Astronomical Orientation Greek Temples

4 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY 20072008 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

Efrosyni Boutsikas is a Lecturer of Classical Archaeology at the University of Kent and presently holds a Visiting Fellowship at the University

of Leicester. She received a B.Sc. in Archaeological Science from the University of Sheffield and an M.A. in Archaeology from the University

of Leicester. Boutsikas completed her Ph.D. (University of Leicester) on astronomy and ancient Greek cult in 2007. Between 2006 and 2008

she was an osteological and archaeological supervisor for the University of Leicesters Archaeological Services (ULAS), while between 2007

and 2008 she worked as a university teacher in Ancient History and Archaeology (University of Leicester).

EFROSYNI BOUTSIKAS

Abstract

This paper revisits the generally accepted view that the normal orientation of ancient Greek temples is toward the east through a general analysis of 107 Greek temple orientations col-lected by the author. The paper also attempts to establish whether there existed a general principle that related to speciic astronomical observations and could have determined the orientation of Greek temples. The analysis applies archaeoastronomical methodology in investigating orientation patterns of Greek temples from the Geometric to the Hellenistic periods in Greece. These irst results show that the Sun does not seem to have played as decisive a role in the orientation of temples as currently thought. Instead, there appears to be a much larger variation than accounted for at present that cannot be simply explained by the concept of the predominance of eastern orien-tations. It is concluded that all-encompassing interpretations do not appear to apply in Greek religion and cult practices and that the study of Greek cult needs to account for local variations, traditions, and landscapes.

Resumen

Al analizar los alineamientos de 107 templos griegos la autora del presente artculo somete a nuevo examen la idea, comnmente acep-tada, de que los templos en Grecia Antigua se orientaban normalmente hacia el Este. Este artculo tambin trata de veriicar si existi algn principio general relacionado con las ob-servaciones astronmicas especicas y si este principio pudo determinar la orientacin de los templos griegos. El estudio de los patrones de orientacin de los templos griegos construidos en Grecia entre el periodo geomtrico hasta el periodo helenstico emplea la metodologa arqueoastronmica. Los primeros resultados demuestran que el movimiento del sol no pa-rece jugar el papel tan determinante en la elabo-racin de las orientaciones de los templos como se ha pensado hasta ahora. En cambio, parece que la variacin de orientaciones es mucho ms grande de lo que se supona y ello no puede explicarse por el hecho de que simplemente predominan las orientaciones hacia el este. En conclusin, las interpretaciones que pretenden explicar la totalidad de orientaciones, no se aplican a los estudios de la religin griega y de las prcticas cultuales, por lo tanto, cualquier estudio de los cultos griegos tiene que tomar en cuenta las variaciones, tradiciones y paisajes locales.

Placing Greek Temples: An Archaeoastronomi-cal Study of the Orientation of Ancient Greek Religious Structures

VOLUME XXI 20072008 5

In 1939 William Bell Dinsmoor published his study on the principles behind ancient Greek temple orien-tations. His treatment and conclusions in this paper brought together earlier research that had been car-ried out by Francis C. Penrose in the 1890s and by Heinrich Nissen published between 1869 and 1906. Dinsmoors general conclusion on the orientation of Greek temples followed that of his predecessors, who argued in favor of the predominant eastern orienta-tion. He claimed that 73 percent of Greek temples were oriented within 60 of due east (1939:115116), and therefore the placing of Greek temples was dic-tated by the need to face the rising or setting Sun. This result was derived from plotting Nissens temple ori-entations (published in 1906) in a graph in an attempt to examine the presence of trends. Eighty years since Dinsmoors paper, the orientations of Greek temples have been shoe-horned in such a way that the presence of a much broader variation of orientationswhich is in fact the caseis commonly overlooked in favor of the idea of the predominance of an eastern orienta-tion, which remains a point of reference for modern scholars (Beyer 1990; Mikalson 2005:20; Scully 1979:44, 151). Prior to Dinsmoors publication Nis-sen and Penrose had argued that temples were aligned to sunrise on the day of the gods major festival (Nis-sen 1873:527528; Penrose 1893:380). The eastern orientation of Greek temples was explained as the result of Egyptian inluence (Nissen 1906:249).

The study presented here intends to offer a much needed structured and rigorous approach through the discipline of archaeoastronomy as prescribed by Aveni (2002), McCluskey (1982, 2004), and Ruggles (1984, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). These scholars have pioneered methods of archaeoastronomical research, leading to new directions with regard to the contribu-tion of archaeoastronomy to the reconstruction of past societies and practices (Ghezzi and Ruggles 2007), wherever possible in conjunction with ancient writ-ten sources (McCluskey 2006; Vail and Aveni 2004). This paper challenges for the irst time the argument that Greek temples had a predominantly eastern ori-entation, raising as a result serious doubts about the assumed role of the Sun in the orientation of many Greek temples. The study presents a general analy-sis of the orientation of 107 Greek temples from the

Greek mainland and the islands of the Aegean (Figure 1) collected by the author and covering a time period from 900 to 200 B.C. (Table 1). The analysis that fol-lows tests the existing ideas on the general orientation of Greek temples andthrough a quantitative assess-ment of the distribution of the orientationspresents new data in order to test current understanding of the role and function of the orientation of Greek temples. It demonstrates that Greek religious structures were placed over a far wider range than can be simply explained by a solar orientation.

