Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for ...€¦ · Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece Author(s): Efrosyni

Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece

Author(s): Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Vol. 115, No. 1 (January 2011), pp. 55-68

Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from ��146.245.216.16 on Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:32:13 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttps://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011) 55–6855

Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for Archaeoastronomy in

Ancient GreeceEfrosyni Boutsikas and ClivE rugglEs

AbstractThe study of astronomical knowledge and observations

in ancient cultures has enabled and enriched archaeologi-cal interpretations in contexts as diverse as pre-Columbian America, later prehistoric Europe, Egypt, Babylonia, and the Far East. The application of archaeoastronomy to the study of ancient Greek religion has been less successful and has been hampered by poor practice. Through a case study that investigates the astronomy in Alcman’s Partheneion and its possible relationship with the Artemis Orthia rites carried out at her sanctuary in Sparta, we aim to show that a robust and methodologically sound archaeoastronomical approach can contribute to a better understanding of the role of astronomy in Greek religious practice and perceptions of the cosmos.*

introduction

Archaeoastronomy can be defined as the study of beliefs and practices concerning the sky in the past and the way people used their understanding of the skies.1 If we are concerned with any aspect of how people conceived the world within which they dwelt, we must be cognizant that the totality of the visible environ-ment they perceived included not only the landscape but also the (day and night) sky.2 Furthermore, it is a part of the environment that is especially valuable to the archaeologist or historian because we can recon-struct ancient skies from our knowledge of modern as-tronomy;3 in other words, the sky forms a part of their perceived world that is directly visible to us.

Archaeoastronomy has facilitated and enriched ar-chaeological interpretations attempting to reconstruct rituals, timekeeping, and the location and design of re-ligious, funerary, and domestic structures. As a method of inquiry, archaeoastronomy has achieved particular

impact in the study of pre-Columbian America,4 in prehistoric Britain and Ireland,5 and in a range of preliterate cultures making naked-eye observations of the sky.6 However, there is no hard boundary either between archaeological and historical (preliterate vs. literate) nor (from an anthropological perspective) between those cultures generally perceived as lying within or outside the historical progression toward modern western science. Thus, the extensive work that has been undertaken on ancient Babylonian7 and Egyptian astronomy,8 as well as cross-disciplin-ary approaches to medieval Europe,9 are also validly viewed as archaeoastronomy. Such studies have been influential in producing reconstructions of past belief systems encompassing ancient views and concepts of the cosmos.

For ancient Greek culture, however, there have long been issues in integrating the text-based ap-proaches of classicists and ancient historians with the archaeologists’ focus on the material record. When it comes to ancient Greek astronomy, this dichotomy has been reflected in particularly stark contrast to the work of classicists and historians of astronomy—who study Greek astronomical practices and knowledge through epigraphic and textual material,10 who focus on astronomy as a science, and whose approach has been generally accepted as mainstream—and that of early archaeoastronomers, who focused exclusively on temple orientations, who aimed to interpret Greek astronomy in the context of religious practice, and whose work is generally viewed with suspicion by schol-ars and hence ignored, if not rejected outright.11 The one idea that successfully filtered through to archae-ologists at large was the broad conception that Greek

* Translations are by the author unless otherwise noted.1 Ruggles 2005a, 11.2 Ruggles 2005b, 224.3 Ruggles 2000a.4 Aveni 2001; Ruggles and Urton 2006a.5 Ruggles 1999.6 E.g., Selin 2000; Lull 2006.

7 Neugebauer 1955, 1975; Britton and Walker 1996; Steele and Imhausen 2002.

8 Parker 1950, 1974; DeYoung 2000; Lull 2004.9 McCluskey 1998, 2006.10 E.g., Lehoux 2006, 2007; Jones 2002, 2003.11 von Gerkan 1924, 74–82; Dinsmoor 1939, 120, 146; Stec-

chini (n.d.).



EFROSYNI BOUTSIkAS AND CLIvE RUGGLES56 [AJA 115

temples face eastward toward sunrise. In fact, the sort of criticisms leveled by Greek archaeologists (e.g., that the “naive” archaeoastronomical approach failed to produce anthropologically and archaeologically rel-evant interpretations and developed models that were detached from contextual evidence)12 paralleled those applied to the work of the first archaeoastronomers elsewhere during the early and mid 20th century.13 Unlike the situation in Britain and indeed extensively across the world—where archaeoastronomy has come to contribute valuably to cognitive and landscape archaeology14—in Greece, the earlier work was never properly critiqued, and so such studies stagnated. At a time when landscape studies suggest the need for a reassessment of previous concepts on the role of Greek religious space and landscape,15 it is necessary to reassess our ideas of the contribution that the field of archaeoastronomy can have on our understanding of Greek culture.

It is clear that astronomy did play a crucial role in Greek religion and cult practices. The nocturnal char-acter of some Greek religious festivals (e.g., the Arre-phoria, the Eleusinian Mysteries, the Thesmophoria)16 performed in open space, with little artificial light, suggests the importance of the celestial dome that encircled these performances, integrating the sky in the cult experience. In addition, the fundamental importance of astronomy and time measurement to coordinate religious festivals is supported by the dis-covery of sundials in the Temple of Apollo in klaros (Hellenistic)17 and in the Amphiareion at Oropos in Attica,18 as well as the discovery of the Hibeh papyrus (third century B.C.E.), which recorded astronomical movements associated with religious festivals to Ath-ena, Prometheus, and Hera.19 Watching the sky for signs of divine intervention was common in Greece, as, for example, in the arrival of Zeus at Thebes in the form of lightning.20 Similarly, at Athens, the Pythaistai (documented from at least as early as the fourth cen-tury B.C.E.)21 spent three days and nights in each of three months in anticipation of a divine sign to start the procession to Delphi.22 The earliest and most

striking example of an astronomical observation con-nected to religious practice is the case of the inhabit-ants of keos, who, according to the sources, watched the sky for the arrival of Sirius and offered sacrifices to the Dog Star and Zeus.23 It seems incongruous, then, that the night sky is not generally taken into ac-count in either historical or archaeological studies of Greek religion.

Our aim in this paper is to suggest ways in which we can develop robust and methodologically sound cognitive interpretations of the role of astronomy in Greek religious practice and perceptions of the cos-mos. Our starting point is a reexamination of previous methodology and research on the role of astronomical observations in Greek religion, particularly the role of celestial referents in the orientation of religious architecture. Then, drawing on the results of a new systematic study of the role of astronomical observa-tions in Greek religious practice,24 and taking into account successful applications of archaeoastronomy in other cultural contexts, we consider how archaeo-astronomy in Greece can achieve a successful transi-tion from uncontextualized “alignment studies” to an integrated study taking the orientation data into consideration but only as one aspect of the range of available evidence, both archaeological and historical. We conclude with a case study, that of the Temple of Artemis Orthia in Sparta.

temples and alignments: past approaches and methodologies

Despite the different research paradigms and ap-proaches that have characterized investigations into Greek temple alignments from the 19th century down to the present day, certain broad questions motivate all of them. For example, did the positioning and layout of religious structures in ancient Greece incorporate astronomical observations, at least in a way that is recov-erable from the archaeological record? And, if so, were the celestial referents that can be retrieved from the material evidence vital to the timing, and indeed the very nature, of the cult practices performed there?

