it! --] 18:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
			*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archeociel.com/nouvelle.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927043749/http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm to http://www.arqueoastronomia.org/siac.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924033349/http://www.iifilologicas.unam.mx/estculmaya/uploads/volumenes/xli/4%20Astronom%C3%ADa%20en%20la%20arquitectura.%20Sprajc-S%C3%A1nchez.pdf to http://www.iifilologicas.unam.mx/estculmaya/uploads/volumenes/xli/4%20Astronom%C3%ADa%20en%20la%20arquitectura.%20Sprajc-S%C3%A1nchez.pdf
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328113612/http://ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0703/ejvs0703d.txt to http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0703/ejvs0703d.txt

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	==Nabta Playa==
	Can someone verify the edits regarding ] ? I refer you to ]. ]…] 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	==Possible re-write==

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
	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/

			== External links modified ==
	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.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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 have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	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. --] 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228144915/http://www.antiquityofman.com/Orion_Fairall.html to http://www.antiquityofman.com/Orion_Fairall.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406071455/http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/destructioni%20of%20Serapeum.html to http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/destructioni%20of%20Serapeum.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	: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 ] 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. ] 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::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 --] 11:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 17:19, 1 December 2017 (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--] 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	==Previous State of Entry==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	''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 ] page. I've stepped down the headings to fit them below the one which starts this section.''--] 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	'''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.
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102162115/http://www.astronomicalheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&itemid=31 to http://www.astronomicalheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&itemid=31

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	In the study of solar, lunar, and stellar alignments of monuments, numerous claims have been made that the ], such as ], ] and ], 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.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true\|needhelp=}}
	The early development of this aspect of archaeoastronomy was influenced by ] studies of megalithic monuments of Britain, published in '']'' (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 ] 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.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
	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 ] and ] of the Southwestern United States; the astronomy and cosmology of the Andean villagers of Misminay; the calendrical and divinatory practices of modern ] priests, and the ambiguous ] of the ] of southwestern Ethiopia.

			:I replaced the dead link with a new active one and removed the bot-generated material.--] (]) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
	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 ], 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 ]s and, particularly, ]e. Besides the insights such records provide into the significance of celestial phenomena in ancient cultures, they have also been found useful by modern astronomers.

			== Missing topics ==
	===Some Old World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored===
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ], the ''Grand Menhir Brisé''
	* ]
	* ]
	* ], raising methodological issues
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] and other structures apparently aligned to astronomical bodies and/or events

			Is there any reason why this comprehensive Misplaced Pages article about archaeoastronomy does not mention the following important topics at all ?
	===Some New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored===
			* One of the oldest ] in the world, the ] in ].
	* ], City of the Sun.
			* One of the oldest known pictorial representations of the night sky, the ] from ]: Chris Micallef: .
	* ], cardinal orientatons, meridian alignment, inter-pueblo alignments
			* The southern temple of ] in Malta: Frank Ventura, Michael Hoskin: , in: Clive Ruggles (editor), ''Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy'', 7. July 2014, pages 1421-1430, Springer, New York, ISBN 978-1-4614-6140-1.
	* ], the caracol
			--] (]) 10:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
	* ], zenith tube
	* ], the pecked-cross circles as survey-markers
	* ], Venus alignment of the "Governor's Palace"
	* ], zenith tube
	* Many Maya sites that have an E Group (see ] section on E Groups)
	* ], the Kalasasaya and its alignments

			:A quick answer to your question lies in your use of the word "comprehensive" to describe this article. Even the most comprehensive work on archaeoastronomy, the three volume (2297 pp.) ''Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy'', which you cite above, does not include all the sites that you mention above. They could not all be included in a Misplaced Pages article while retaining balance and preventing the article from getting ].
	===Some artifacts that throw light on archaeoastronomy===
			:The second reason is that this article discusses the discipline of archaeoastronomy, its varied approaches and methods, and in one section discusses a few extensively studied ]. Many other sites, such as the ], have their own articles in Misplaced Pages, while some are just listed in Misplaced Pages's ] or ].
	* ]s based on ] observations
			:To return to my main point, there's no way that a Misplaced Pages article can be comprehensive without getting too long to read. --] (]) 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
	* ]
	* ]

			== Article structure ==
	===References===
	* Clive Ruggles, ''Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland''
	* ''Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture''

