A Critical Look at Archaeoastronomy and the Anasazi Culture of the American Southwest

The following research paper was written after attending Dr. Paul Browns, Archaeological fieldschool to the American Southwest, and will be presented at the Spring 2,000 Undergraduate Research Conference at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

����������� For as long as humanity has existed, it has been in a state of constant flux between survival and the elements. Dependent upon both the earth and sky for survival, cultures around the world have found differing ways of dealing with such a precarious balance. The study of archaeoastronomy seeks to study how different cultures have dealt with such a strange balance, by examining the ways in which different cultures related to terrestrial and cosmological events. Concerned largely with the cosmologies, myths, calendarical systems, navigation and other celestial phenomena marked by culture, the focus of the archaeoastronomer is less with the stars and more with cultures themselves. Yet, being a rather young branch of archaeology, the question of whether archaeoastronomy truly accomplishes its end, to study cultures and the celestial phenomena celebrated or marked by culture, remains to be seen. Has archaeoastronomy truly begun to accomplish its goal of understanding or studying a culture on an astronomical basis? If so, what impact has this had on the general archaeological community at large? These few basic questions continue to plague the science of archaeoastronomy, and at their basest level delve into the very theoretical, methodological, and epistemological concerns of the science of archaeoastronomy itself.

����������� The science of archaeoastronomy[1] is a relatively new branch of archaeology. Founded within the early 1970�s it was not formally considered a sub-discipline until the University of Oxford sponsored several archaeoastronomical research conferences, simply known to archaeoastronomers as Oxford I, II, and III. While at first largely concerned with astronomical megaliths such as Stonehenge and European history, by the time of Oxford II (the second conference nearly a decade later) the focus of archaeoastronomy had slowly began to shift to smaller sites throughout the world. By the time of Oxford III, within the later 1980�s and early 90�s, the focus of the conference began to encompass astronomical phenomena from around the world including within the United States. With each Oxford conference, a growing interest in archaeoastronomical phenomena has become apparent, but with each conference there have come growing questions of methodology, theoretic and other epistemological questions concerning the sub-discipline as a whole.� While the Oxford conferences and the adjunct papers produced for it continue to have their place within the relative canon of archaeoastronomical thought, such papers have also brought out some of the major flaws in such a blooming science as archaeoastronomy. Such flaws, though similarly faced by the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology within their theoretical coming of age, have contributed to the almost complete dismissal of archaeoastronomical finings by archaeology itself. Ultimately, the reasons for such a dismissal law within the question of whether archaeoastronomy is truly relevant to archaeology or not and for that matter if it is relevant does such information truly at the continuum of archaeological information.

����������� Of the many criticisms of archaeoastronomy the question of methodology and relevance takes the fore. Archaeoastronomy is multi-disciplinary, and encompasses aspects of archaeology and astronomy. Researchers in archaeoastronomical research generally come from a background in archaeology, astronomy or both. A large focus of archaeoastronomical studies has been on megalithic structures or ritualistic dwellings, and their apparent (if they have them at all) alignmentary o relationary association with astronomical phenomena. Among other things an archaeoastronomer does to define whether a site has some archaeoastronomical association or not, is to survey and check for obvious alignments using tradition archaeological tools and techniques. While ideally, using the techniques of its mother discipline archaeology, would seemingly aid an archaeoastronomers research, in some instances it does not. In many cases, the harshest criticism laid upon archaeoastronomy is that is imagines some astronomical significance�s to a given site. Imagined archaeoastronomical significance is one point of contention to archaeoastronomy, but an even larger point of criticism are the �wild theories� generated by archaeoastronomical research. Such wild theories, which almost always related to UFO�s, Atlantis, or some psychic phenomena (etc), have served to weaken credible archaeoastronomical research in its endeavor to be accepted by mainstream archaeology. In particular a classic example of the wild theory phenomena is with the recent theories of the celestial alignment of the great pyramids of Giza, Egypt, as well as with the debate of who built the pyramids. While wild theories have plagued most sciences through out their existences, (some which do come from a legitimate scientific foundation) in the case of archaeoastronomy and archaeology, the influence of two distinct disciplines astronomy and archaeology has made defining hard science from pseudo-science exceedingly difficult. The reason for such a difficulty is obvious, the two disciplines, both archaeology and astronomy, come from a differing theoretical basis; thus, melding both together is one of many continual challenges archaeoastronomy, as a distinct discipline shall have to face.