12 E.g., Penrose 1893a; Nissen 1906.13 E.g., Ruggles and Whittle 1981; Heggie 1982. Such ap-

proaches were, e.g., those of Norman Lockyer and Alexander Thom in the United kingdom.

14 E.g., Ruggles 1999; Aveni 2008.15 E.g., Ingold 1993; Tilley 1994; Alcock 2002; Cole 2004.16 E.g., Ar. Ran. 342–43; Burkert 1985, 228.17 Gibbs 1976, 270.18 Gibbs 1976, 240; Hannah 2009, 122–25. A sundial has

also been located in the vicinity of the Theater of Dionysos in Athens (Hannah 2009, 127).

19 P. Hibeh fr. c, col. v, line 77; P. Hibeh fr. d, col. vi, line 85; P. Hibeh frr. e, g, h, col. viii, line 112; Grenfell and Hunt 1906; Hannah 2005, 62.

20 Eur. Bacch. 6–10.21 Dillon 1997, 37.22 Dillon 1997, 24.23 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.516–27; Diod. Sic. 4.82.1–3; Theophr.

De ventis 14. The rite seems to date to at least the fourth cen-tury B.C.E. (Burkert 1987, 109–11; Davidson 2007, 207).

24 Boutsikas 2007.



ARCHAEOASTRONOMY IN ANCIENT GREECE2011] 57

Research on Greek temples carried out in the 19th and 20th centuries was strongly influenced by con-current archaeoastronomical research on Egyptian temples, giving rise to an interpretative paradigm in which light from the sun on a particular day of the year (and hence aligned in the right direction) would enter through the temple doors, penetrate into the temple adyton (innermost and most sacred chamber), and illuminate the cult statue, this moment marking the climax of the religious festival.25 Unfortunately, such reconstructions are unsubstantiated by any ar-chaeological or historical evidence and overlook the existence of windows and roof openings, common ar-chitectural features of Greek temples that would surely have had a dramatic effect on their illumination. Wall openings in temples (in the form of a window placed either on the long walls or on the wall above the en-trance) are present from as early as the eighth century B.C.E. These features are seen in the early clay models of temples and, for example, in the apsidal Temple of Hera in Perachora and the first Heraion of Samos. These features continue to be present in later years, as, for example, in the temples of Zeus at Labranda and Artemis at Ephesos. Side entrances, another com-mon feature, would also affect the illumination of a structure by allowing sunlight to enter the entire cella (main chamber) without directing it only to its center. Such entrances are attested for the temples of Apollo in Bassae and Athena Alea in Tegea.

Nonetheless, the researchers who considered this topic, from the late 19th century onward, concentrated almost exclusively on temple orientations to the extent that identifying suitable astronomical orientations be-came an end in itself. A common characteristic of these early studies was that they presupposed the existence of an astronomical correlation and attempted to deter-mine which celestial body was targeted by the main axis of any given temple. An example is Nissen’s treatment of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia. In his initial treat-ment of the temple, he appears uncertain about which astronomical association should be assigned, leading

him to conclude that the temple “is at least oriented to the September full moon.”26 In a later study, the same temple was related to sunrise 17–18 days before the equinox,27 while maintaining also a stellar correlation between the temple axis and α Aquilae.28

Nissen’s general approach was followed by Penrose and half a century later by Dinsmoor. All of them were prepared to consider solar, lunar, or stellar interpre-tations of the temples’ alignments, following a sort of “recipe book” approach in which they first sought a solar target to “explain” an alignment, and then, if needed, a lunar target, and finally, as a last resort, a star.29 Archaeoastronomers have largely resolved the problem by documenting alignments in terms of (astronomical) declinations, which give a direct indi-cation of the astronomical possibilities (i.e., of what would have passed through a given point in the sky, or risen or set at a given point on the horizon, at a given date) without the prior choice of any particular tar-get.30 Typically, then, one specifies a given alignment in terms of the azimuth (orientation clockwise from true north), horizon altitude (vertical angle between the horizon in that direction and the plane of the ob-server), and declination.

The issue of putative orientations on stellar targets is complicated by the fact that the paths of the stars through the sky, although not seen to change on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis, alter significantly over a few centuries.31 This—when combined with the archaeological uncertainties in dating the construc-tion of any structure, the large number of stars in the sky, and factors such as atmospheric extinction that affect a star’s visibility—means that it can be mislead-ing to identify a particular star as the intended target on the basis of alignment alone. The circular argu-ment is completed when, as was common among the earliest archaeoastronomers, an alignment on an as-sumed stellar target (presumed to have been defined with suitable precision) is used to calculate a putative date of construction within the range allowed by the archaeological evidence.32

25 Penrose 1893b, 383; Nissen 1906, 122; see also Liritzis and vassiliou 2006, 14. A similar example of this approach—attempting, however, a more contextual interpretation—is that of the Temple of Apollo in Bassae, which has been argued to have been illuminated by the rising sun shining through its eastern (side) entrance (Cooper 1968, 106–11).

26 Nissen 1887, 38.27 Nissen 1906, 200.28 Nissen 1887, 39; 1906, 201.29 Cf. Aveni 1988, 444.30 Declination is essentially latitude on the celestial sphere,

which, from a fixed point on the earth, can be imagined as

spinning around on its axis once a day with the stars affixed to it (only the upper half being visible above the local horizon at any given time). Any given star moves daily around a line of fixed declination, rising and setting every day at the same place (but not at the same time; this varies gradually through the year). Thus, the declination of a horizon point gives an indication of which stars will rise or set there. The sun, moon, and planets move around gradually among the stars, so their declination varies; see also infra n. 89. For a fuller explana-tion, see Ruggles 1999, 18.

31 Ruggles 2005b, 345–47.32 See, e.g., Ruggles 1999, 230 n. 20.




There is also a long-term, although less marked, change in the rising and setting positions of the sun at a given time in the solar year, as, for example, at the solstices, and also in the corresponding (but more complex) rising and setting positions of the moon. The shift in the rising or setting position of the sun at the solstices is equal to about its own diameter in 4,000 years.33 Despite the minuscule nature of this change, even on a timescale of centuries, Penrose devised a so-lar alignment dating method for Greek temples and, going beyond even the circular argument just men-tioned, proceeded to suggest construction dates that conflicted with the archaeological evidence.34

A related problem is that of overprecision. Penrose’s work was distinctive in emphasizing the need for ex-treme accuracy. Criticizing Nissen’s use of a magnetic compass, he insisted on measuring the orientation of the temple’s main axis using a theodolite, quoting his measurements to the nearest minute of arc.35

To clarify this issue, it is necessary to distinguish between three different concepts:36

1. The precision of our measurements, meaning the degree of agreement between repeated measure-ments of the same thing—in this case, the same structural orientation.

2. The accuracy of our measurements, meaning the degree of agreement between our measurement of a structural orientation and its actual value.

