History Extension Major Work PDF

Preview

Summary

ASSESS THE USEFULNESS OF CHANGING METHODOLOGIES OF ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AS A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO HISTORY. ...

Description

Aligning with the Stars ASSESS THE USEFULNESS OF CHANGING METHODOLOGIES OF ARCHAEOASTRONOMY AS A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO HISTORY. WORD COUNT: ESSAY 2500 SYNOPSIS 298

30230582

Synopsis The discipline of archaeoastronomy is mostly unknown to historians, academics and students of history despite its prevalence in our understanding of history. Archaeoastronomy is the modern, ground-breaking study of ancient societies’ attempt to incorporate astronomical understanding to their daily lives by transposing astronomical relationships and key moments through architecture, a pioneering, multidisciplinary approach that mirrors the direction of universities as centres of collaborative learning.1 However, its establishment as a multidisciplinary approach contributes to its anonymity compared to other established historical disciplines due to the differences in the research landscape, with oppositions of the scientific community and the social sciences which significantly impacts its validity and use. This essay analyses the development of archaeoastronomy as a modern, emerging discipline that has been challenged by its methodological disputes of statistical approaches and cultural approaches. The beginning of the essay highlights the origins of the issues of archaeoastronomy and the impacts of these problems on the acceptance and validity of the discipline in the academic field, discussed by leading archaeoastronomers such as Clive Ruggles. By branching into separate examinations of each approach, named green archaeoastronomy for statistical methodologies and brown archaeoastronomy for ethnographic methodologies, case studies presented in this essay also allows an understanding of both their successes and failures and its impact on the use of archaeoastronomy on the study of history. Green archaeoastronomy grounds its basis on its scientific accuracy in the examination of axial alignments in cases such as the Giza pyramids, whereas brown archaeoastronomy considers the historical context of the site as a whole and proposes relevant and realistic explanations for archaeoastronomical theories. A final examination of the direction archaeoastronomy has taken, is led by the work of anthropologist Lionel Sims, whom critiques the impossibility of completely merging the two dichotomous approaches and introduces new perspectives on pioneering methods of the study of archaeoastronomy.

Assess the usefulness of changing archaeoastronomical methodologies as a multidisciplinary approach to history.

The establishment of archaeoastronomy as a cross-discipline during the late 20th century reflects the contemporaneous emergence of interdisciplinary research that has become increasingly common in academia. However, the successful interaction of multi-disciplinary studies requires recognition of the disparities in the research landscape from the conflicting perspective of other disciplines, in order to leverage differences and generate a more complex understanding, addressing questions and problems2. The entanglement of the humanities and sciences in archaeology, anthropology and astronomy in the study of archaeoastronomy initially lent itself to polarising approaches, severely impacting the effectiveness and reliability of the discipline and ultimately its reception and recognition as a valid multidiscipline. However, the complex nature of archaeoastronomy as a multi-disciplinary approach has created a schism whereby two opposing methodologies have emerged in the establishment of this discipline. To understand a wide variety of archaeoastronomical sites, approach individual hypotheses and ensure its validity, the archaeoastronomer is challenged by methodological issues and the need to understand several different and not particularly intersecting fields of work. These main contributing fields are archaeology, anthropology and astronomy which are utilised within the discipline differently and provide new perspectives for the history of humans’ interaction with the cosmos. Analysing the credibility of archaeoastronomy, one must understand the defining historiographical debates that places in opposition green archaeoastronomy and brown archaeoastronomy, which highlights the methodological discrepancies between the statistical approach and the cultural approach respectively. Despite this, the consolidation of the discipline in the struggle for its acceptance and validation as an academic discipline can be seen through the influence of active debates and discussions of the Oxford University series International Astronomical Union

Symposiums held around the world and recounted in numerous academic publications. Through addressing the strengths and weakness of each methodology through various case studies, this essay will assess the usefulness of the discipline which has significantly improved, noticeably establishing more coherent methodologies compared to those of the past, still striving to successfully integrate the two divisions, and even introducing new approaches in the process.

