User:Alunsalt/sandbox
Thoughts on Editing
This has now gone to
Re-working the Methods section
I agree with Wandalstouring that this is lacking something. When I wrote it I was keen to get away from the usual clichés, but to new readers these probably aren't clichés and there's a reason why the routes are so well trodden. So after the Iwaniszewski quote I'd suggest:
There is no one way to do Archaeoastronomy. The divisions between archaeoastronomers tend not to be between the physical scientists and the social scientists. Instead it tends to depend on the location of the researcher. The effects of the isolated development of archaeoastronomy in different places can still often be seen in research today. Broadly the methods can be divided into three categories, referred to by the colours of the book jackets they first identified in.
Green Archaeoastronomy
Green Archaeoastronomy is named after the cover the book Archaeoastronomy in the Old World [1]. It is primarily statistically led and is a particularly approach for prehistoric sites where the social evidence is relatively scant compared to the historic period. The basic methods were developed by Alexander Thom during his extensive surveys of British megalithic sites.
Thom wished to examine whether or not prehistoric peoples used high-accuracy astronomy. He believed that by using horizon astronomy, observers could make estimates of dates in the year to a specific day. The observation would require finding a place where on a specific data the sun set into a notch on the horizon. A common theme would be a mountain which blocked the Sun, but on the right day would allow the tiniest fraction to re-emerge on the other side for a 'double sunset'. The animation below shows two sunsets at a
To test this idea he surveyed hundreds of stone rows and circles. Any individual row could be aligned on a point by chance, but he planned to show that together the distribution of alignments was non-random, showing that there was an astronomical intent to orientation of at least some of the rows. His results indicated the existence of eight special days in the year. The two
Euan MacKie has most strongly supported Thom's analyses adding to which he added an archaeological context by comparing Neolithic Britain to the Mayan civilisation to argue for a stratified society in this period. leads MacKie to conclude that while 'science' may be anachronistic, Thom was broadly correct upon the subject of high-accuracy alignments.
In contrast Clive Ruggles has argued that there are problems with the selection of data in Thom's surveys. meaning that the arguments for high accuracy astronomy are unproven. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Nonetheless the study of alignments remains a staple of archaeoastronomical research, especially in Europe. [6]
Brown Archaeoastronomy
In contrast to the largely alignment-orientated statistically-led methods of Green archaeoastronomy, Brown archaeoastronomy has been identified as being closer to
Blue Archaeoastronomy
Fabian and Australian aboriginals?
Hybrid Methods
Medieval churches, Spence in Egypt?
References
- MacKie, E (1997). "Maeshowe and the winter solstice: ceremonial aspects of the Orkney Grooved Ware culture". Antiquity. 71(272): 338–359.
- MacKie, E (2006). "New Evidence for a Professional Priesthood in the European Early Bronze Age". In Todd W. Bostwick and Bryan Bates (ed.). Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures: Selected Papers from the Oxford VII International Conference on Archaeoastronomy. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers. Vol. 15. City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department. pp. 343–362. ISBN 1-882572-38-6.
- Ruggles, C.L.N. and Barclay, G. (2000). "Cosmology, calendars and society in Neolithic Orkney: a rejoinder to Euan MacKie". Antiquity. 74(283): 62–74.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)