����������� It is from a methodological standpoint, that the relationship between archaeology and astronomy both exhibit their greatest strengths and weaknesses. Both astronomy and archaeology have firmly established themselves as hard sciences, both with their own distinct methodologies and theoretical wave of thought. However, while astronomy has had the benefit of being an empirical science, dependent upon the scientific method and with a firm basis in methodology and theory, archaeology has had it�s of distinct difficulties as a branch from the social sciences. Archaeology has firmly been defined as the scientific stuffy of ancient or present day civilizations and culture, which primarily uses artifacts and other forms of data as evidence. Far from being a purely social science akin to sociology, the roots f archaeology law within anthropology. Anthropology, which had sought for decades to become defined separately defined from the milieu of social sciences (such as psychology and sociology), has fought to establish itself as the independent social science of culture. Though archaeology�s main focus is upon the artifactual, prehistoric, or even modern remnants of a civilizations or culture, it does contain at the most basic and expansive lever, emphasis on the cultural manifestations of a given peoples. The emphasis on culture (among many others) has been to the benefit of archaeology and has been one piece of a larger puzzle, in answering the ever elusive and ever changing problems concerning the epistemology of archaeology (or better known a the classic question � why do we study what we study?). From an epistemological perspective, the purpose or reason why archaeologists study archaeology can be found within the numerous texts, lengthy dialogues, surveys, excavations, and other aspects of archaeological world. Simply by doing archaeology, the science continually reinvents itself and continues to define itself simultaneously, on the basis of all word done before it. The obvious goal of an archaeologist (or for that matter any scientist) is to add to the continuum of knowledge within its field. From a theoretical standpoint however, he one static element that archaeology studies and which continues to be a point of contention is culture.

����������� Classically archaeology has examined culture by looking at artifacts and other remains of a people, but largely archaeology consists of a much larger span of research including the cultural aspects of anthropology. Such a science, which covers the vital aspects of culture, requires an essential methodology, and to a large degree archaeology has satisfied this need. Yet, with the topic of methodology comes the topic of relevance. Astronomical research has the benefit of studying verifiable, knowable, non-subjective articles. The composition of a star changes little over billions of years, and the changes within the cosmos are predictable, easily defined, classifiable, and knowable. The study of culture itself is relative, and while there are objectifiable knowable truths within the discipline of anthropology (albeit a limited few, commonly referred to as human universals), culture defined itself in a continuum of changes which occur over a relatively small period of time, and whose composition cannot be easily determined as classifiable or predictable. It is largely this conflict between the study of culture and the study of the stars where archaeoastronomy has so far unsuccessfully attempted to bridge the gap between it�s mother disciplines. While the color the star Sirius A[2], in the constellation canis major, may appear to astronomers to have some archaeology or anthropological relevance, such studies are far removed from actual archaeological research. In particular, what is anything can be defined or taken from a study of the color of Canis Major? What can be learned from studying the differing ways in which cultures understood culture of their own cosmological or mythological place? Does such information add to the advancement or knowledge of a human cultural universal? In the case of Sirius A, while the color of the star may be particularly intriguing for astronomers, it is obvious on a cultural level, that different cultures will look at colors in differing ways, and thus the only thing added to the study of archaeology by such research is a look at the world view or mythology of a given culture, something which archaeology and anthropology could have done even without any astronomical help.

����������� Similar problems of relevance within archaeoastronomical research are found within the methodology used by archaeoastronomers in their studies of ancient cultures. As stated above the tendency of archaeoastronomy to take on wild theories is partially caused by a lack of methodological and theoretical principles. Wild theories however, are only one aspect of the problem of archaeoastronomical methodology. The ultimate relevance of archaeoastronomical finds generally lend themselves to two large questions concerning any culture and it�s astronomy: what is the significance the astronomical phenomena played within a given culture (what was the alignment, megalith etc. for), and just how big an impact did such an alignment or astronomical phenomena have on a culture (i.e. what was the general significance, reason and cultural impact of the astronomical phenomena)? These two questions make up the why and how of archaeoastronomical studies, but in many cases their answers (found in most archaeoastronomical studies) leave much to be desired. However, this does not mean that all archaeoastronomical studies are lacking a proper theoretical and methodological basis, and that they do not attempt to answer the two main questions posed by archaeoastronomical studies. Good research and bad research exist within any science, but within archaeoastronomy one of the best contrasts between good and bad research has been within research concerning the Anasazi of the American Southwest.