3. The precision of the original construction—for example, the degree to which a structure was actually aligned on (say) an astronomical target while still being considered or conceptualized as aligned on that target.37

A given degree of precision is not a guarantee of a similar degree of accuracy, owing to the possibility of systematic error.38 Ironically, an inherent false preci-sion is evident in Penrose’s measurements from his own corrections of his earlier measurements.39

What we might call the intended precision intro-duces the cultural context in the form of the following question: even if one could define a structural orienta-tion observed in the material record to 1' of arc and measure it to this accuracy, is there any reason to be-

lieve that the cultural significance of the orientation operated at anything like this level of precision? Pen-rose did assume that the orientation of Greek temples was calculated with extreme precision in order for the illumination to take place on the correct day, but, as is evident from the inherent false precision, his evi-dence, in fact, gives no support to what is already a dangerously ethnocentric assumption.

This said, we can return to the basic argument by both Nissen and Penrose that Greek temples were aligned to sunrise on the day of the god’s major festi-val.40 The idea that all Greek temples were aligned to face sunrise (on some day of the year) can be tested in a relatively straightforward manner by examining the spread of orientations of a suitable sample of temples and determining the percentage that fall within the solar rising arc. Dinsmoor reexamined Nissen’s data in the 1930s and concluded that 73% of a sample of about 100 Greek temples were oriented within 30° of due east, thus supporting Nissen and Penrose’s conclusions.41 The sample of this study covered a large geographical area that stretched as far east as Asia Minor and as far west as southern Italy. However, an independent survey of a more concise geographical area, which compris-es a sample of 107 temples from what is modern-day Greece, shows that only 58% of the structures were oriented within the arc of sunrise.42 We can still accept that the sun might have played a role in the orienta-tion of Greek temples, but we need to account for the 42% of the Greek temples that are oriented outside the range of the rising sun on the horizon.

Finally, there is a danger of false precision in de-termining the Gregorian dates (and hence the posi-tion of sunrise) corresponding to the ancient Greek religious festivals. The timing of these was determined within the ancient Greek state calendar, which, being luni-solar,43 means that they cannot be fixed within the Gregorian year to better than three weeks. Penrose certainly fell into this trap,44 both in declaring the date of the Niketeria festival to be 4 September (in fact, it was held on 2 Boedromion, which could fall at any time between mid September and mid October) and the Theseia festival to be 8–9 October (which was

33 Ruggles 1999, 57.34 Penrose 1892, 395; 1893b, 383.35 E.g., Penrose 1900, 612.36 Cf. Ruggles 1999, ix.37 There is also the question of the degree to which the

structural orientation that remains in today’s material record reflects the orientation of the structure as originally built, but this is not of significance to our argument here.

38 E.g., Whyte and Paul 1997, 10–11.39 Thus, the orientation of the Temple of Apollo in Delphi

was measured as 227° 53' in 1887 but 227° 8' in 1901, while that of the Temple of Zeus Olympios in Athens was initially measured as 257° 35' (with a horizon altitude of 0° 35') but changed in 1899 to 258° 44' with an altitude of 1° 55' (Penrose 1899, 371).

40 Nissen 1873, 527–28; Penrose 1893b, 380.41 Dinsmoor 1939, 115.42 Boutsikas 2008, 2009.43 Hannah 2009, 27.44 Penrose 1892, 396.




held on 8 Pyanepsion and fell between mid October and mid November).

methodological advances

How did archaeoastronomy manage to progress be-yond “the naive approach” in other parts of the ancient world? The general answer is through its “increased contextualization,”45 a process that arguably began with broad-based, interdisciplinary investigations of various aspects of Mesoamerican calendrics, sacred architecture, and worldview in the 1970s.46 These moved well beyond the so-called alignment studies that up until that time had almost exclusively char-acterized archaeoastronomical studies in prehistoric Europe and elsewhere. This new approach did not spell an end to astronomical studies of architectural alignments but helped contextualize them by stressing the need for secure theoretical foundations, plausible theories that explain why different peoples in a range of cultural contexts might have created such align-ments, and how the people themselves might have viewed and used them.47

Progress in interpreting putative astronomical alignments encapsulated in architecture has led to developments in methodology. The “fundamental methodological problem”48 is that any architectural alignment must point somewhere, and there is a mul-titude of possible astronomical targets, so that the mere existence of an astronomical alignment proves nothing: it could have arisen fortuitously through a combination of factors quite unrelated to astronomy. Thus, to avoid meaningless “butterfly collecting,” one needs other evidence to support the idea that a given alignment was in fact intentional. One method of do-ing this, much favored by British archaeoastronomers during the 1980s and 1990s, is to focus on groups of similar and related monuments and to identify re-peated trends that are strong enough to be statistically verifiable. This method has been successful in dem-onstrating, for example, the lunar significance of the recumbent stone circles, a group of later prehistoric stone circles of a distinctive design in eastern Scot-land,49 and the solar significance of the seven-stone antas, a distinctive type of dolmen found in central Portugal and western Spain.50 In the latter case, for example, all 177 measurable examples have their prin-cipal axis oriented within the solar rising arc.

However, simply identifying large data sets can-not guarantee patterns of consistent behavior strong enough to result in repeated and statistically verifi-able trends in the material record. For example, tem-ple sites (platforms and enclosures) are ubiquitous throughout Polynesia, but attempts to group those found in certain parts of Polynesia and analyze their orientations have proved unsuccessful.51 More recent studies that take into account evidence from oral history have demonstrated convincingly that some temple orientations in the Hawaiian Islands do relate to the sun and others to the Pleiades, but that only specific temples, such as those associated with agri-culture or dedicated to particular gods, follow those orientations.52 This raises the possibility that a similar principle might apply to Greek temples, whereby as-tronomical symbolism incorporated in the temple ar-chitecture might depend on the god or cult to which the temple was dedicated.

As the Hawaiian example illustrates, context pro-vides supporting evidence for an alignment. Such evidence may come from the archaeological record or from related historical sources. Thus, for example, the so-called Governor’s Palace at the Maya city of Ux-mal is aligned with the southernmost rising point of venus:53 yet this would never have been recognized but for the presence of hundreds of venus symbols on the facade.54 The essential difference between sta-tistical verification and contextual evidence is that the latter is vital to providing any interpretation; the statistical evidence merely serves to affirm that a set of structures were intentionally aligned to a given tar-get and does not by itself yield any information about their purpose.

The other inherent limitation of the statistical evidence is that people (unlike laws of the physical universe) do not behave with absolute consistency, however powerful and restrictive the protocols gov-erning their behavior. Thus, any repeated trends that might serve to reveal those protocols will be diluted by variants specific to a particular place, time, and context. Likewise, attempts to provide interpretations specific to a particular place and time by integrating a broader range of historical and material evidence—however “theoretically aware” and well contextual-ized—often arbitrarily select and interpret material data, such as instances of astronomical alignments.55

45 Ruggles and Urton 2006b, 2.46 E.g., Aveni and Urton 1982.47 E.g., Iwaniszewski 2001.48 Ruggles 2000b; 2005b, 261–65.49 Ruggles and Burl 1985.50 Hoskin 2001.