			I find this article to have interesting content, but the writing seems jumbled. Maybe someone could reorganize it or something? ] (]) 15:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
	===External links===
	*
	* , a Review of Contemporary Understandings of Prehispanic Astronomic Knowledge.
	* , the area of study encompassing prehistoric and ancient place determination, point positioning, navigation (on land or water), astronomy and measure and representation of the earth.
	* , Ancient Monuments Spherical Trigonometry Calculator, an easy-to-use Excel spreadsheet featuring hundreds of ancient monuments.
	* , an Excel spreadsheet for calculating temporally variable astronomic constants.
	* bibliography and synopsis of his course at ]
	* , The International Society for Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in Culture.
	*
	*
	* - An essay exploring ancient astronomy, myths of the Deluge and the mythical stories of mankind's past and future
	* - NASA and others exploring the world's ancient observatories.
	* - Satellite pictures of ancient observatories.
	* - essays about ancient astronomy.
	* - Amateur archaeoastronomy from the archaeological site at Tulum.
	: '''Note:''' ''I don't recall this last entry being in . It's been added, unsigned, by E. Wayne.'' --] 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

			== India listed under "Fringe Astrology" ==
	== Ethnoastronomy ==

			India is listed under "Fringe Astrology" as thus
	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. --] 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! ] 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. --] 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::Perfect! ] 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

			"India
	== ] ==
			Further information: Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology
			Since the 19th century, numerous scholars have sought to use archaeoastronomical calculations to demonstrate the antiquity of Ancient Indian Vedic culture, computing the dates of astronomical observations ambiguously described in ancient poetry to as early as 4000 BC. '''David Pingree, a historian of Indian astronomy, condemned "the scholars who perpetrate wild theories of prehistoric science and call themselves archaeoastronomers'''"."

			While I'm sure that might of gotten a chuckle from the late Professor considering he wrote two volumes cataloging the works of Indian Astrologers and added a few of his own on the subject, I'd think he'd try to read further to find out what more he may of had been quoted on about the subject and would of frowned when he saw nothing more but that one comment being attributed to him given the vast amount of time he spent on the subject writing and reviewing various works on the subject. Clearly he found more than enough of it worthy of note and was not so dismissive as this quote would leave one to believe. ] (]) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
	Congratulations to ] 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 ] since it meets all the criteria. However, despite its ample good points, it only ''just'' satisfies the broadness ] 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.

			== GA concerns ==
	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 ] is appropriate at the moment.
	* There should be a small introductory paragraph to the section ==Major topics of archaeoastronomical research==.
	* The image of ] is beautiful, but it doesn't bear any obvious relevance to the prose it illustrates.

			I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below:
	Anyway, I had a thoroughly good time reading this article, so cheers, and well done again. --] 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
			*There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article.
			*There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs, which should be merged together.
			*External links are used in the article prose, which is not recommended in ]

			Is anyone interested in improving this article, or should this go to ]? ] (]) 03:30, 25 August 2024 (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. --] 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 ] at that point, and I think that ] status is a realistic prospect for the article. --] 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.

			==GA Reassessment==
	:::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.
			{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archaeoastronomy/1}}

	== Should this article discuss problematic cases? ==

	I've been following recent changes to the article over at ], 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. --] 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. --] 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. --] 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 ] that could be ] 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. --] 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 ], but that's not verifiable as it hasn't been published yet. --] 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 ] If you feel that you can improve the article so it meets ] please do. If you would like to contribute to the discussion of this article, please see ]. Thank you. --]\|]\|] 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
	:Per consensus reached ], the article has been delisted. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. --] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]. Once you are able to work on the article and correct the issues, you may renominate it at ]. Please see ] to assist in bringing the article up to GA quality. Best regards, <font face="Fantasy">]]</font> 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

	== Definition, Genesis and Intentionality of archaeoastronomy ==

	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 accepted, localized 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 another headlined issue embodied in 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 '''fourteen 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. I note with interest "arguably" confers the honor of "first archaeoastronomer" on Lockyer, when this is demonstrably incorrect based on a reading of the Fish .pdf accessible in the external link above. Further, Salt borrows generously phrases from his own home page to populate the WP article. If credibility counts, a wholesale review is warranted, I suggest.<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 posture is generally downward, deeper into the earth, and their focus is to note in detail and to preserve tactile things from any alteration; while an astronomer's posture is upward and outward into the skies above, and their focus is with changing and dynamic, usually cyclical, celestial phenomena, decidedly non-static and '''un'''touchable. In the end, archaeoastronomy is neither a hybrid merger 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 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 />
	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 instances of observed alignments should be ignored; but what criteria applies to establish genuine confidence that carefully documented phenomena with gnomen and target (and, in , even translatable written clues) were intentionally conceived and recorded for posterity by human design? I can propose some guidelines by others, but first I choose to telegraph my perspectives for invited feedback. Later, upon reflection, I may proceed to bring some balance to the WP article on archaeoastronomy, now largely influenced by Alun's pen.] (]) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:26, 9 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archaeoastronomy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Archaeoastronomy 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
Date	Process	Result
May 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 30, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
May 6, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
March 3, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 9, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astrology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Maya video trailer