����������� The Anasazi were an ancient Native American peoples who lived within the American southwest from roughly 100 A.D. to 1300 A.D. Their primary settlement areas were within the four corners region of Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. The Anasazi had a vast culture with a fantastic pottery, basketry, rock art, and architectural tradition. Like many prehistoric cultures found within North and Latin America, the Anasazi left behind no written language, leaving much of the cultural interpretation to be based on artifactual remains and the interpretation of the present day ancestry of the Anasazi. Reasons for the Anasazi disappearance from the American Southwest are unclear, although most sources point to the environment and warfare as being primary factors. The remnants of Anasazi culture all share a general commonality in architecture and design, which has been aptly termed the Chacoan patter. Elements of the Chacoan pattern have been found within cultural aspects of the present day Pueblo people�s. The Pueblo peoples, who generally all trace their ancestry to the Anasazi are composed o25 distinct cultural grounds and include the Navajo, Zuni, Tewa, Toas, and Hopi. Archaeologists have relied heavily upon the interpretation of the present day Pueblo peoples in order to gain a cultural understand of the artifactual remains of the Anasazi. Whether using the interpretation of the present day Pueblo peoples is truly accurate or not, many questions about the Anasazi remain unanswered. It is unknown whether the present day Pueblo were an actual branch off from the Anasazi, or whether they were a separate group, which incorporated Anasazi practices into their own ways. What is clear from most research concerning the Anasazi is that they were a state level culture, heavily dependent on the environment and story for their subsistence, and had an amazing ceremonial and religious tradition.[3]� Anasazi settlements are found throughout the American Southwest, but of primary interest to archaeoastronomers are the settlements and apparent megalithic structure found within Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The Chacoan pattern gleans its name from the settlements of Chaco Canyon. The obvious continuity in architectural and architectural design is easily observed from any of the many large-scale structures of the Canyon (Chetro Ketl, Pueblo Bonito, Casa Chiquita, etc). Almost all of the structures of Chaco are constructed in a classic D shape, the majority of rooms within the structures are used for storage, and kiva's are found in every settlement structure. Settlements around Chaco Canyon are all within viewing distance of Fajada Butted (save for Wijiji Ruins to the far southeast whose view is blushed by Chacra Mesa and Mockingbird Canyon). Fajada Butte sits within the middle of Chaco Canyon and is rather inaccessible. At the very top of Fajada Butte are three stone slabs, and two stone spirals chiseled into the side of the Butte, which together form a megalith that has captured the minds of archaeoastronomers through out the world. The purpose of the megalith is generally agreed upon by archaeoastronomer, that the two spirals marked the summer and winter solstices, and at their most extreme level of interpretation also marked the moon at it�s peak during it�s 18.6[4] year cycle. The finding of the megalith atop Fajada Butte, more popularly and commonly known as the Sun Dagger, had led many archaeoastronomers to consider the possibility of other astronomical alignments throughout Chaco Canyon. It is with the search of astronomical alignments in archaeological structures in and around the Chaco settlement pattern that both the strengths and weaknesses of archaeoastronomy are found.