Sample Description

The dataset of this study includes some of the most important and representative sites of the periods during which they were constructed and some of the earliest self-standing religious structures found in Greece from around 900 B.C. (e.g., Apollo Thermios, excluding the megara, the function of which has not been irmly established to this date). The region cov-ered by this study includes the area covered by the modern Greek state (Figure 1) rather than the world of Hellenic city-states as a whole, which extended from the western Mediterranean to the Black Sea. In the selection procedure of temples to be surveyed, no deities or types of sites have intentionally been given greater emphasis. This study includes the vast majority of religious sites that could be measured within the study area. All religious structures for which permission was given and whose preservation was suficient have been surveyed (including those of foreign deities).

The geographical area covered by the sample presented here includes the Greek mainland and the Aegean islands of Aigina, Delos, Kos, Naxos, Poros, Rhodes, Samos, and Tenos. The dataset includes different types of sites, including temples located in organically grown settlements that demonstrate the continuity of a cult over several successive temples constructed in the same location. Settlements that developed organically are important to this study, as they allow the examination of patterns of continu-ity and, more importantly, observations of changes in the orientation between successive structures. In some cases as many as four reconstructions of the same temple have been measured (e.g., the temples

6 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

ID Location Site Building Azimuth Altitude Declination

1 Acheron Oracle of the dead Main sanctuary 4 3 53 212 Acheron Oracle of the dead Palace of Hades & Persephone 4 0 50 13 Aegina Sanctuary of Aphaia Temple of Aphaia 67 1.5 18 354 Amphipolis Sanctuary of Attis Temple of Attis 101 4 -5 565 Amphipolis Thesmophorio Thesmophorio-Nymphaion 165 11 -36 286 Argos Heraion Old Temple of Hera 118 3 -19 127 Argos Heraion New Temple of Hera 119 3 -19 568 Athens Acropolis Parthenon 77 2 11 79 Athens Acropolis Temple of Athena Polias 85 3.5 5 4810 Athens Acropolis Erechtheion 353 3 54 1511 Athens Agora Metroon 102 4.5 -712 Athens Agora Temple of Apollo Patroos 97 4.5 -2 5913 Athens Agora Temple of Zeus & Athena Phatria 99 4.5 -4 3314 Athens Agora Hephaisteion 104 5 -8 615 Athens South slope Old Temple of Dionysos 75 3 13 2116 Athens South slope New Temple of Dionysos 75 4 14 0017 Bassae Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo 4 14 62 118 Calydon Ancient Calydon Temple of Apollo 129 1 -29 419 Calydon Ancient Calydon Heroon 180 0.5 -51 3620 Calydon Ancient Calydon Temple of Artemis 122 3 -22 3421 Corinth Agora Temple of Apollo 77 3 12 122 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Letoon 186 1 -51 4023 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Artemisio 108 3 -12 3724 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Temple G 347 2 52 1925 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Poros Temple of Apollo 265 0.5 -4 1126 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo (Athenians) 263 0.5 -5 2327 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Great Temple of Apollo 264 0.5 -4 5928 Delos Sanctuary of Apollo Dodekatheo 97 3.5 -3 3329 Delos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Heraion 172 7 -45 830 Delos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Serapeion C 178 2 -50 5231 Delos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Temple of Isis 268 0 -1 4532 Delos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Serapeion A 297 2 22 2433 Delos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Temple of Zeus 286 0 12 17 Hypsistos Mount Kythnos34 Delos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Artemis Locheia, 85 0 3 37 Hercules-Baal Zeboul, gods of Askalon35 Delos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Agathe Tyche 266 0 -3 3236 Delos Theatre district Aphrodision 170 9 -42 4537 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Athena Pronaia 177 7 -44 3438 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo 49 27 47 4939 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Apollo 49 27 47 4940 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Athena Pronaia 190 8 -42 4241 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple A 64 0 19 242 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple 1 70 0 14 37

Table 1. List of the structures included in the dataset of this study



43 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple B 78 0 8 3744 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple 2 71 0 13 5245 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Small temple with offering table 61 0 21 1246 Dion Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Isis 162 1 -46 747 Dion Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Hypolympia Aphrodite 68 0 16 648 Dion Temple of Zeus Temple of Zeus Hypsistos 150 1.5 -40 3249 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Aphrodite 116 8 -14 1550 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Themis 129 7 -23 5151 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Zeus (hiera oikia) 125 7.5 -20 5052 Dodona Oracle of Zeus New Temple of Dione 110 8 -9 5653 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Old Temple of Dione 176 12 -38 2354 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Hercules 158 3.5 -42 3555 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Megaron 111 2 -15 2756 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Solonion 115 2 -18 2957 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Peisistratid 115 2 -18 2958 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Ploutoneion 103 2 -9 1859 Gortyn Asklepieion Temple of Asklepios 108 20 -1 1260 Isthmia Sanctuary of Poseidon Old Temple of Poseidon 98 0 -6 3561 Isthmia Sanctuary of Poseidon New Temple of Poseidon 97 1 -5 462 Kos Asklepieion Large Temple of Asklepios 25 1 46 4763 Kos Asklepieion Prostyle Ionic Temple of 114 2 -18 13 Asklepios64 Lebadeia Temple of Zeus Temple of Zeus Vassileus 64 0 2065 Mantineia Agora Temple of Hera 93 8 2 3266 Mantineia Agora Podareion 86 8 8 367 Megalopolis Agora Temple of Zeus Soter 101 4.5 -5 5868 Messene Asklepieion Temple of Asklepios 115 11 -12 1169 Messene Asklepieion Temple of Artemis 129 11 -21 5670 Messene Asklepieion Artemision 115 11 -12 1171 Messene Asklepieion Oikos Asklepeiou & Paidon 215 1 -40 3072 Naxos City Temple of Apollo Portara 140 0 -38 673 Naxos Sanctuary of Dionysos Old Temple of Dionysos 203 4 -43 4674 Naxos Sanctuary of Dionysos Temple of Dionysos 202 4 -44 1175 Naxos Sagri Temple of Demeter 213 0 -42 3076 Nemea Sanctuary of Zeus Temple of Zeus 75 7 16 877 Nemea Sanctuary of Zeus Old Temple of Zeus 75 7 16 878 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Temple of Zeus 83 3 7 2879 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Heraion 87 2 3 3980 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Pelopeion 208 3 -42 881 Pella Thesmophorio Thesmophorio 267 2 -1 182 Pella Thesmophorio Thesmophorio 84 1 4 4783 Perachora Heraion Temple of Hera Akraia 93 12 5 484 Poros Sanctuary of Poseidon Temple of Poseidon 68 2 18 1385 Pylos Nestors Palace Hiero-Oplostasio 147 2 -37 1886 Pylos Nestors Palace Queens Hall SW entrance 220 0 -35 27