Hi @Originalwana: I'm a bit puzzled by the Maya video trailer you added to the article. It's an attractive piece of art, but its interpretation is speculative and the video doesn't say much about the astronomy of the Maya and says nothing about the evidence for their astronomy. Furthermore, the caption is totally misleading; it may describe what's in the planetarium show for which it is a trailer, but it certainly doesn't describe the video, which says nothing about the six Maya temples mentioned in the caption. I'm tempted to just delete it but, if it had an accurate caption, it is such a nice video that it might belong somewhere in the article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The trailer is an invitation to obtain the fulldome planetarium show, Mayan Archeoastronomy from the ESO, rather than a description of Maya archaeoastronomy. Since it does not add significant useful or relevant information to the article, it comes close to WP:Wikispam. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Archaeoastronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Archaeoastronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeoastronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102162115/http://www.astronomicalheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&itemid=31 to http://www.astronomicalheritage.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&itemid=31

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the dead link with a new active one and removed the bot-generated material.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing topics

Is there any reason why this comprehensive Misplaced Pages article about archaeoastronomy does not mention the following important topics at all ?

One of the oldest solar observatories in the world, the Goseck circle in Saxony-Anhalt.
One of the oldest known pictorial representations of the night sky, the Tal-Qadi Stone from Malta: Chris Micallef: The Tal-Qadi Stone: A Moon Calendar or Star Map.
The southern temple of Mnajdra in Malta: Frank Ventura, Michael Hoskin: Temples of Malta, in: Clive Ruggles (editor), Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, 7. July 2014, pages 1421-1430, Springer, New York, ISBN 978-1-4614-6140-1.

--Bautsch (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick answer to your question lies in your use of the word "comprehensive" to describe this article. Even the most comprehensive work on archaeoastronomy, the three volume (2297 pp.) Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, which you cite above, does not include all the sites that you mention above. They could not all be included in a Misplaced Pages article while retaining balance and preventing the article from getting too long.

The second reason is that this article discusses the discipline of archaeoastronomy, its varied approaches and methods, and in one section discusses a few extensively studied Major sites of archaeoastronomical interest. Many other sites, such as the Goseck circle, have their own articles in Misplaced Pages, while some are just listed in Misplaced Pages's List of archaeoastronomical sites sorted by country or List of artifacts significant to archaeoastronomy.

To return to my main point, there's no way that a Misplaced Pages article can be comprehensive without getting too long to read. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Article structure

I find this article to have interesting content, but the writing seems jumbled. Maybe someone could reorganize it or something? Dharmadha2 (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

India listed under "Fringe Astrology"

India is listed under "Fringe Astrology" as thus

"India Further information: Archaeoastronomy and Vedic chronology Since the 19th century, numerous scholars have sought to use archaeoastronomical calculations to demonstrate the antiquity of Ancient Indian Vedic culture, computing the dates of astronomical observations ambiguously described in ancient poetry to as early as 4000 BC. David Pingree, a historian of Indian astronomy, condemned "the scholars who perpetrate wild theories of prehistoric science and call themselves archaeoastronomers"."

While I'm sure that might of gotten a chuckle from the late Professor considering he wrote two volumes cataloging the works of Indian Astrologers and added a few of his own on the subject, I'd think he'd try to read further to find out what more he may of had been quoted on about the subject and would of frowned when he saw nothing more but that one comment being attributed to him given the vast amount of time he spent on the subject writing and reviewing various works on the subject. Clearly he found more than enough of it worthy of note and was not so dismissive as this quote would leave one to believe. Para59r (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article.
There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs, which should be merged together.
External links are used in the article prose, which is not recommended in WP:EL

Is anyone interested in improving this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Archaeoastronomy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple uncited statements throughout the article. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs should be merged together. External links are used in the article prose and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: