Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Placing Greek Temples: An Archaeoastronomical Study of the Orientation of Ancient Greek

Religious Structures
efrosyni boutsikas

Abstract

This paper revisits the generally accepted view


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

Resumen

Al analizar los alineamientos de 107 templos


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

Efrosyni Boutsikas is a Lecturer of Classical Archaeology at the University of Kent and presently holds a Visiting Fellowship at the University
of Leicester. She received a B.Sc. in Archaeological Science from the University of Sheffield and an M.A. in Archaeology from the University
of Leicester. Boutsikas completed her Ph.D. (University of Leicester) on astronomy and ancient Greek cult in 2007. Between 2006 and 2008
she was an osteological and archaeological supervisor for the University of Leicesters Archaeological Services (ULAS), while between 2007
and 2008 she worked as a university teacher in Ancient History and Archaeology (University of Leicester).

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


4 20072008
archaeoastronomy

In 1939 William Bell Dinsmoor published his study


on the principles behind ancient Greek temple orientations. His treatment and conclusions in this paper
brought together earlier research that had been carried out by Francis C. Penrose in the 1890s and by
Heinrich Nissen published between 1869 and 1906.
Dinsmoors general conclusion on the orientation of
Greek temples followed that of his predecessors, who
argued in favor of the predominant eastern orientation. He claimed that 73 percent of Greek temples
were oriented within 60 of due east (1939:115116),
and therefore the placing of Greek temples was dictated by the need to face the rising or setting Sun. This
result was derived from plotting Nissens temple orientations (published in 1906) in a graph in an attempt
to examine the presence of trends. Eighty years since
Dinsmoors paper, the orientations of Greek temples
have been shoe-horned in such a way that the presence
of a much broader variation of orientationswhich
is in fact the caseis commonly overlooked in favor
of the idea of the predominance of an eastern orientation, which remains a point of reference for modern
scholars (Beyer 1990; Mikalson 2005:20; Scully
1979:44, 151). Prior to Dinsmoors publication Nissen and Penrose had argued that temples were aligned
to sunrise on the day of the gods major festival (Nissen 1873:527528; Penrose 1893:380). The eastern
orientation of Greek temples was explained as the
result of Egyptian influence (Nissen 1906:249).
The study presented here intends to offer a much
needed structured and rigorous approach through
the discipline of archaeoastronomy as prescribed by
Aveni (2002), McCluskey (1982, 2004), and Ruggles
(1984, 1999, 2000a, 2000b). These scholars have
pioneered methods of archaeoastronomical research,
leading to new directions with regard to the contribution of archaeoastronomy to the reconstruction of past
societies and practices (Ghezzi and Ruggles 2007),
wherever possible in conjunction with ancient written sources (McCluskey 2006; Vail and Aveni 2004).
This paper challenges for the first time the argument
that Greek temples had a predominantly eastern orientation, raising as a result serious doubts about the
assumed role of the Sun in the orientation of many
Greek temples. The study presents a general analysis of the orientation of 107 Greek temples from the

Greek mainland and the islands of the Aegean (Figure


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

Sample Description
The dataset of this study includes some of the most
important and representative sites of the periods
during which they were constructed and some of the
earliest self-standing religious structures found in
Greece from around 900 B.C. (e.g., Apollo Thermios,
excluding the megara, the function of which has not
been firmly established to this date). The region covered by this study includes the area covered by the
modern Greek state (Figure 1) rather than the world
of Hellenic city-states as a whole, which extended
from the western Mediterranean to the Black Sea. In
the selection procedure of temples to be surveyed,
no deities or types of sites have intentionally been
given greater emphasis. This study includes the vast
majority of religious sites that could be measured
within the study area. All religious structures for
which permission was given and whose preservation
was sufficient have been surveyed (including those
of foreign deities).
The geographical area covered by the sample
presented here includes the Greek mainland and the
Aegean islands of Aigina, Delos, Kos, Naxos, Poros,
Rhodes, Samos, and Tenos. The dataset includes
different types of sites, including temples located in
organically grown settlements that demonstrate the
continuity of a cult over several successive temples
constructed in the same location. Settlements that
developed organically are important to this study, as
they allow the examination of patterns of continuity and, more importantly, observations of changes
in the orientation between successive structures. In
some cases as many as four reconstructions of the
same temple have been measured (e.g., the temples
Volume XXI 20072008