8 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY


87 Pylos Nestors Palace Megaron 147 3 -36 23 88 Rhodes City of Rhodes Temple of Aphrodite 93 0 -3 589 Rhodes Ialyssos Temple of Athena Polias & 184 0 -53 57 Zeus Polieos90 Rhodes Kameiros Temple of Pythian Apollo 357 0.5 53 3691 Rhodes Lindos, Acropolis Temple of Lindia Athena 34 0 41 2192 Samos Heraion Rhoecus Temple 79 0.5 8 4793 Samos Heraion Hekatombedon II 79 0.5 8 4794 Samos Heraion Greater Temple of Hera 79 0.5 8 2395 Samos Heraion Hekatombedon I 77 0.5 9 5796 Sikyon Acropolis & Agora Temple of Artemis or Apollo 95 2 -2 4997 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Temple of Poseidon 105 1 -11 3798 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Great Temple of Athena 98 1 -6 799 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Small Temple of Athena 103 1 -10 3100 Sparta Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia Temple of Artemis Orthia 100 4 -6 16101 Tegea Temple of Athena Alea Temple of Athena 87 5 5 24102 Tenos Sanctuary of Poseidon Building B 194 0 -50 47 & Amphitite103 Thermum Ancient Thermum Temple of Apollo 191 5 -45 26104 Thermum Ancient Thermum Megaron A 194 5 -44 44105 Thermum Ancient Thermum Megaron B 196 4 -45 9106 Tiryns Palace Temple of Hera 180 2 -50 42107 Tiryns Palace Megaron 180 2 -50 42

Table 1. (Cont.)

of Hera in Samos). Sites on coasts (e.g., Perachora), in plains (e.g., Messene, Athens), and on hilltops or mountains (e.g., the Menelaion near Sparta and the temple of Apollo at Bassae) are also included in the dataset. The sample contains not only temples that belonged to settlements of various sizes but also those with access to a number of different resources: some have limited local trade routes, while others were cosmopolitan trade centers and therefore subject to a variety of cultural inluences. The study also includes temple measurements from sanctuaries located out-side and on the boundaries of urban centers (e.g., the Thesmophorion-Nymphaion in Amphipolis) as well as temples independent of the control of a certain city (e.g., the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi). Wherever possible, cities that were planned from the outset and followed town-planning concepts and principles

before they were laid out have been included in the sample (e.g., Rhodes).

Field Methodology

The measurements comprising this study were col-lected using a magnetic compass and clinometer over four ield seasons. A compass, duly corrected for magnetic declination, will only determine the direc-tion relative to true north to an accuracy of around one degree. Taking into account the highest level of astronomical precision that the ancient Greeks would have been capable of measuring, this level of accuracy is considered adequate. Local magnetic anomalies were tested in two ways. Minor anomalies were tested by several measurements taken along each of the long walls of rectangular structures and from either end of the wall. Great magnetic anomalies that could have


FIGURE 1. Map of ancient Greece showing the sites included in this study. 107 measurements of temple orientations were collected from 42 sites. The map shows 40 sites. The two sites missing are located in Athens. The point for Athens cov-ers, therefore, three sites: the Acropolis, the south slope, and the Agora. Outline map created by R. A. LaFleur and Tom Elliott. Copyright 20002001, Ancient World Mapping Center, http://www.unc.edu/awmc.

affected a large geographical area were examined by studying the geology of sites prior to their survey.

The structures of this study were all of rectangular shape. To determine their orientation the magnetic bearing was recorded along each of the long walls from either end. In those cases where only half of the structure survived, the long and the short walls were measured from either end. This repetition of mea-surements was necessary to ensure the most accurate readings of the temples orientation. In addition to measuring the magnetic orientation of each structure, horizon proiles were also recorded for the horizon surrounding each structure. The horizon proiles were measured using a compass and a clinometer, and these measurements involved the combination of the

magnetic orientation of each point and the altitude of the horizon on that orientation. These measurements were repeated until the entire horizon proile was recorded, and all measurements were taken from the center of the temples entrance.

I have attempted to ensure that data collection was as inclusive as possible. And although decisions had to be made about what sites would be included, the decision to include temples was mostly driven by factors of site preservation and accessibility during ieldwork.