51 Ruggles 2006a, 263.52 kirch 2004; Ruggles 2006b.53 Sprajc 1993, 272–73; see also Aveni 1997, 139–42.54 Bricker and Bricker 1996, 198–201.55 Cf. Ruggles 1994, 498–99.




This opens them up to the same accusations of sub-jectivity as have been leveled at some of the “phe-nomenological” approaches to the interpretation of archaeological landscapes.56

It would be premature to claim that archaeoastron-omy has succeeded in developing generic methodolo-gies for integrating alignment data with other forms of archaeological, historical, and empirical evidence. In the case of any specific structural orientation, there is clearly a spectrum of possibilities, varying from one extreme—where there is very direct and specific evi-dence relating to how its alignment was used (at best, an unambiguous written description)—to the other extreme—where the supporting evidence for believing it to be intentional is very circumstantial indeed.

It is fair to say, however, that archaeoastronomers have become aware of the need to employ both gen-eral (statistically rigorous, scientific) and specific (in-terpretative, contextual, historical) approaches57 and to devise suitable ways of balancing them against each other in different cases, producing plausible inter-pretations across a wide range of cultural contexts.58 In the case study presented here, we attempt to show how such principles might be developed within inves-tigations of the role of astronomy in ancient Greek religious practice.

integrating archaeological, literary, and astronomical evidence: artemis orthia in sparta

The most widely known cult site of Artemis Orthia is located in Sparta. The Early Geometric altar (ca. 950–850 B.C.E.), the earliest surviving structure at the sanctuary, is located where an earlier earthen altar is believed to have existed.59 This first structure was re-placed by altars built in the Archaic (ca. 700 B.C.E.), Classical (ca. 450 B.C.E.), and Roman (250 C.E.) pe-riods.60 All were constructed on the same spot and following the same orientation/axis (fig. 1). The first temple to Artemis Orthia, constructed sometime ca. 700 B.C.E.,61 was replaced by another, built in the sixth century B.C.E., 62 which was displaced to the north and overlapped the northern part of the earlier structure

(fig. 2). The orientation of the new temple (which was surveyed along with the horizon altitude in 2002 by one of the authors using a magnetic compass, or clinom-eter) was slightly shifted so as to face farther south of east (the azimuth changing from ca. 93° to 100°), but it remained unaltered when the temple was rebuilt again in the Hellenistic period (second century B.C.E.). That temple remained in use until the second half of the fourth century C.E.,63 when the site is thought to have been abandoned. A century before the site fell out of use, the Roman theater was constructed (in the second half of the third century C.E.), encircling the temple and altar (see fig. 1).64 The position and layout of the theater indicate clearly that it was built to accommodate the spectators of the rites that were performed around the altar and in front of the temple. The seats extended so far around, and the front of the temple was so far within the theater, that the temple pronaos occupied the space where the stage would have been. The altar was thus situated in the orchestra (see fig. 1). This layout would have limited the type of performances that could have taken place in the theater to cult rites performed at the altar and in front of the temple.65 Indeed, both the literary and archaeological evidence refer to several competitions held there in later years, such as the moa, kelya, and kassiratorion.66

Several festivals were held at the site, most of which were introduced at a later time.67 The most ancient of those festivals—believed to have been introduced when the cult of Orthia at the site was at an early stage of development—is the so-called Procession of the Girls. At her sanctuary in Sparta, Artemis was also called Parthenos Orthia (Παρθένος Ὀρθεία), as is at-tested in inscriptions.68 Although very little is known about the Procession of the Girls, we are told that Spar-tan women brought their offerings to the goddess in a procession while singing a hymn to the Parthenos (“ἄδειν τὸ παρασκευασμένον ἐγκώμιον τῆς Παρθένου αἱ ἐν τῷ χορῷ ἀκόλουθοι”).69 Most inscriptions from the sanctuary refer to this rite, providing an indication of its importance to the worship of Artemis Orthia.70

The Partheneion ode, written by Alcman around the middle of the seventh century B.C.E. and of which 101

56 Fleming 2005, 2006.57 Ruggles 2000b.58 For examples, see Ruggles and Urton 2006a; Aveni 2008.59 Cartledge 2003, 310.60 Dawkins 1907, 68–9; 1929, 8, 49; Rose 1929, 399; Car-

tledge 2003, 309–10.61 Dawkins 1929, 10, 19.62 Dawkins 1929, 21, 34; Rose 1929, 399–400; Cartledge

2003, 310.63 Dawkins 1907, 55; 1929, 32, 34.64 Dawkins 1929, 34; Rose 1929, 400, 404.

65 Bosanquet 1906a, 311–12; Dawkins 1929, 38.66 The names of these festivals are mentioned in inscrip-

tions from the sanctuary (Tillyard 1905–1906, 353–91; Tod et al. 1907, 183; Rose 1929, 406).

67 On the festivals, see Tillyard 1905–1906, 361; Rose 1929, 406. On their date, see kennell 1995, 137.

68 For examples of such inscriptions, see Bosanquet 1906b, 334, 335; Woodward 1907–1908, 75.

69 Ath. 14.646a; Bosanquet 1906b, 333.70 Rose 1929, 406.




Fig. 1. Ground plan of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta, showing the second temple, the surrounding theater, and the consecutive altars placed in the orchestra (Dawkins 1929).

Fig. 2. Ground plan of the remains of the two temples of Artemis Orthia (Dawkins 1929).

lines survive, describes, we believe, the rite that took place at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta during the Procession of the Girls.71 One of the gen-erally accepted interpretations of the poem is that it narrates the performance of a rite during which a group of young girls bring their offering to the altar of the goddess; two of these girls, Agido and Hesiagora, are discussed separately in the poem and are called Peleades, equivalent to Pleiades. The procession hap-pens at the hour before dawn, when the Pleiades star cluster is seen to rise above the horizon, and just be-fore Agido (a maiden of the goddess of Dawn) sum-mons the sun to rise.72

Here we test the astronomical observations described in the poem against the archaeological evidence of

71 Bosanquet 1906b, 333; Rose 1929, 406; Bowra 1961, 51; West 1965, 192; Priestley 2007, 189–90. The interpretation of the poem has been far from straightforward. A recent study by Ferrari (2008) has reinitiated discussion about it, remind-ing us that there is still much to be understood about the rite

described. While we are aware that certain aspects of the poem are still contested, we do not aim to discuss the various theories and arguments here.

72 Page 1951, 75–6; Bowra 1961, 48, 51; Garvie 1965, 187; Griffiths 1972, 17; Carter 1988, 91, 92.




the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia to determine whether the Pleiades could have indeed been observed from that location. Inscriptions and archaeological evidence agree on the presence of the cult of Orthia in the sev-enth century B.C.E., around the time when the Parthe-neion was written, and perhaps as early as the ninth or 10th century.73

The following excerpt from the Partheneion states that the rite was performed at night, during the helia-cal rising of the Pleiades (lines 60–3):

ταὶ Πελειάδες γὰρ ἇμιν ὀρθρίαι φάρος φεροίσαις νύκτα δι’ ἀμβροσίαν ἅτε Σήριον ἄστρον ἀυειρομέναι μάχονται.