Problems concerning the effectiveness and credibility of archaeoastronomy has been most closely associated with the first major debate within the discipline, of differing approaches in the Western ‘New World’ being markedly different to that of the Eastern ‘Old World’ hemispheres. The approach in the New World ‘brown archaeoastronomy’ saw archaeologists drawing on historical and ethnographical records to enrich their understandings of native customs and beliefs in relation to calendars and ritual, whereas the Old World’s ‘green archaeoastronomy’ is based primarily on statistics where cultural evidence is not as readily available to researchers. The concentration on historical data led to some claims of high accuracy that were comparatively weak when compared to the statistically led investigations in Europe3. These distinctions were first identified with the publication of Archaeoastronomy in the Old World with a green cover and Archaeoastronomy in the New World with a brown cover, written by D. C. Heggie and Anthony F. Aveni respectively as summaries of the proceedings at the first Oxford conference. Since the introduction of these two schools of thought, archaeoastronomers has since called the discipline a field “struggling with its identity”4, with questions of whether it is a valid and useful sub-discipline of anthropology that is and should be theoretically well founded, or is instead a set of service-discipline to be applied when there is a cultural issues that has reference to the sky. This resulted in the harsh classification of archaeoastronomy as a “service subject that has no identity”5, considered by

David Brown due to the extreme interdisciplinary character of the subject. However, he dismisses this shallow understanding and explains that these varying attempts of researchers who use archaeoastronomy do not use it to further their own specific fields, but rather, “illustrates that archaeoastronomy is a subject of its own that thrives on the complexity of the different subjects contributing and defining it.” The focus on these fundamental issues plays a significant role in outlining the validity in relation to the discipline’s methodology, and reflects the fundamental shift that has taken place in the archaeological paradigm towards what has become known as ‘interpre[ta]tive history”6, which has helped bring archaeoastronomy into the archaeological mainstream by stressing the importance of cognitive, rather than simply environmental, factors in framing human actions. Clive Ruggles argues for more rigorous methodologies for combining different types of evidence, but others, notably Aveni, disagree, criticising that this approach “presupposes that tools and methods from the physical sciences can readily be adapted to the social sciences.”7 However, rock art researcher David S. Whitley has compared his profession as having “emerged out of the shadows”8 while the usefulness of archaeoastronomy “continues to stand out on the edge” due to the disparity of methodology between the two, where scientific method has been carefully adhered to in rock art studies and “methodological errors remain one of the central characteristics and thus key weaknesses, of many archaeoastronomical studies.” Ultimately, the belief in the principle that all hypotheses are open to scientific scrutiny enables the development of robust procedures for the cultural astronomer to infer the most appropriate and functional interpretations. This instigates the need for constant re-examination of fundamental methodological procedures to form viable interpretations in context, vital for the credibility of cultural astronomy and also crucially important in determining the credibility of ancient sites connected with astronomy and hence their importance as astronomical heritage.

Whilst the completely dichotomous debate of green verses brown has since become less in opposition with the other, enquiries of archaeoastronomical studies are still exposed to methodological flaws and inconsistencies, ultimately compromising the validity of archaeoastronomy as an accepted mainstream discipline within the field due to their continued focus and reliance on a single methodology. The green, mathematical approach to megalithic astronomy consists of orientations and lines, directed towards a location where a conspicuous astronomical object rises, sets or is exceptionally positioned9. This approach has been proved useful in cases such as that of the Giza pyramid in ascertaining the Orion Constellation Theory (OCT), which was the theory that the three main Ancient Egyptian pyramids on the Giza plateau were designed to align to the relative positions of the three stars in the constellation of Orion (see Appendix 1). This controversial theory proposed by Egyptologist Robert Bauval was only proven through quantitative astronomical and astrophysical verifications, in order to assess the compatibility of this theory with the results of naked-eye astrometry and photometry10. The positions of the stars aligning with the vertex of each pyramid was examined for stellar correlation by overlapping a reconstruction of the cosmic landscape over the topographic map of the Giza metropolis, the analysis of angle and displacement precision allowing a reasonable affirmative conclusion regarding the intentions of Egyptian engineers. Renowned Egyptologist and archaeoastronomer Giulio Magli’s presents another analysis of the Giza axis11, a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates, also exposed its deliberate placement orientating towards the temple of Heliopolis (see Appendix 2), one of the major religious centres of ancient Egypt allusive to the sun god Ra, again similarly confirms the Egyptians’ inclination to celestial correlations of monuments.12 Archaeoastronomy was effectively utilised in the confirmation of Ancient Egypt’s interest and calculated orientation of their monuments to the stars, which is now an