Data Reduction

This study improves the methods of analysis applied to the orientations compared with previous studies

10 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

by accounting for the height of the local horizon (altitude), refraction, and atmospheric extinction. The temple orientations have been converted to dec-linations using the command-driven DOS program GETDEC created by Clive Ruggles (http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/rug/aa/progs/decpak.html), which makes corrections for atmospheric refrac-tion and extinction (Table 1). In order to obtain the declination of a structure, GETDEC requires the structures latitude, the magnetic orientation, the horizons altitude, and the magnetic correction. This means that each declination obtained is speciic to the particular horizon and location. The term declination in this sense, used when discussing the orientation of a structure, needs to be explained. Declination is the angular distance between a celestial object and the celestial equator, whether to the north or the south; it is the celestial counterpart of terrestrial latitude. As a result, a structure as such cannot have a declina-tion. This term is employed throughout this paper in order to denote the exact part of the celestial sphere toward which the structure is oriented and to therefore be compared to the celestial objects with the same or similar declination or celestial latitude. In the present context the declination is more informative than the azimuth (bearing of magnetic compass) of a structure. This is because by using declination we instantly account for extinction, latitude, and the alti-tude of the local horizon aligned with the structures entrance. In addition, the use of declination enables a direct comparison between the orientation of a struc-ture and the position of a speciic celestial object, or a position on the horizon.

The declinations of horizon points indicate which celestial bodies rise and set there and (once preces-sion, refraction, atmospheric extinction, and proper motion are allowed for) which ones would have risen or set there at any given era in the past. Furthermore, by obtaining declinations for speciic points along a horizon (horizon proiles), we can calculate the declination of any point on the horizon proile and hence reconstruct the celestial bodies visible at that particular horizon at different times. The orientations were plotted in the form of cumulative frequency dis-tribution (curvigram). Each declination shown in the following graph is represented by a computed curve.

The peak of the curve is the deduced declination. The curve of each declination is centered on the median of all the measurements of the structures orientation and with a standard deviation determined by combining the standard deviation of those measurements with the uncertainty in the magnetic declination. These curves allow us, therefore, to investigate the patterns of emerging distribution, with the added advantage of avoiding the display of a false accuracy (given the limited precision of the instrument used) that a simple point in the place of the curve would have offered.

The Orientation of Greek Temples

Graph 1 shows the distribution of the deduced temple declinations. Three general groups of orientations are depicted in the graph. The largest group of measure-ments points broadly east and west, spanning the declination range -30 to +23 with distinct borders at the northern and southern ends. The vast majority of this group falls within the solar range (Graph 2, high-lighted section). Within this group there is a particular concentration of declinations between -8 and +8. This concentration, if interpreted in terms of sunrise or sunset, represents a range of dates falling roughly within one month of the equinoxes. If we were to argue that the position of the rising or setting Sun on the horizon at the time of the equinoxes was used as a factor in orienting some Greek religious structures, we would expect that the distribution of such a group of declinations would show an accumulation of data at the time of the actual equinox (declination 0). As shown in Graph 1, the dataset includes no structures oriented between 0 and 2, only two structures have declination -1, and one structure declination -2. This very distinct absence of data in the range of the Sun rising at the actual equinox may signify that the con-centration of data around the equinoxes, although empirically real, could be an example of unintended astronomical alignment by those who constructed it (Ruggles 2000b:152).

The declinations falling within the eastwest group comprise 65.3 percent of the total amount of data (70 measurements). Of the 70 measurements belonging to this group, eight face toward the west: the Poros temple of Apollo, the temple of the Athenians and Great temple of Apollo, the temples of Zeus Hypsistos


and Agathe Tyche on Mount Kythnos, the temple of Isis and the Serapeion A in the Sanctuary of Foreign Gods, all from the island of Delos, and the west entrance of the Thesmophorion in Pella. This result deduces that the eastern declinations are therefore 62, comprising 58 percent of the total sample collected for this study. This result conirms earlier indications that a large number of Greek temples face toward the east. However, the eastern orientations of this study comprise a considerably smaller part of the total

data than earlier conclusions: Dinsmoor argued that 73 percent of Greek temples were oriented within 60 of due east (1939:115116). The present sample indicates that the eastern-facing temples are not as predominant as previously thought, and in addition, the distribution of the orientations shows a much greater variation that cannot be ignored or explained by the movement of the Sun.

Graph 1 shows the presence of a second group of data formed toward the southern part of the sky,

GRAPH 1. The distribution of the orientations of 107 Greek temples from 900 to 200 B.C. The Y axis shows the temple count. The graph includes adjustments for standard deviation. Southern declinations are between -60 and -40 (to the left). Western and eastern declinations overlap in the center, and northern ones are between +40 and +70 (to the right).

GRAPH 2. Reproduction of the distribution of data, displaying the range of declinations visited by the Sun during its annual movement (-24 to +24) (highlighted section). In the highlighted area both eastern and western declinations are included. This group comprises 58 percent of the total sample facing toward eastern declinations and 7.4 percent of the total sample facing toward western declinations.