For the Pleiades as we carry the robe74 to (the) orthria75 [are] rising through the ambrosial night like the star Sirius76 and fight against us.

Orthria, in line 61, here translated as “the Goddess of the Morning Twilight,” derives from the word or-thros, which may mean daybreak or dawn. This timing is also confirmed in lines 39–43:

ἐγὼν δ’ ἀείδω Ἀγιδῶς τὸ φῶς· ὁρῶ F’ ὥτ’ ἅλιον, ὅνπερ ἇμιν Ἀγιδὼ μαρτύρεται φαίνην.

and so I sing the radiance of Agido: I see her like the sun, which Agido summons to shine to us.77

It is evident—and has also been argued by others78—that this nocturnal offering could only have been made, and the rite could only have been performed,

at the time in the year when the Pleiades are seen to rise in the morning sky just before sunrise (i.e., at the time of the heliacal rising of the Pleiades) and that the sunrise was the result of Agido’s powers or actions. This light symbolism becomes even clearer in line 87, where the epithet of the goddess receiving the offering is associated with the time of the day when the offering is made: “most of all to please the Lady of the Dawn (Aoti ).”79 The procession would thus have started while the sky was still dark. According to the poem, the girls appear to have been placing their offering at the altar at the time when, or shortly after, the rising Pleiades appeared in the sky. The poem also indicates that the chorus was in a time contest with the rising Pleiades, as the girls needed to be ready and to have accomplished their tasks by the time the first rays of the sun appeared.80 All this suggests that the song would have been sung during the few minutes when the star cluster was visible, having risen above the horizon but not yet having been overwhelmed by the increasingly bright background of the predawn sky. Thus, the rite would have ended by the time the sun actually rose. Lines 40–3 of the Partheneion confirm the importance of the interplay between darkness and daylight that took place during the procession. Agido’s light is so radiant that the spectators see her shine “like the sun, which Agido summons to shine [rise].” In other words, brilliance needs darkness in order to be appreciated to its full extent.

The Pleiades and Sirius had been known to the Greeks since the time of the Iliad.81 Hesiod, likewise, equates the time of harvest to the time of their helia-cal rising and the time of sowing to their setting.82 The Spartan ceremony for Artemis appears to have been customary, for Callimachus notes that the Pleiades were daughters of the queen of the Amazons and the first to establish dancing and nightlong festivals for maidens.83 Sappho also describes maidens standing around an altar by moonlight: “the moon was shining

73 Dawkins 1929, 7–10, 14, 17–18; Rose 1929, 399.74 There is a long list of publications on the interpretation

of the word φάρος. The interpretation as plow is now most-ly abandoned. For the most recent study on the interpreta-tion of the word, see Priestley 2007. Based on other literary examples comparing robes to stars, Priestley (2007, 181) has also suggested that in the translation of these lines, the com-parison of the brilliance should not be between the Pleiades and Sirius but between the robe and Sirius: “the robe shines like the star Sirius.” This suggestion was first put forward by West (1965) but has not been viewed favorably by other classi-cists. Although there may be some merit to this suggestion, we adopt the most generally accepted translation of this passage (see, e.g., Page 1951, 22; Bowra 1961, 45; Segal 1983, 263).

75 Whether orthria is dative singular, “to the goddess of early morning,” identified with Aotis of line 87, or nominative plural

in an adverbial sense, “the Pleiades in the early morning,” can-not be determined on the basis of present knowledge. Most scholars prefer the former (e.g., Page 1951; Bowra 1961); for the latter interpretation, see Segal 1983.

76 For a discussion on making sense of the seemingly unwar-ranted comparison of the brilliance of the Pleiades to that of Sirius, see Segal 1983, 270–71.

77 Translation adapted from Bowra 1961, 38.78 Burnett 1964; Segal 1983, 263–64.79 For the translation of Aoti as “lady/goddess of dawn,” see

Bowra 1961, 41; Segal 1983, 262; Ferrari 2008, 84, 93.80 Burnett 1964; Priestley 2007, 192.81 Hom. Il. 18.487.82 Hes. Op. 383–84; see also Aratus Phaen. 254–67.83 Schol. Theoc. 13.25; cf. Segal 1983, 264.




at the full, and when they stood about the altar. . . .”84

In mythology, the Pleiades were associated with Ar-temis. They were her maidens85 who—being chased by the hunter Orion—were placed in the sky by Zeus. Orion and his dog, Sirius, were eventually catasterized by Artemis and, according to Hesiod, are still seen in the sky chasing the Pleiades (fig. 3).86 Such a connec-tion can explain not only the rites carried out at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia but also the timing re-ferred to by Alcman. Scholars have discussed Alcman’s motivation for comparing a constellation as faint as the Pleiades to Sirius, which is one of the brightest stars in the night sky.87 One possible motivation is that the race of the girls against dawn (i.e., having to complete their task before sunrise) can also be seen as a race against Sirius. At the time of the heliacal rising of the Pleiades at the end of May, Sirius would not have been visible, since dawn arrived before Sirius rose above the horizon. The image of young maidens racing against Sirius also brings to mind the myth of the Pleiades and Orion, according to which Orion was pursuing the girls, and the race resulted in the catasterism of the young maidens.88

One function of a Greek temple was to accommo-date the cult statue and, in some cases, to protect the sacred areas of the cult. The orientation of the ex-tant Temple of Artemis Orthia is south of east. It was measured using a magnetic compass to have an azi-muth of 100°. The horizon altitude in this direction (measured using a clinometer) is 4°, which yields a declination of –6°.89 This means that celestial objects with declination –6° will rise in this direction, while objects with higher declinations (i.e., –5° and up) will be seen correspondingly higher above the horizon. The Artemis Orthia rites were performed in the open, and the offerings were placed on the altar. The altar, however, was not parallel to the temple (see fig. 1); it faced somewhat north of east (azimuth 81°), where the horizon altitude is still 4°, yielding a declination of +10°. The declination of the Pleiades between 800 B.C.E. and 550 B.C.E. was about +12°, while Orion stretched from –15° (Rigel) up to +3° (Betelgeuse), its belt being between –5° and –7° (the heliacal rising of Orion’s belt would have occurred around 17 July). The second temple, in other words, was oriented on

the rising point of Orion’s belt, while the altar was oriented on the rising point of the Pleiades (which probably appeared a little above the horizon because of atmospheric extinction). The first temple (with a declination of 0°) was oriented between the two. To give an idea of scale, the diameter of the sun or moon is about half a degree. At the time of the festival (say, between 20 and 25 May), the sun itself would have risen somewhat farther to the north (at a declination of ca. +19°). The Orthia rites were a performance in which it would have seemed that the entire cosmos was participating.