integrated and recognised element of Ancient Egyptian history. However, in most archaeoastronomical cases, studies that predominantly rely on green methodologies face issues in the consideration of coincidences and unique cases which are virtually certain to occur, reflecting the tenuous nature of evidence which places stress on the reliability of such methods. An example of the failure of such an approach is exemplified in Aveni’s and Hartung’s discussion of the E-group structures13, a distinctive arrangement of pyramid, plaza and platform found at several Mayan complexes concentrated in Guatemala (see Appendix 3). In accordance to the 1980s purely statistical approach, the Uaxactun alignment would have seemed fortuitous, as some 50 other sites, despite having similar or imitated layouts, failed to repeat similar alignments to the sun14. However, archaeological context shows that the Uaxactun site itself was modified so that the actual alignments became dysfunctional at later stages, with arising evidence that the other structures were ‘non-functional copies’ perceived as incorporating solar symbolism and not affirmed for actual observations. Unconventional solar, stellar, cardinal and topographical associations which uphold differing purposes are thus shown to require ethnohistory and contextualisation of the studies in its analysis, but these unique types of monuments that are scientifically untestable also cannot only be unconditionally dependent on interpretations of historians, anthropologist and archaeologists.

Brown, or cultural archaeoastronomy on the other hand has been utilised in other cases of archaeoastronomical significance, both effective and useful in its own right but also subject to similar flaws in its methodological shortcomings, namely its lack of scientific grounding. Aveni comments on the distinction of the two methodologies in his first publication following the Oxford I symposium, first defining archaeoastronomy as a meeting ground for three main established inquiries into ancient astronomy15. One is astroarchaeology, focused on retrieving

astronomical information generally practised by people from the ‘hard’ sciences who are more concerned with the natural world over the ancient mind, and another is the history of astronomy, the traditional discipline engaged only with the written record, concerned with the acquisition of precise knowledge by ancient cultures. Brown archaeoastronomy identifies with the latter, but also engages in the third enquiry; that of ethnoastronomy, which draws its evidence from the ethnohistorical record and ethnographic studies of temporary cultures to develop an understanding of cultural behaviour in relation to events in the heavens. The cultural method is frequently practised in Mesoamerica especially in relation to Mayan civilisations, and the benefits of brown archaeoastronomy in juxtaposition to green archaeoastronomy is represented in the example of Chichen Itza. The Caracol tower in Chichen Itza can be inferred to be erected primarily for the purpose of embodying in its architecture certain significant astronomical event alignments 16, through analyses of Mesoamerican historical literature recounting deliberate attempts to align buildings with astronomical directions of importance, and in particular their express interest in the planet Venus. Their interest in Venus is evidenced in the discovery of the Dresden codex (see Appendix 4), which contains extensive astronomical recordings and notably, a Venus table (see Appendix 5) with precise measurements relating to the movement of Venus over an extended period of time17. This would have been overlooked by statistical methodology as not every alignment appears to convey a recognisable astronomical match, and the search for significant astronomical events often only consider the bodies of most obvious functional importance such as the sun and the moon. However, astrophysicist Bradley Schaeffer at Louisiana State University, questions the certainty of the significance of alignments in Caracol as lines pointing to individual bright stars should be given lower value due to obscure random stars being manipulated and appropriated to fit, bringing in statistical considerations to ethnographic conclusions18. Schaeffer comments that interpretations should make sense

both archaeologically and astronomically but acknowledges the difficulty in achieving methodological coherency due to the extensive variance in evidence over sites all over the world. Nonetheless, the historiographical debate between green and brown methodologies presents the benefits of each approach as well as exposing their inevitable limitations that requires reinforcement by the other methodology in evaluating the usefulness of archaeoastronomy in studying history.