12 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

ranging between declinations -55 and -34. This group comprises 25.2 percent of the total sample (total number of measurements 27). As neither the Sun nor the Moon visit these declinations, if the orientation of these structures was related to astro-nomical observations, this could only involve stellar observations. The constellations rising and setting in the declinations covered by this group are Centaurus ( or for the Greeks), Lupus (for the Greeks a wineskin from which the Centaur was about to drink, or the Therion [], meaning wild animal), Ara (the Greeks called it Thytrion or Thysiasterion [ or ], mean-ing altar), Vela (for the ancient Greeks the sail of the constellation of Argo [Argo Navis]), the southern part of Sagittarius (for the Greeks Toxeutes or Toxotes [ or ], meaning archer), Phoe-nix (the Egyptian Bennu, possibly named Phoenix by the Greeks), and the southern part of Eridanus ( or in Greek, the latter meaning river). Although perhaps unintended, a concentra-tion of data is observed between declinations -42 to -46 of 13 structures. These structures do not indicate a preference with regard to a speciic deity, chrono-logical period, or geographic location. This subgroup includes hero cults (Pelopeion in Olympia and the temple of Herakles in Dodona), other chthonic cults like the two temples of Athena Pronaia in Delphi and the temple of Demeter in Naxos, temples constructed

over Mycenaean megara (Apollo in Thermon [three structures] and Dionysos in Naxos), a temple dedi-cated to a foreign deity (temple of Isis in Dion), as well as the Heraion (two temples) and the Aphrodi-sion in Delos.

Finally, a small cluster of data is observed in the northern declinations (+40 to +68) representing 8.4 percent of the total sample (nine measurements). This cluster includes only cults of Apollo and chthonic cults. The Apollo temples falling in this group are those in Delphi, Bassae, in Kameiros, Rhodes, and temple in Delos. Although these form a signiicant part of the surveyed temples dedicated to Apollo, it should be noted that the remaining surveyed temples of Apollo are oriented toward different parts of the horizon (Graph 3). The temple of Apollo in Corinth and that of Apollo Patroos in the Athenian Agora face the east; the temple of Apollo Erethymios in The-ologos, in Rhodes, is oriented to the northeast; that of Calydon is toward the southeast; and the temples of Apollo in Naxos and in Thermon face south. The northern orientation of the Delian temple , although of much earlier date, can be contrasted to the other Apollo temples on the island, all of which are oriented toward the west. It is possible that Apollo being the only ouranic deity represented in this northern group could be a deliberate choice, but further investigation is needed in order to examine possible reasons behind such a choice. Such a study would need to contain

GRAPH 3. Declinations of twelve temples dedicated to Apollo.


an in-depth analysis of each Apollo cult, the material culture, and the local horizon and landscape. A study of the Delphic temple of Apollo has indicated that its orientation may have been connected to stellar observations, and, more speciically, it seems possible that the orientation of the temple, the operation of the Delphic oracle, and the presence of Apollo in Delphi for a certain number of months may have been related to the movement of the constellation of Delphinus (Salt and Boutsikas 2005).

This group of northern orientations includes the following hero cults: the Doric temple of Asklepios in Kos, the north porch of the Erechtheion in Athens, and the axis of the oracle of the dead in Acheron, which also includes the underground palace of Hades and Persephone. Although the evolution of the cult of Asklepios from a mortal physician to a Thessalian hero, to a chthonic oracular demon to a Panhellenic Apollonian deity with mantic character is complex (Compton 2002:320321), in Kos his cult developed to an important state cult, retaining, however, its chthonic character. The temples of Asklepios in Kos have different orientations, but they all face the altar (from different directions). With regard to the Erech-theion, a recent study of the structure and the north porch indicates that the north porch and the west cella were of greater cultic signiicance to the east porch and cella and that this northern orientation may have been deliberate and associated with the movement of the constellation of Draco (Boutsikas 2007).

As is apparent from Graphs 1 and 2 and Table 1, the dataset presented here displays no preference toward the cardinal points. The largest number of data accu-mulation toward a cardinal point is that facing east, with, however, only ive structures facing within 3 of due east (just under 4.7 percent of the dataset). Three structures of the examined sample face due south (within 3), two in Tyrins and one in Calydon, and only one due north (Rhodes) and due west (Pella). The analysis of the sample demonstrates a distribution of orientations that is much wider than the range in the horizon visited by the Sun (Graph 2). It is evident that the movement of the Sun alone is not suficient to explain the orientation of Greek temples.

In examining the possibility of lunar associations, Graph 4 shows that the lunar rising or setting points in

the horizon do not seem to have been associated with the orientation of the temples either. The Moons path along the horizon is similar to that of the Sun, but it moves a little farther north and south (shaded darker in Graph 4). As such, it appears dificult to determine whether the orientations of the eastwest group could be associated with the movement of the Moon or that of the Sun. However, if the former were the case, we would expect to ind measurements falling also within the part of the horizon that is only visited by the Moon: declinations -24 to -30 and +24 to +28 (extending on either side of the solar range). Graph 4 shows explicitly that only one structure (the temple of Apollo in Calydon) is oriented within the space between the end of the solar range and the southern and northern major lunar limits.

The data have also been divided into chronological periods in order to investigate whether a practice of deliberate general orientation of Greek temples was introduced at a speciic period or whether, if present, it declined after a certain time. In the vast majority of re-ligious sites we encounter continuity in the construc-tion of religious buildings; the destruction of temples from natural disasters (e.g., the temple of Apollo at Delphi, destroyed in 373 B.C. by an earthquake) or by human action (e.g., the destruction of the temple of Poseidon at Sounion by the Persians) was followed by their replacement with new structures. The new temples were built either adjacent to or on top of the old foundations, always dedicated to the same deity. As ritual practice changes on a slow timescale even in cases of rapid social change, the chances of identify-ing trends are greater, as they may be sustained long enough to be picked up by the archaeological record (Ruggles 2000b:163).

