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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.115.1.0055
Accessed: 01-03-2016 22:17 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Temples, Stars, and Ritual Landscapes:
The Potential for Archaeoastronomy in
Ancient Greece
Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles
Abstract
The 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
* 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.
55
American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011) 55–68
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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
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.).
56 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles
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
E.g., Penrose 1893a; Nissen 1906.
12
E.g., Ruggles and Whittle 1981; Heggie 1982. Such ap-
13
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).
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 115
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?
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.
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
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
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
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
57
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
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.
58 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles
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-
Ruggles 1999, 57.
33
Penrose 1892, 395; 1893b, 383.
34
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
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 115
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
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.
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
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.
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.
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
59
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
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.
60 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles
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
Fleming 2005, 2006.
56
Ruggles 2000b.
57
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.
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 115
(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
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.
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece 61

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).

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 Fig. 2. Ground plan of the remains of the two temples of
in the poem against the archaeological evidence of Artemis Orthia (Dawkins 1929).

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.

This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles [AJA 115

the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia to determine whether at the time in the year when the Pleiades are seen to
the Pleiades could have indeed been observed from rise in the morning sky just before sunrise (i.e., at the
that location. Inscriptions and archaeological evidence time of the heliacal rising of the Pleiades) and that
agree on the presence of the cult of Orthia in the sev- the sunrise was the result of Agido’s powers or actions.
enth century B.C.E., around the time when the Parthe- This light symbolism becomes even clearer in line 87,
neion was written, and perhaps as early as the ninth or where the epithet of the goddess receiving the offering
10th century.73 is associated with the time of the day when the offering
The following excerpt from the Partheneion states is made: “most of all to please the Lady of the Dawn
that the rite was performed at night, during the helia- (Aoti ).”79 The procession would thus have started
cal rising of the Pleiades (lines 60–3): while the sky was still dark. According to the poem,
the girls appear to have been placing their offering at
ταὶ Πελειάδες γὰρ ἇμιν the altar at the time when, or shortly after, the rising
ὀρθρίαι φάρος φεροίσαις Pleiades appeared in the sky. The poem also indicates
νύκτα δι’ ἀμβροσίαν ἅτε Σήριον
ἄστρον ἀυειρομέναι μάχονται. that the chorus was in a time contest with the rising
Pleiades, as the girls needed to be ready and to have
For the Pleiades accomplished their tasks by the time the first rays of the
as we carry the robe74 to (the) orthria75 sun appeared.80 All this suggests that the song would
[are] rising through the ambrosial night like the star have been sung during the few minutes when the star
Sirius76 cluster was visible, having risen above the horizon but
and fight against us.
not yet having been overwhelmed by the increasingly
bright background of the predawn sky. Thus, the rite
Orthria, in line 61, here translated as “the Goddess
would have ended by the time the sun actually rose.
of the Morning Twilight,” derives from the word or-
Lines 40–3 of the Partheneion confirm the importance
thros, which may mean daybreak or dawn. This timing
of the interplay between darkness and daylight that
is also confirmed in lines 39–43:
took place during the procession. Agido’s light is so
radiant that the spectators see her shine “like the sun,
ἐγὼν δ’ ἀείδω
Ἀγιδῶς τὸ φῶς· ὁρῶ which Agido summons to shine [rise].” In other words,
F’ ὥτ’ ἅλιον, ὅνπερ ἇμιν brilliance needs darkness in order to be appreciated
Ἀγιδὼ μαρτύρεται to its full extent.
φαίνην. The Pleiades and Sirius had been known to the
Greeks since the time of the Iliad.81 Hesiod, likewise,
and so I sing
equates the time of harvest to the time of their helia-
the radiance of Agido: I see
her like the sun, which cal rising and the time of sowing to their setting.82 The
Agido summons Spartan ceremony for Artemis appears to have been
to shine to us.77 customary, for Callimachus notes that the Pleiades
were daughters of the queen of the Amazons and the
It is evident—and has also been argued by others78— first to establish dancing and nightlong festivals for
that this nocturnal offering could only have been maidens.83 Sappho also describes maidens standing
made, and the rite could only have been performed, around an altar by moonlight: “the moon was shining

Dawkins 1929, 7–10, 14, 17–18; Rose 1929, 399.

73
in an adverbial sense, “the Pleiades in the early morning,” can-
There is a long list of publications on the interpretation
74
not be determined on the basis of present knowledge. Most
of the word φάρος. The interpretation as plow is now most- scholars prefer the former (e.g., Page 1951; Bowra 1961); for
ly abandoned. For the most recent study on the interpreta- the latter interpretation, see Segal 1983.
tion of the word, see Priestley 2007. Based on other literary 76
For a discussion on making sense of the seemingly unwar-
examples comparing robes to stars, Priestley (2007, 181) has ranted comparison of the brilliance of the Pleiades to that of
also suggested that in the translation of these lines, the com- Sirius, see Segal 1983, 270–71.
parison of the brilliance should not be between the Pleiades 77
Translation adapted from Bowra 1961, 38.
and Sirius but between the robe and Sirius: “the robe shines 78
Burnett 1964; Segal 1983, 263–64.
like the star Sirius.” This suggestion was first put forward by 79
For the translation of Aoti as “lady/goddess of dawn,” see
West (1965) but has not been viewed favorably by other classi- Bowra 1961, 41; Segal 1983, 262; Ferrari 2008, 84, 93.
cists. Although there may be some merit to this suggestion, we 80
Burnett 1964; Priestley 2007, 192.
adopt the most generally accepted translation of this passage 81
Hom. Il. 18.487.
(see, e.g., Page 1951, 22; Bowra 1961, 45; Segal 1983, 263). 82
Hes. Op. 383–84; see also Aratus Phaen. 254–67.
75
Whether orthria is dative singular, “to the goddess of early 83
Schol. Theoc. 13.25; cf. Segal 1983, 264.
morning,” identified with Aotis of line 87, or nominative plural

This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
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
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
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
63
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 p ­ rogressed.
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.
64 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles [AJA 115

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.

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.

This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
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
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.
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
65
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
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.
66 Efrosyni Boutsikas and Clive Ruggles
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 kent
canterbury ct2 7nf
united kingdom
e.boutsikas@kent.ac.uk
school of archaeology and ancient
history
university of leicester
leicester le1 7rh
united kingdom
rug@le.ac.uk
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 115
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.
2011] Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
§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.
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
67
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. T­ orun 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-
68 E. Boutsikas and C. Ruggles, Archaeoastronomy in Ancient Greece
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.
This content downloaded from 165.190.89.176 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:17:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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.