The literary, archaeological, and astronomical evi-dence points, in short, to the following reconstruction of the festival. Groups of young girls whose protector was Artemis Orthia brought their offering (a robe) to the goddess an hour before dawn, at the time of the year when the heliacal rising of the star cluster of the seven virgins (Pleiades) was seen to rise above the part of the horizon that the temple and altar were facing. In ancient Greece, the first sighting of the Pleiades just before dawn took place above the eastern horizon in May–June, after its annual 40-day period of invisibility (fig. 4).90 It follows that during the Geometric, Archaic, and Classical periods, this viewing, and therefore also the Procession of the Girls, would have taken place on a date corresponding to around 22 May in the Gre-gorian calendar (given the latitude and longitude of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia and accounting for the altitude of the local horizon, refraction, and atmo-spheric extinction). The Procession of the Girls ended at the altar of Artemis Orthia, as the girls placed the robe on it. In consequence, it is reasonable to suppose that the girls, as they were dedicating the robe to the goddess, were facing the rising Pleiades just above the eastern horizon.

According to the archaeological evidence, not only the first Altar of Artemis Orthia in Sparta (built in 950 B.C.E.) but all the subsequent altars as well (the last built in 250 C.E.) had exactly the same orientation (see fig. 1); they all faced a horizon declination of +10°. Between 950 B.C.E. and 250 C.E., the declination of the Pleiades increased from +11° to +17°, so it appears that no attempt was made to compensate for the shift in their rising position as the centuries progressed.

84 Sappho fr. 53; also mentioned in fr. 54.85 Page 1951, 25.86 Hes. Op. 618–22.87 Supra n. 76.88 Hes. Op. 618–22; Hyg. Poet. astr. 2.21; Pind. Nem. 2.17.89 For a general explanation of declination, see supra n. 30.

The declination of the sun varies over the annual cycle from +23.5° (i.e., 23.5° north of the celestial equator) at the June

solstice to –23.5° (i.e., 23.5° south of the celestial equator) at the December solstice. It rises and sets at about declination 0° (roughly east–west) at the equinoxes (depending on one’s definition of “equinox”). At the latitude of Greece, objects with a declination greater than ca. 50° are circumpolar (never set), while those below a declination of ca. –50° are too far south to ever be seen.

90 Hes. Op. 383–87.




Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the night sky as it would have been seen from the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in 800–500 B.C.E., at the time of the heliacal rising of the Pleiades. A small shift in the position of the stars would have occurred during this time owing to the precession of the equinoxes, but this would not have been evident to the naked eye.

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the night sky, showing the position of the Pleiades, Orion, and Sirius from the location of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia on 15 August 700 B.C.E. at 03:40 a.m.




However, the shift in the orientation of the temple—as a result of which the horizon declination that it faced changed from 0° in 800 B.C.E. to –6° in 600 B.C.E. and thereafter—is much too large to have been in re-sponse to a shift in the stars after such a short time. It may simply have been for functional reasons.91 The change in temple orientation may also indicate that a broad orientation within the rising position of the constellation of Orion was replaced by a more specific orientation on his belt.

Artemis Orthia was the goddess of young maidens,92 although she is most commonly identified as the god-dess of hunting or Potnia, the lady of the wild animals. The figure of Artemis, destined to be forever a young girl (always a virgin), was the protector of young girls whose participation in the Artemis cults was widespread throughout Greece. The goddess was also Phosphoros, the “Bringer of Light,” as is attested in inscriptions of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Messene;93 this iden-tity is echoed by her title Aotis (“Lady of the Dawn”) in the Partheneion (line 87). There is evidence that during the rituals of the Artemis Orthia festival, the xoanon (cult statue) of the goddess was carried out of her tem-ple in a procession94 and that dancing, to judge from pottery found at Sparta, seems to have been an impor-tant element of the cult.95 The literary sources confirm this: Plutarch reports that Helen (who was a maiden of Artemis) was carried off by Theseus while she was danc-ing at the sanctuary at Orthia.96 As Page notes,97 the naming of the maiden’s choir in the Partheneion after the star cluster Pleiades also makes sense because the constellation was often said to dance.98 The “dancing” constellation may be associated with the ritual dancing of the girls performing the rites at the sanctuary; if so, it strengthens the proposition that the performance was intimately connected with the appearance of the Pleiades in the predawn sky. In short, by combining the descriptions of the ritual and the associated astro-nomical events described in the literary sources and the evidence from the positioning of the temple and altar of Artemis Orthia, we can suggest a more com-plete picture of the performance of the religious rites that took place there.

conclusion

Those interested in the role of astronomical ob-servations in Greek cult practice have recourse to an

exceptional wealth of mythological, epigraphic, and literary sources, as well as archaeological evidence. They are certainly not limited to the study of temple alignments. Yet the ubiquity of spectacular temple ru-ins in the material record from ancient Greece has, from the 19th century onward, tended to concentrate thinking on “broad brush” analyses of temple orien-tations, both among those sympathetic to and those hostile to the idea that beliefs and practices relating to the sky played a significant role in Greek religion.

The orientations of the altar and temples of Ar-temis Orthia fall within the solar rising arc (the path the sunrise traces up and down the eastern horizon during the course of a year). As a result, these orien-tations could have been cited in support of the gen-eral conclusion that a large number of Greek temples were oriented east toward sunrise. Such general state-ments ignore the substantial proportion of Greek temple orientations that fall outside the solar range, and they fail to take into account that the remainder (as at Sparta) could have resulted from a number of different factors, astronomical or topographic. This study assists in offering a more nuanced and contex-tual approach. As we suggest in the case of Artemis Orthia, the orientations may reflect a prepossession with specific asterisms (the Pleiades and Orion) that were related to the particular cult and its myths. This is not to say that in other cases, the particular needs of certain cults could result in deliberate solar asso-ciations. Whatever the reason for particular temple orientations, it is clear that sweeping statements like those arguing that the majority of Greek temples face east make no contribution to our current understand-ing of Greek religious practice.

Even rising above the theoretical and methodologi-cal shortfalls in much of the early work in this area, it is clear that attempts at all-encompassing statistical analy-ses are destined to achieve only limited explanatory success. The main reason is that the Greek religious system was highly susceptible to the influence of local traditions, myths, and cult practice. These facets, em-bodied in cult practice, temple construction, and my-thology, contained memories of the local past shared within the particular group. Considerable variation is to be expected; therefore, it is essential for studies that discuss the potential astronomical association of religious structures to focus locally and to incorporate

91 The first temple’s destruction by the flooding of the Eu-rotas River (Rose 1929, 399) meant that the new temple had to be constructed a little farther north.

92 Page 1951, 24.93 Themelis 1994, 111–15.94 Themelis 1994, 116.

95 Dawkins 1907, 75, 93–5; Parker 1989, 151; Pettersson 1992, 52.

96 Plut. Vit. Thes. 31. For more references on dancing, see Page 1951, 24.

97 Page 1951, 53.98 Eur. El. 467; Hyg. Poet. astr. 2.21.




the available contextual data, both from the archaeo-logical record and the written sources.