The investigation of changes in orientation as a result of the precession of the equinoxes between successive building phases cannot be examined at this stage. In order to do so it is necessary to determine the celestial body toward which the structure was aligned, but such a conclusion needs to be determined through the examination of archaeological and liter-ary evidence rather than by using the orientation of subsequent structures in order to ix on a celestial body that simply shares the orientation. In the case of Greece there is no single celestial body that could

14 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

have determined the orientation of all or the majority of temples.

The declinations from this study were split into subgroups by chronological period as determined by archaeological inds: Geometric (900700 B.C.), Archaic (700480 B.C.), Classical (480330 B.C.), and Hellenistic (330 B.C.A.D. 14). The results of this analysis produce graphs that in terms of their dis-tribution patterns are similar to those of Graph 1. The two largest chronological groups were for the Archaic and Classical periods (Graphs 5 and 6, respectively). The distribution of the data from the Classical pe-

riod (Graph 6) is representative of those generated for the other periods also. As demonstrated also in these two representative graphs, this analysis shows no visible shift between the consecutive periods. The graphs generated by the division of the data into the aforementioned chronological periods depict the same three clusters of data that have been discussed previously (eastwest, northsouth).

A preliminary study of the sites included in this study indicates a frequent shift of orientation between earlier and later structures. The dataset includes, among other cases, four sites with four successive

GRAPH 4. Reproduction of the distribution of the dataset, with the annual path of the Moon shaded darker (-30 to +28), superimposed on the solar declination range.

GRAPH 5. Distribution of sample dating to the Archaic period (700480 B.C.) (30 structures).


reconstructions of the same temple (e.g., the Heraion of Samos and the temples of Dionysos in Sagri, Naxos), six sites with three successive reconstruc-tions (e.g., the temples of Apollo and Artemis on Delos), and nineteen sites with two reconstructions (e.g., the temples of Dionysos in Athens, the temples of Poseidon in Isthmia, and the temples of Demeter in Dion). In a number of cases two or more successive temples with different orientations fall in the same chronological subgroup (e.g., the two temples of Poseidon at Isthmia and the two temples of Asklepios in Kos). The general scheme of chronological periods, as given above, rests on identiied changes in tech-nology, the architectural development of structures, and changes in pottery and art. It becomes apparent that the boundaries of these periods are not directly applicable to a study that investigates successive religious structures.

Graph 7 shows the changes in the temple orienta-tions grouped according to successive structures. In the majority of the cases (18 out of 28) there is an observed change in orientation between successive temples. It is intriguing that in 17 cases out of 18 the change in orientation occurs between the irst temple and the second. Only in one case (the temple of Athena Pronaia in Delphi) do the irst and second structures have the same orientation with a change occurring in the third. The chronological division analysis and that of the orientation of consecutive structures makes

apparent the need for examining sites with continuity in the construction of religious structures individu-ally and within their religious context, regardless of modern views about the time frame of chronological periods.

The general distribution of temple orientations reveals clusters of data that may or may not be de-liberately placed by the groups who built them. For more conclusive arguments on either the dismissal of the possibility that Greek temples were astro-nomically oriented or, alternatively, in support of a case for deliberate astronomical orientation, further investigation of possible reasons and principles be-hind potential deliberate placing of temples would be necessary. The following section discusses such possibilities.

Discussion

Previous research by Dinsmoor, Penrose, and Nissen focused on the signiicance of the Sun in the orienta-tion of Greek temples. To this day this idea has been offered as the explanation for the general principles behind the orientation of temples. In doing so, how-ever, we overlook a very large body of data that falls outside positions in the horizon that are visited by the Sun. Dinsmoors ideas have persisted for years without any attempt at veriication or testing by other researchers who have used his results. This study forms the irst systematic collection and analysis of

GRAPH 6. Distribution of sample dating to the Classical period (480330 B.C.) (27 structures).

16 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

Greek temple orientations in more than a century. This study takes a irst step toward a systematic ap-proach by focusing on a geographically smaller area that has, however, been surveyed more thoroughly than before. The present dataset does not include temples from Asia Minor, Italy, and Sicily, as earlier researchers attempted. I believe that these areas need to be surveyed just as thoroughly and to be examined independently before we can attempt to put forward an all-encompassing model and interpretation of Greek temple orientations.

This paper provides hard evidence in order to dem-onstrate that care should be taken when making gen-eral statements about the direction of Greek temples, statements that unavoidably bear weight in what we perceive as determining factors for this orientation. The data presented here suggest that the Sun alone was not the all-encompassing phenomenon deter-mining the placement of the vast majority of Greek religious structures. In fact, this appears to be a gross oversimpliication of a much more complex and more interesting pattern of temple orientation and religious practice. The general analysis shows that 58 percent of the temple orientations falls within the points on the horizon that the rising Sun visits in a year and 7.3

percent within the points of the setting Sun. A total of 34.7 percent of the sample falls outside the solar range. This also indicates that we need to explore other ideas about temple orientation and that Panhel-lenic trends appear unlikely to explain this pattern. Had the Sun been the predominant factor determining orientation, we would expect temples to be oriented within the solar range alone or at the very least to ind only a few exceptions to this rule. The absence of measurements between the solar range limits and the major lunar limits (shaded darker in Graph 4), with the exception of one measurement, does not support a lunar explanation either. The Moon revisits positions in the horizon monthly. Exceptions to this are those declinations close to the major lunar limits that are visited annually (shaded darker in Graph 4). The prob-lems of using the Moon as a marker have been noted by ancient writers (Aristophanes Clouds 615626) and by modern researchers (Hannah 2005a:4750; Ruggles 1999:6063), as has the incompatibility of the calendars of the different Greek city-states (Hannah 2005a:48; Thucydides 5.19.1), and no fur-ther discussion is necessary here.