����������� R.A. Williamson�s study of the possible archaeoastronomical alignments of Casa Rinconada in Chaco Canyon[5] focused upon the more practical observations of an archaeoastronomical study. Primarily focused upon the great kiva[6] at Casa Rinconada, Williamson first surveyed and mapped out the angles of the great kiva, and then compared the angles to the previous archaeological data of the 1930�s. After mapping in angles, and the diameter of the great kiva structure, Williamson then set out to find any correlation between astronomical phenomena such as the solstices and winter equinoxes and any lunar phenomena as they would apply to the archaeological structure within it�s untouched state (some kiva structures have been restored in past years). Williamson writes, �throughout the paper I use the term �astronomical alignment� to denote an observable or measured arrangement of kiva features along a line of astronomical significance. Such alignments may or may not be intentional; indeed, the question of whether or not they may have been placed in the structure intentionally is the subject of this paper.� Williamson found from his study that the great kiva of Casa Rinconada was not an observatory site, but did have several features that were in concern with astronomical phenomena. Namely Williamson found that at the vernal equinox the sun�s shadow covers exactly half of the kiva structure, at the summer solstice the light of the sun beams directly into a north easterly window, and at the time of the summer solstice when the moon reaches the apex of it�s 18.6 year cycle it possibly illuminates on of the niches in the kiva. Williamson�s research continues with a stating of the ethnographic significance of the archaeoastronomical data. Simply, Williamson�s findings comply with conceivable ethnographic data. All throughout Chaco canyon one finds that the Anasazi had a unique connection o their environmental surroundings, and that in some ritualistic or astronomical sphere the sun and moon all played a significant role in their lives. Similarly, the present day Pueblo also emphasize the same, sun and moon celestial phenomena as the Anasazi, using very similar ritualistic archaeological structures and designs. Williamson�s study is amazingly complete, and is compliant with ethnographic and archaeological evidence found about the Anasazi. Methodologically, Williamson used classic archaeological techniques of comparison and contrast, and continual record checks to derive his data[7].

����������� In comparison to the work of Williamson, Claude Britt Jr�s study, �Early Navajo Astronomical Pictographs�[8], is a contrast in terms. The primary focus of Britt�s work was on the archaeoastronomical significance of the Navajo star ceiling sites of Canyon De Chelly. While these star ceiling sites are not entirely related to the Anasazi, their study does hold significance to most all archaeoastronomical studies which use the present day Pueblo as an ethnographic resource. The star ceilings themselves are found throughout Canyon De Chelly, they are rock shelters, with sand paintings on the ceilings that consist of pictures of crosses, x�s, and other symbols. The use of the star ceilings points to some ritualistic purpose as is assumed by the present day Pueblo peoples. While Britt offers a great deal of archaeological evidence in describing the star ceilings of Canyon De Chelly, it is with the ethnographic interpretation of his work that questions are raised concerning his research. These questions not only relate exclusively to Britt�s work, but to other archaeoastronomical evidence as well.

����������� Within Britt�s work, the primary focus was to discern possible ethnographic interpretations of the Star Ceiling sites. It is obvious from the star ceilings that they do indeed depict the night sky to some degree; but Britt�s primary question as what did such star ceilings mean to the Navajo. From an ethnographic perspective Britt�s work is weak. Britt relied upon 22 Navajo informants who he asked various questions concerning the star ceiling and in particular the meaning of the Father Sky image that shows up repeatedly in Navajo sand paintings. The image of Father Sky is prevalent within Navajo culture, within it is a depiction of the sun, moon, the Milky Way, and what Britt and other archaeoastronomers have termed the more important constellations (namely theories which modern westerners are familiar with, based upon ancient Greek Mythology). Repeatedly Britt�s informants stated that the depiction of Father Sky and for that matter the star ceilings were extremely sacred images to the Navajo, the interpretation of which each Navajo elder would not discuss with other Navajo or Britt[9]. The refusal of the Navajo to talk about the symbolism of the star ceilings remains controversial and only half explained by Britt�s research. With is left from Britt�s research is an interpretation of the star ceiling (as representative of Navajo constellations, where each different cross or star represents a different magnitude f star light, and where each constellation is representative in some way to the mythology of the Navajo), with an only half founded ethnographic and historical understanding of the possible meanings of the star ceiling. While this is not necessarily a flaw within Britt�s research, his heavy reliance upon informant information is questionable and needs to be thoroughly backed up by other ethnographic study or data (Britt�s study was the first of it�s kind to study the Navajo star ceilings). Aside from the ethnographic interpretation, the heavy reliance of archaeoastronomers upon western astronomical thought remains a point of contention and it clearly is obvious in Britt�s work.