The Artemis Orthia case study demonstrates that historical and literary evidence, sensibly assessed, not only enables us to examine structural orientations and to make a plausible case that these were broadly oriented on particular stellar targets but also helps us interpret the significance of this in terms of the cult ceremony being performed. In ancient Greece, as in other cultural contexts, the plausible identification of astronomical orientations intentionally embodied in architecture must be based on a careful consideration of the broader evidence, both archaeological and his-torical. Not only does this context serve to establish the intentionality and nature of the orientation in ques-tion, but, if the exercise is to have any real value, the recognition of the orientation must, in return, help advance our narrative about the context in which it had meaning.

Given, as seems increasingly likely, that astronomical observations really did play a key role in a wide range of religious and cult practices throughout ancient Greece, then archaeoastronomical studies may enrich our over-all understanding of ancient Greek religion. Moreover, archaeoastronomy concerns much more than orienta-tions, and in ancient Greece we are fortunate in having a wealth of other types of evidence relevant not only to the study of religion but also to a range of issues such as calendars, navigation, and farming practices. The negative impression of archaeoastronomy in the eyes of many Greek archaeologists and classicists empha-sizes the dangers and limitations of approaches that derive from a single disciplinary perspective. The main challenge now, as in the past, is to assess and integrate the archaeological, astronomical, historical, and liter-ary evidence, processes that require a broad range of knowledge and skills and meticulous attention to de-tail. If such work can be undertaken successfully, and if we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, there is considerable scope and potential for archaeoastro-nomical studies in ancient Greek culture.

school of classical and archaeological studies

university of kentcanterbury ct2 7nfunited [email protected]

school of archaeology and ancient history

university of leicesterleicester le1 7rhunited [email protected]

Works Cited

Alcock, S.E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Aveni, A.F. 1988. “The Thom Paradigm in the Americas.” In Records in Stone, edited by C.L.N. Ruggles, 442–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 1997. Stairways to the Stars: Skywatching in Three Great Ancient Cultures. New York: John Wiley.

———. 2001. Skywatchers. Austin: University of Texas Press.

———, ed. 2008. Foundations of New World Cultural Astron-omy. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Aveni, A.F., and G. Urton, eds. 1982. Ethnoastronomy and Archaeoastronomy in the American Tropics. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Bosanquet, R.C. 1906a. “Excavations at Sparta 1906: The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.” BSA 12:303–17.

———. 1906b. “Excavations at Sparta 1906: The Cult of Orthia as Illustrated by the Finds.” BSA 12:331–43.

Boutsikas, E. 2007. “Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An Application of Archaeoastronomy to Greek Religious Architecture, Cosmologies and Landscapes.” Ph.D. diss., University of Leicester.

———. 2008. “The Orientation of Greek Temples: A Sta-tistical Analysis.” In Archaeoastronomy in Archaeology and Ethnography: Papers from the Annual Meeting of SEAC (Eu-ropean Society for Astronomy in Culture) Held in Kecskemet in Hungary in 2004, edited by E. Pasztor, 19–23. BAR-IS 1647. Oxford: Archaeopress.

———. 2009. “Placing Greek Temples: An Archaeoas-tronomical Study of the Orientation of Ancient Greek Religious Structures.” Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture 21:4–19.

Bowra, C.M. 1961. Greek Lyric Poetry: From Alcman to Simo-nides. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bricker, H.M., and v.R. Bricker. 1996. “Astronomical Ref-erences in the Throne Inscription of the Palace of the Governor at Uxmal.” CAJ 6(2):191–229.

Britton, J., and C. Walker. 1996. “Astronomy and Astrology in Mesopotamia.” In Astronomy Before the Telescope, edited by C. Walker, 42–67. London: British Museum Press.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-vard University Press.

———. 1987. Homo Necans. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni-versity of California Press.

Burnett, A.P. 1964. “The Race with the Pleiades.” CP 59: 30–4.

Carter, J.B. 1988. “Masks and Poetry in Early Sparta.” In Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Sym-posium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29 June 1986, edited by R. Hägg, N. Marinatos, and G.C. Nordquist, 89–98. SkrAth 4°, 38. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Cartledge, P. 2003. Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History 1300–362 BC. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Cole, S.G. 2004. Landscape, Gender, and Ritual Space. Los An-geles and London: University of California Press.

Cooper, F.A. 1968. “The Temple of Apollo at Bassae: New Observations on Its Plan and Orientation.” AJA 72(2): 103–11.

Davidson, J. 2007. “Time and Greek Religion.” In A Com-panion to Greek Religion, edited by D. Ogden, 204–18. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dawkins, R.M. 1907. “Laconia I. Excavations at Sparta, 1907.




§4. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.” BSA 13:44–108.———. 1929. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, Exca-

vated and Described by Members of the British School at Athens, 1906–1910. The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 5. London: Council of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies.

DeYoung, G. 2000. “Astronomy in Ancient Egypt.” In As-tronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astrono-my, edited by H. Selin, 475–508. Science Across Cultures 1. Dordrecht: kluwer.

Dillon, M. 1997. Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece. London and New York: Routledge.

Dinsmoor, W.B. 1939. “Archaeology and Astronomy.” PAPS 80:95–173.

Ferrari, G. 2008. Alcman and the Cosmos of Sparta. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Fleming, A. 2005. “Megaliths and Post-Modernism: The Case of Wales.” Antiquity 79:921–32.

———. 2006. “Post-Processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique.” CAJ 16(3):267–80.

Garvie, A.F. 1965. “A Note on the Deity of Alcman’s Parthe-neion.” CQ n.s. 15:185–87.

Gibbs, S.L. 1976. Greek and Roman Sundials. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Grenfell, B.P., and A.S. Hunt. 1906. The Hibeh Papyri. Pt. 1. Oxford: Horace Hart.

Griffiths, A.H. 1972. “Alcman’s Partheneion: The Morn-ing After the Night Before.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 14:1–30.

Hannah, R. 2005. Greek and Roman Calendars: Constructions of Time in the Classical World. London: Duckworth.

———. 2009. Time in Antiquity. London: Routledge.Heggie, D.C., ed. 1982. Archaeoastronomy in the Old World.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hoskin, M.A. 2001. Tombs, Temples and Their Orientations.

Bognor Regis: Ocarina Books.Ingold, T. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape.”

WorldArch 25:152–74.Iwaniszewski, S. 2001. “Time and Space in Social Systems:

Further Issues for Theoretical Archaeoastronomy.” In Astronomy, Cosmology, and Landscape: Proceedings of the SEAC 98 Meeting, Dublin, Ireland, September 1998, edited by C.L.N. Ruggles, F. Prendergast, and T. Ray, 1–7. Bog-nor Regis: Ocarina Books.

Jones, A. 2002. “Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, and the Obliq-uity of the Ecliptic.” Journal of the History of Astronomy 33:15–19.

———. 2003. “The Stoics and the Astronomical Scienc-es.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by B. Inwood, 328–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

kennell, N.M. 1995. The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

kirch, P.v. 2004. “Temple Sites in kahikinui, Maui, Hawai-ian Islands: Their Orientations Decoded.” Antiquity 78: 102–14.

Lehoux, D. 2006. “Rethinking Parapegmata: The Puteoli Fragment.” ZPE 157:95–104.