The general analysis presented here is understand-ably limited: it can enlighten insofar as it indicates

GRAPH 7. Changes in orientation between successive structures. Orientation measurements from 29 cults (of 72 successive structures).


patterns in the material record but tends to ignore the rich variety and diversity of symbolism that was almost certainly perceived in the celestial and terres-trial environment by a particular culture (Ruggles and Saunders 1993:16). Second, in addition to the problems encompassed in the concept of objective data, a general visual analysis (like the one presented here) eliminates the human factor in the depiction of trends and the creation of these trends as the result of social processes that cannot be subject to prediction or universal laws (Ruggles and Saunders 1993:17). Although it is acknowledged that the meaning and role of the night sky is neither self-evident nor com-mon between peoples and is, instead, subject to so-cial processes and use (Saunders 1991:13), because of the volume of data presented in this paper, only an analysis of orientation patterns can be presented here.

New Directions

Epigraphic, literary, and archaeological evidence attest that several minor games, competitions, and celebrations were held in Greek sanctuaries. Usually there was one major festival that was considered the largest and most important, held in honor of the deity to which the sanctuary and the main temple within it were dedicated. This festival would usually take place on a set day in the year, most commonly annually or, in the case of major Panhellenic sanctuaries, every two or four years, with minor celebrations on the same day in the other years. It was important to ensure that festivals were held on the correct day and that the calendar did not move out of season. Lunar calendars make such a requirement dificult. The Greeks were well aware that the lunar cycle (approximately 29.5 days) does not it into a year comprised of 365 days. They compensated for this by intercalating an extra month approximately every three years. Each polis had its own calendar, with different month names and intercalation times. In addition, although the new months would always start with the sighting of the new Moon, this was determined by local observa-tions, was far from ixed, and was subject to manipula-tion (Aristophanes Clouds 1134; Trmpy 1997:1, 5). Those festivals that attracted participants from across Greece demanded a more Panhellenic timekeeping

method in order for other cities to know that the time for a certain festival was arriving.

If we suppose for a moment that temples pointed toward a part of the horizon in which a certain astro-nomical phenomenon was observed or predicted at the time when the annual festival was to be held, this phenomenon had to be annual, like the religious fes-tivals, and connected either to stellar (i.e., the heliacal rising or setting of stars, apparent acronychal rising, apparent cosmical setting) or to solar observations (i.e., the point on the horizon where the Sun rises on a speciic day in the year). As the solar explanation can be eliminated at least for the data falling outside the solar range, we may examine the possibility of stellar associations. Homeric references (circa 750 B.C.) to such stellar observations (Iliad 18.483489, 22.2631), Hesiods Works and Days (383384, 609611) (circa 700 B.C.), and the use of parapegmata from at least the ifth century B.C. (Hannah 2005b) testify that alternative timekeeping methods to the lunisolar cal-endar were known and practiced by the Greeks since the Geometric period. These methods were thus avail-able in those cases when precise timekeeping was of the essence, such as the performance of agricultural activities. In the religious sphere we know that the gods had to receive their sacriices at the correct time every year (Aristophanes Clouds 615626). The use of star calendars for religious purposes is much easier to demonstrate during and after the Classical period. Astronomical observations based on the fourth-cen-tury paragegma of Eudoxos are displayed in an Egyp-tian papyrus from Hibeh, a festival calendar dating to 300 B.C. that recorded astronomical movements of interest to the religious authorities, assisting in the keeping of the festival celebrations: in time with the agricultural seasons to which the cults were attached (Hannah 2005a:62). Parapegmata may have been used throughout the Greek city-states in order to assist with the timing of the religious festivals (in addition to other functions). The example of the Pythais in Athens (the religious procession that the Athenians sent to Delphi every year) demonstrates clearly that watching the skies for a sign (in the case of the Pythais a meteorological sign) before commencing a religious procession was a reality in ancient Athens, at least from the second century B.C. (Dillon 1997:24,

18 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

234n118). Rising and setting stars span the entire range of declinations. The plethora of stars in the night sky means there is a strong risk of identifying totally spurious correlations between structure orientations and stellar bodies. Thus, it is essential that appropriate criteria are employed in order to avoid random and ungrounded associations. For a convincing case to be made, a study of the orientation of a structure must draw upon epigraphic, historical, mythological, and archaeological evidence when considering possible correlations. The simple association of stellar bodies to a structure that is purely based on the structures orientation is no longer suficient.

Preliminary results from the oracle of Apollo in Delphi (Salt and Boutsikas 2005), the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta (Boutsikas 2008), and the Erechtheion (Boutsikas 2007:119145) suggest that there may be a connection between the timing of a religious activity and a stellar event visible in the part of the horizon toward which the main temple in the sanctuary was oriented. The temples of Artemis Orthia in Sparta and Apollo in Delphi may well have been oriented toward the heliacal rising of a particular star or constellation, and in the case of the Erechtheion the associated cult rites seem to be tightly timed at the most signiicant phases of the culmination of a constellation associated with the myths surround-ing the structure and the Acropolis. The association between the deity and the speciic constellation is demonstrated in all three cases by mythology, by the connection between the movement of the constella-tion and the timing of the annual festival, by ancient historical records, by archaeological inds, and by the foundation myth of the cult. Such a network of inter-locking relationships is hardly surprising: throughout archaeological and anthropological research we learn about the enmeshing of landscapes and places with meanings and symbolism and the necessity of hu-man actions to maintain the cosmic balance (Ruggles 1999:120121). Greek religious practice and cult in its early stages prior to the development of temples were performed in the open air. This implies that normally cult practices and ritual preceded temple construction. Further studies will establish whether temple orientation is in fact strongly contextual and largely determined by local rather than regional

trends in cult practice, in other words, whether the construction and orientation of a temple were unique and historically situated within the particular group that built it.