Archaeoastronomy has come a long way with its increasingly useful application in archaeoastronomical manifestations, emerging from the constructive criticisms of both fields towards each other as well as between researchers in their own field, notably including anthropology in the approach. Although he commends the integration of cultural and statistical archaeoastronomy, anthropologist Lionel Sims criticises that their shortcomings in providing sufficient evidence and results, still lacking in situations such as testing intentional alignments in unique monuments19. A constructive study of the emerging contemporary methods is the case of West Kennet Avenue (see Appendix 6), one part of the unique Avebury monument complex, proposed and executed by Sims. The innovative approaches of archaeoastronomy prominently and effectively resolves debated interpretation and questions concerning the excavations and restorations carried out by Keiller and Piggot. Their construction depicted the Avenue built in a series of ten straight sections unlike the smooth serpentine shape previously assumed, as well as having poorly joined stones leading towards the southern entrance. Initially, the only two interpretations of these depictions were Burl’s claims that it was the mistake of prehistoric builders20, and Gillings’ and Pollard’s argument that these discrepancies are the result of a faulty excavation by Keiller and Piggot21. However, these suggestions were unconvincing, and Sims was able to effectively utilise his progressive archaeoastronomical methodology to explain the construction of the stones. He presents four

other methods which are inventive and pioneering shifts from the decades-long debate between strictly methods of green and brown22. Land/Sky-scape phenomenology analyses these environments to explain the archaeoastronomical relevance of the location of a site and Monte Carlo simulations draw at random possible positions for a monument of archaeoastronomical relevance to establish a ‘null’ hypothesis. Computer modelling allows observations of three-dimensional recreations of the movement of celestial bodies over certain monuments, and the focus on isolating details allows special features to be placed into its larger archaeoastronomical context. Through these methods and incorporating a specific anthropological perspective with archaeoastronomy, it has been convincingly hypothesised that the ‘primitive’ farming cultures of the site would realistically produce inaccurate formations due their disregard for mathematical accuracy and instead, their divergent focus on ritual lunar cycles23. In addition, a virtual model of the Avenue using Keiller’s site survey plan was built and integrated into an accurate virtual landscape using Ordnance Survey topographical data24, all combined with an accurate and realistic moving skyscape, which captured many alignments in the computer simulation (see Appendix 7). Thus, the astronomical properties of West Kennet Avenue are discovered, providing an explanation for Keiller and Piggot’s excavation that modern archaeology cannot through the innovations of archaeoastronomy. The multiplicitous approaches that have emerged from the debates surrounding the methodology of archaeoastronomy is a positive reaction upon the challenges archaeoastronomy continues to face and actively acknowledges, indicative in the improvements of the discipline despite issues it still encounters.

Thus, the emphasis on the rift between the humanist discipline of archaeology and the scientific discipline of astronomy allowed historians to re-evaluate the direction of the discipline. Cooperation and collaboration towards the late 20th century saw the increasing

coherency of archaeoastronomy as a developing multi-discipline through crucial conferences and discussion forums such as the Oxford Symposiums. It has finally begun to define a field that is interdisciplinary in nature, becoming a modernised discipline through embracing technological advances as well as building its theoretical grounding from its archaeological fieldwork and substantially improving the validity of archaeoastronomy as a whole.

Endnotes (Reference List)

1 Carlson, R 2012, What is Archaeoastronomy? Randall Carlson Answers for SGI., video recording,

YouTube, viewed 17 May 2018, 2 Robinson, B. et al, 2016 Human values and the value of humanit...