———. 2007. Astronomy, Weather, and Calendars in the An-cient World: Parapegmata and Related Texts in Classical and Near-Eastern Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Liritzis, I., and H. vassiliou. 2006. “Were Greek Temples Oriented Towards Aurorae?” Astronomy and Geophysics 41: 14–18.

Lull, J. 2004. La Astronomía en el Antiguo Egipto. valencia: Universitat de valència.

———, ed. 2006. Trabajos de Arqueoastronomía: Ejemplos de África, América, Europa y Oceanía. Gandía, Spain: Agru-pación Astronómica de La Safor.

McCluskey, S.C. 1998. Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medi-eval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2006. “Medieval Liturgical Calendar, Sacred Space, and the Orientation of Churches.” In Time and Astronomy in Past Cultures, edited by A. Soltysiak, 139– 48. Torun and Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity of Warsaw.

Neugebauer, O. 1955. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. 3 vols. London: Lund Humphries.

———. 1975. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer verlag.

Nissen, H. 1873. “Über Tempel-Orientierung: Erster Ar-tikel.” RhM 28:513–57.

———. 1887. “Über Tempel-Orientierung: Fünfter Ar-tikel.” RhM 42:28–61.

———. 1906. Orientation: Studien zur Geschichte der Religion. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

Page, D.L. 1951. Alcman, The Partheneion. Oxford: Claren-don Press.

Parker, R.A. 1950. The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

———. 1974. “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy.” Philosophical Transactions for the Royal Society A 276(1257):51–65.

———. 1989. “Spartan Religion.” In Classical Sparta: Tech-niques Behind Her Success, edited by A. Powell, 142–72. London: University of Oklahoma Press.

Penrose, F.C. 1892. “A Preliminary Statement of an In-vestigation of the Dates of Some of the Greek Temples as Derived from Their Orientation.” Nature 45:395–97.

———. 1893a. “On the Results of an Examination of the Orientations of a Number of Greek Temples with a view to Connect These Angles with the Amplitudes of Cer-tain Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and an Endeavour to Derive There from 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 Trans-actions of the Royal Society A 184:805–34.

———. 1893b. “On the Orientation of Greek Temples.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 53:379–84.

———. 1899. “On the Orientation of Greek Temples, Be-ing the Results of Some Observations Taken in Greece and Sicily, in May 1898.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 65:288–375.

———. 1900. “Orientation des temples grecs. Delphes. Tégée. Délos.” BCH 24:611–14.

Pettersson, M. 1992. Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia, the Gymnopaidiai and the Karneia. SkrAth 8º, 12. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Priestley, J.M. 2007. “The φαρος of Alcman’s Partheneion 1.” Mnemosyne 60(2):175–95.

Rose, H.J. 1929. “The Cult of Artemis Orthia.” In The Sanc-tuary of Artemis Orthia: Excavated and Described by Members of the British School at Athens, 1906–1910, edited by R.M. Dawkins, 399–407. Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 5. London: Macmillan.

Ruggles, C.L.N. 1994. “The Meeting of the Methodological Worlds? Towards the Integration of Different Discipline-Based Approaches to the Study of Cultural Astronomy.” In Time and Astronomy at the Meeting of Two Worlds, edit-



E. BOUTSIkAS AND C. RUGGLES, ARCHAEOASTRONOMY IN ANCIENT GREECE68

ed by S. Iwaniszewski, A. Lebeuf, A. Wiercinski, and M. Ziólkowski, 497–515. Studies and Materials 10. Warsaw: Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos.

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

———. 2000a. “Ancient Astronomies—Ancient Worlds.” Archaeoastronomy 25:S65–76.

———. 2000b. “The General and the Specific: Dealing with Cultural Diversity.” Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture 15:151–77.

———. 2005a. “Archaeoastronomy.” In Archaeology: The Key Concepts, edited by C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, 11–14. London: Routledge.

———. 2005b. Ancient Astronomy: An Encyclopedia of Cos-mologies and Myth. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

———. 2006a. “Arqueoastronomía en Polinesia.” In Tra-bajos de Arqueoastronomía: Ejemplos de África, América, Eu-ropa y Oceanía, edited by J. Lull, 257–81. Gandía, Spain: Agrupación Astronómica de La Safor.

———. 2006b. “Cosmology, Calendar, and Temple Ori-entations in Ancient Hawai’i.” In Skywatching in the An-cient World: New Perspectives in Cultural Astronomy, edited by C.L.N. Ruggles and G. Urton, 287–329. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Ruggles, C.L.N., and A. Burl. 1985. “A New Study of the Aberdeenshire Recumbent Stone Circles, 2: Interpre-tation.” Archaeoastronomy 8:S25–60.

Ruggles, C.L.N., and G. Urton, eds. 2006a. Skywatching in the Ancient World: New Perspectives in Cultural Astronomy. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

———. 2006b. “Introduction.” In Skywatching in the An-cient World: New Perspectives in Cultural Astronomy, edited by C.L.N. Ruggles and G. Urton, 1–15. Boulder: Uni-versity Press of Colorado.

Ruggles, C.L.N., and A.W.R. Whittle, eds. 1981. Astronomy and Society in Britain During the Period 4000–1500 BC. BAR 88. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Segal, C. 1983. “Sirius and the Pleiades in Alcman’s Lou-vre Partheneion.” Mnemosyne 36:260–75.

Selin, H., ed. 2000. Astronomy Across Cultures. Dordrecht: kluwer.

Sprajc, I. 1993. “venus Orientations in Ancient Mesoameri-can Architecture.” In Archaeoastronomy in the 1990s, ed-ited by C.L.N. Ruggles, 270–77. Loughborough: Group D Publications.

Stecchini, L.C. n.d. The Athenian Acropolis. http://www.metrum.org/key/athens (20 September 2010).

Steele, J.M., and A. Imhausen. 2002. Under One Sky: As-tronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East. Mün-ster: Ugarit verlag.

Themelis, P. 1994. “Artemis Orthia at Messene: The Epi-graphical and the Archaeological Evidence.” In Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence: Proceed-ings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22–24 November 1991, edited by R. Hägg, 101–22. SkrAth 8°, 13. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.

Tillyard, H.J.W. 1905–1906. “Laconia II. Excavations at Sparta, 1906. §9. Inscriptions from the Artemisium.” BSA 12:351–93.

Tod, M.N., H.J.W. Tillyard, and A.M. Woodward. 1907. “La-conia I. Excavations at Sparta, 1907. §10. The Inscrip-tions.” BSA 13:174–218.

von Gerkan, A. 1924. Griechische Städteanlagen: Untersuchun-gen zur Entwicklung des Städtebaues im Altertlum. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

West, M.L. 1965. “Alcmanica.” CQ 59(15):188–202.Whyte, W., and R. Paul. 1997. Basic Surveying. 4th ed. Ox-

ford: Laxtons.Woodward, A.M. 1907–1908. “Excavations at Sparta 1908:

The Inscriptions.” BSA 14:74–141.



Documents

Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for ...€¦ · Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes: The Potential for Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece Author(s): Efrosyni