Acknowledgments

This project would not have been possible without the cooperation of the following Greek Ephorates of Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities who have kindly given me permission to survey the archaeological sites included in this study: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I am also very grateful to the British School at Athens for awarding me the Richard Bradford Mc-Connell Fund for Landscape Studies in 2004, which funded the survey of the majority of the sites in the Aegean islands, and to Professor Ilias Mariolakos for his help with questions of a geological nature. Finally, but by no means least, I am indebted to Professor Robert Hannah, Professor Graham Shipley, and Pro-fessor Clive Ruggles for their feedback and valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

ReferencesAveni, Anthony F.2002 Conversing with the Planets: How Science and Myth

Invented the Cosmos. Revised edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Beyer, A. 1990 Die Orientierung griechischer Tempel. Zur Bezie-

hung von Kultbild und Tr. In Licht und Architektur, edited by W.-D. Heilmeyer and W. Hoepfner, pp. 19. Ernst Wasmuth, Tbingen.

Boutsikas, Efrosyni 2007 Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An Application

of Archaeoastronomy to Greek Religious Architec-ture, Cosmologies and Landscapes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester.

2008 The Cult of Artemis Orthia in Greece: A Case of Astronomical Observations? In Lights and Shadows in Cultural Astronomy. Proceedings of the SEAC 2005, Isili, Sardinia, 28 June3 July, edited by Mauro P. Zedda and Juan Belmonte, pp. 197205. Associazione Archeoila Sarda, Isili.

Compton, Michael T.2002 The Association of Hygieia with Asklepios in

Graeco-Roman Asklepieion Medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 57:312329.


Dillon, Matthew 1997 Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece. Rout-

ledge, London.Dinsmoor, William Bell1939 Archaeology and Astronomy. Proceedings of the

American Philosophical Society 80:95173.Ghezzi, Ivan, and Clive Ruggles2007 Chankillo: A 2300-Year-Old Solar Observatory in

Coastal Peru. Science 315:12391243.Hannah, Robert2005a Greek and Roman Calendars. Constructions of Time

in the Classical World. Duckworth, London.2005b Euctemons Parapgma. In Science and Mathemat-

ics in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by C. J. Tuplin and T. E. Rihll, pp. 112132. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McCluskey, Stephen C.1982 Archaeoastronomy, Ethnoastronomy, and the His-

tory of Science. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 385:342351.

2004 Astronomy, Time and Churches in the Early Middle Ages. In Villards Legacy: Studies in Medieval Technol-ogy, Science and Art in Memory of Jean Gimpel, edited by M. Zenner, pp. 197210. Ashgate, Aldershot.

2006 Medieval Liturgical Calendar, Sacred Space, and the Orientation of Churches. In Time and Astronomy in Past Cultures, edited by A. Soltysiak, pp. 139148. Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Torun and Warsaw.

Mikalson, Jon D.2005 Ancient Greek Religion. Blackwell Publishing, Ox-

ford.Nissen, Heinrich1873 ber Tempel-Orientierung. Erster Artikel. Rhein-

isches Museum 28:513557.1906 Orientation. Studien zur Geschichte der Religion.

Weidmann, Berlin.Penrose, Francis C.1893 On the results of an Examination of the Orientations

of a Number of Greek Temples with a View to Con-nect these Angles with the Amplitudes of Certain Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and an Endeavour to Derive therefrom the Dates of their Foundation by Consideration of the Changes

Produced upon the Right Ascension and Declination of the Stars by the Precession of the Equinoxes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of

London, series A, 184:805834.Ruggles, Clive L. N. 1984 Megalithic Astronomy: A New Archaeological and

Statistical Study of 300 Western Scottish Sites. BAR British Series 123. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1999 Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

2000a Ancient AstronomiesAncient Worlds. Journal for the History of Astronomy: Archaeoastronomy

Supplement 25:S6576.2000b The General and the Speciic: Dealing with Cultural

Diversity. Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of As-tronomy in Culture 15:151177.

Ruggles, Clive L. N., and Nick J. Saunders 1993 The Study of Cultural Astronomy. In Astronomies

and Cultures. Papers Derived from the Third Ox-

ford International Symposium on Archaeoastrono-

my, St. Andrews, United Kingdom, September 1990, edited by Clive L. N. Ruggles and Nick J. Saunders, pp. 131. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Salt, Alun, and Efrosyni Boutsikas2005 Knowing When to Consult the Oracle at Delphi.

Antiquity 79:564572.Saunders, Nick J. 1991 The Jaguars of Culture: Symbolising Humanity in

Pre-Columbian and Amerindian Societies. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeol-ogy, Southampton University.

Scully, Vincent1979 The Earth, the Temple and the Gods. Greek Sacred

Architecture. Revised edition. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Trmpy, Catherine1997 Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monats-

namen und Monatsfolgen. Universittsverlag C. Winter, Heidelberg.

Vail, Gabrielle, and Anthony F. Aveni 2004 The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Under-

standing an Ancient Maya Manuscript. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Documents

Astronomical Orientation Greek Temples