����������� Both studies by Williamson and Britt encompass differing aspects of archaeoastronomical research, and both bring out the strengths and weaknesses of such research. Namely, both studies use extremely thoroughly archaeological methodology and research design in their construction, but it is by far largely within the ethnographic fields many that archaeoastronomical studies have their failings.� Perhaps such a difficulty in ethnographic interpretations lay within the variable nature of culture itself, or perhaps within the relatively young foundation archaeoastronomy has. What is clear from the author�s, research is that all archaeoastronomical studies acknowledge the need for further research. Such an acknowledgement is obvious in the two research studies listed above, and will require the unique incorporation of ethnographic, archaeological, and astronomical data into a comprehensive whole. The incorporation of these three different but united fields will require archaeoastronomy to be accepted by the greater archaeological community, which in turn means acknowledging and accepting a verifiable methodological and theoretical methodology in all archaeoastronomical studies. Perhaps once archaeoastronomy has established itself in the methodological, theoretical and epistemological sphere, it will be the comprehensive science that is has attempted to be, incorporating both aspects of archaeology and astronomy as a powerful branch of archaeological research.

����������� In conclusion, has archaeoastronomy truly begun to accomplish its goal of understanding or studying a culture on an astronomical basis? If so, what impact has this had on the general archaeological community at large? It is obvious from current research in archaeoastronomy that this relatively young branch of study has a long way to go in establishing itself on both theoretical and methodological grounds. Establishing archaeoastronomy will seemingly require a great emphasis on methodology and theory, and a continual questioning of the epistemology and relevance of all archaeoastronomical studies. Current stumbling blocks to archaeoastronomy are similar to those that other sciences faced in their gradual drive toward mainstream acceptance. Of the greatest challenge to archaeoastronomy is the incorporation of astronomy�s hard science approach to research and archaeology�s blending of hard science and culture research. Once the two sciences of astronomy and archaeology are blended within archaeoastronomy, it is then conceivable that archaeoastronomy will be seen as a relevant branch to archaeology research, adding to the continuum of scientific knowledge concerning culture and the stars.

Bibliography

Dan, Borcious. (1998). Looking for Answers in the Skies. American Archaeology, Vol 2., No. 2, pg. 11-18.

Sofaer, Sinclair, and Dogget. (1982). Lunar Markings on Fajada Butte, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. In Archaeoastronomy in the New World, Ed. A.F. Aveni Austin: Cambridge University Press.

R.A. Williamson (1982). Casa Rinconada, A twelfth Century Anasazi Kiva. In Archaeoastronomy in the New world, Ed. A.F. Aveni. Austin: Cambridge University Press.

Britt, Claude Jr. (1975). Early Navajo Astronomical Pictographs in Canyon De Chelly, Northeastern Arizona, U.S.A. In Archaeoastronomy in Pre-Columbian America. Ed. A.F. Aveni. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Ceraioli, Roger. (1993(. The Riddle of Red Sirius: An Anthropological Perspective. In Astronomies and Cultures, Ed. Clive Ruggles and Nicholas Saunders. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

Ruggles, Clive. (1993). Introduction. Archaeoastronomy in the 1990�s. Loughorough: Group D Publications Ltd. Pg. 1 � 14.

Williamson, Ray A. (1981). North America: A Multiplicity of Astronomies. In Archaeoastronomy in the Americas. Ed. Ray A. Williamson. Los Altos: Bellena Press.

Young, Jane, Williamson, Ray. (1981). Ethnoastronomy: The Zuni Case. In Archaeoastronomy in the America�s. Ed. Ray A. Williamson. Los Altos: Bellena Press.

McCluskey, Stephen. (1981). Transformations of the Hopi Calendar. In Archaeoastronomy in the Americas. Ed. Ray A. Williamson. Los Altos: Bellena Press.

� Note:� If you are reading this paper and intend to plagarize it� in any degree you are fooling no one, and in the end only screwing yourself over by not reading, researching, and understanding some very interesting information and people. This paper is� the sole copyright of me, Jennifer. I have spent a great deal of time working on this� papers so please do me a favor and don't plagarize or copy it.

Back to Jennifer's Anthropology Homepage