Talk:Archaeoastronomy

ethnoastronomy

ethnoastronomy currently redirects here, shouldn't this be a separate article? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a pretty strong overlap between these two aspects of Cultural astronomy, so I'd say let it stand. If enough ethnoastronomical material is added that it deserves a separate article, that might be the time to split them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget-- astronomy is hard science.

Astronomy itself is a science, and has nothing to do with cultural interpretations. There was some confusing wording in the introduction that I've tried to fix. The sentences cited the 2005 Ruggles work, which did not contain the implication that astronomy is subject to cultural interpretation. While the methods of measuring stellar and planetary movement and the interpretation of the results may have changed over the centuries, the universe still acts the same regardless of your culture. --RabidDeity (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Astronomy, as a science, isn't to be confused with nature. Although the universe hasn't changed, human interpretations of it -- which is what astronomies are -- have changed in different times and cultures. I'll go back to Ruggles's book to see what he has to say about this. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruggles, as an astronomer turned archaeologist, says quite clearly (2005, p. 22) that "what different groups of people perceive as important in the sky, and what significance they ascribe to it, is highly culture-dependent." Although his examples are largely prehistoric and ethnographic, he does not exclude modern astronomy from that description. Elswewhere (1999, p. 155) he does distinguish the approaches between "the external, 'objective' view of the world underlying modern astronomy [and] the internalized, contextually rich nature of most non-Western world views." Non-western cultures' symbolic understandings of phenomena in the sky were "their science, and by striving to understand symbolic associations in the material record aspects of it may begin to be revealed to us."

I think your recent change needs some polishing to reflect this nuanced archaeoastronomical point of view. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good points. Modern astronomy strives to be scientifically objective, but as with any human work likely isn't without bias. Most markedly, the distinction between astronomy and astrology is very much a recent one. In the interests of keeping this as clear to uninformed readers as possible (yet restraining from cultural judgments) I'd like to maintain a distinction between objective, empirical observations (the science of astronomy) and the distribution of and interpretation of those observations-- the human factor, the cultural significance of astronomy, the field of archaeoastronomy upon which Ruggles seems to place emphasis. In this light, could you suggest improvements to the introduction to make it more polished? --RabidDeity (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to draw a distinction between science and non-science is a difficult problem. Your suggested distinction in which astronomy is observations and the distribution and interpretation of those observations is something else seems to miss the distinction that Ruggles, and most archaeoastronomers, make. Two examples:

• We know that the Hopi made precise solar observations, but they did it in a religious context, were those observations astronomy? I once didn't think so, but now I'm convinced that they are.
• We know Kepler interpreted Tycho Brahe's observations, certainly those interpretations were astronomy.

Can we come up with a better distinction or -- as I would favor (McCluskey 2005) -- do all the archaeoastronomical examples in this article reflect the different ways that different peoples do astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's much clearer now. I just wanted to avoid falling into the trap of the definition being not distinguished enough from astronomy or historical astronomy, which is a distinction that appears to have been argued to death here already. Good job, and thanks. --RabidDeity (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

References

This page has 'notes', which you can use to find where in the page the note is, and 'references' which give the full reference to the note. But the references do not necessarily tie in with the notes. e.g. Bpenprase is trying to add a citation to the list of references which is not referenced from the text. It is only observant editors which are stopping this. And 'Sir Jocelyn Stephens' has only the ref given in notes, there isn't a full ref in 'references'.

Why aren't we simply using a standard list of numbered references? I suggest collapsing 'notes' and 'refs' into one section 'refs'. Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The editors chose to use Wikipedia's short footnotes format as an outgrowth of an earlier featured article review. The general policy is not to change an article's formats from an accepted form unless there is a reason to do so. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeoastronomy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Three found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: One found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall now read the article thoroughly and post a review here within the next twenty-four hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written and organised.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref# 81 is a dead link. I can't find any manuals on the Brunton web site.Y Done

   Fixed with Internet Archive / Alun Salt (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

   Good, that didn't work for me. Results from the Ia are sometimes inconsistent. All other references are RS, assume good faith for off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough, without going into unnecessary micro-detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captioned and licensed appropriately

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An interesting and well written article. I am happy to list this as GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun Dagger site

See Talk:Fajada Butte - this may not be what the artist Sofaer claims it is. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Doug, Despite the many controversies surrounding the Fajada Butte Sun Dagger, it is the best studied example of a class of such sites that are found throughout the Southwestern US. I think we should retain the image as representative of that kind of site.

BTW, calling Sofaer an artist suggests that she doesn't know the astronomy. Most people who do archaeoastronomy have training in other fields; Sofaer studied art. She is a strong advocate for "her site" and I think some of her claims are wrong, but she does know what she's talking about. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. We need to somehow make it clear in this article that it's disputed. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I just compared the changes to the article, and I find that recent edits by Bheldthor make strong claims that "its explicit light markings that record all of the key events of both the solar and lunar cycles: summer solstice, winter solstice, equinox, and the major and minor lunar standstills." The section probably can be improved by reverting those recent edits. It will probably still need further work, however. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this get to fa?

This is an absolutely fantastic looking article, and a quick browse tells me it seems well written too. How far is it from FA status? IBE (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)