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


ID

Location

Site

1
Acheron
Oracle of the dead
2
Acheron
Oracle of the dead
3
Aegina
Sanctuary of Aphaia
4
Amphipolis Sanctuary of Attis
5
Amphipolis Thesmophorio
6
Argos
Heraion
7
Argos
Heraion
8
Athens
Acropolis
9
Athens
Acropolis
10 Athens
Acropolis
11 Athens
Agora
12 Athens
Agora
13 Athens
Agora
14 Athens
Agora
15 Athens
South slope
16 Athens
South slope
17 Bassae
Sanctuary of Apollo
18 Calydon
Ancient Calydon
19 Calydon
Ancient Calydon
20 Calydon
Ancient Calydon
21 Corinth
Agora
22 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
23 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
24 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
25 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
26 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
27 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
28 Delos
Sanctuary of Apollo
29 Delos
Sanctuary of Foreign Gods
30 Delos
Sanctuary of Foreign Gods
31 Delos
Sanctuary of Foreign Gods
32 Delos
Sanctuary of Foreign Gods
33 Delos
Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos

34 Delos
Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos


35 Delos
Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos
36 Delos
Theatre district
37 Delphi
Sanctuary of Apollo
38 Delphi
Sanctuary of Apollo
39 Delphi
Sanctuary of Apollo
40 Delphi
Sanctuary of Apollo
41 Dion
Sanctuary of Demeter
42 Dion
Sanctuary of Demeter
6

archaeoastronomy

Building

Azimuth Altitude Declination

Main sanctuary
Palace of Hades & Persephone
Temple of Aphaia
Temple of Attis
Thesmophorio-Nymphaion
Old Temple of Hera
New Temple of Hera
Parthenon
Temple of Athena Polias
Erechtheion
Metroon
Temple of Apollo Patroos
Temple of Zeus & Athena Phatria
Hephaisteion
Old Temple of Dionysos
New Temple of Dionysos
Temple of Apollo
Temple of Apollo
Heroon
Temple of Artemis
Temple of Apollo
Letoon
Artemisio
Temple G
Poros Temple of Apollo
Temple of Apollo (Athenians)
Great Temple of Apollo
Dodekatheo
Heraion
Serapeion C
Temple of Isis
Serapeion A
Temple of Zeus
Hypsistos Mount Kythnos
Sanctuary of Artemis Locheia,
Hercules-Baal Zeboul, gods of
Askalon
Sanctuary of Agathe Tyche
Aphrodision
Old Temple of Athena Pronaia
Temple of Apollo
Old Temple of Apollo
Temple of Athena Pronaia
Temple A
Temple 1

4
4
67
101
165
118
119
77
85
353
102
97
99
104
75
75
4
129
180
122
77
186
108
347
265
263
264
97
172
178
268
297
286

3
0
1.5
4
11
3
3
2
3.5
3
4.5
4.5
4.5
5
3
4
14
1
0.5
3
3
1
3
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.5
7
2
0
2
0

53 21
50 1
18 35
-5 56
-36 28
-19 12
-19 56
11 7
5 48
54 15
-7
-2 59
-4 33
-8 6
13 21
14 00
62 1
-29 4
-51 36
-22 34
12 1
-51 40
-12 37
52 19
-4 11
-5 23
-4 59
-3 33
-45 8
-50 52
-1 45
22 24
12 17

85

3 37

266
170
177
49
49
190
64
70

0
9
7
27
27
8
0
0

-3 32
-42 45
-44 34
47 49
47 49
-42 42
19 2
14 37

ID

Location

Site

Building

43 Dion
Sanctuary of Demeter
Temple B
44 Dion
Sanctuary of Demeter
Temple 2
45 Dion
Sanctuary of Demeter
Small temple with offering table
46 Dion
Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Isis
47 Dion
Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Hypolympia Aphrodite
48 Dion
Temple of Zeus
Temple of Zeus Hypsistos
49 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
Temple of Aphrodite
50 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
Temple of Themis
51 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
Temple of Zeus (hiera oikia)
52 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
New Temple of Dione
53 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
Old Temple of Dione
54 Dodona
Oracle of Zeus
Temple of Hercules
55 Eleusis
Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Megaron
56 Eleusis
Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Solonion
57 Eleusis
Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Peisistratid
58 Eleusis
Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Ploutoneion
59 Gortyn
Asklepieion
Temple of Asklepios
60 Isthmia
Sanctuary of Poseidon
Old Temple of Poseidon
61 Isthmia
Sanctuary of Poseidon
New Temple of Poseidon
62 Kos
Asklepieion
Large Temple of Asklepios
63 Kos
Asklepieion
Prostyle Ionic Temple of

Asklepios
64 Lebadeia
Temple of Zeus
Temple of Zeus Vassileus
65 Mantineia Agora
Temple of Hera
66 Mantineia Agora
Podareion
67 Megalopolis Agora
Temple of Zeus Soter
68 Messene
Asklepieion
Temple of Asklepios
69 Messene
Asklepieion
Temple of Artemis
70 Messene
Asklepieion
Artemision
71 Messene
Asklepieion
Oikos Asklepeiou & Paidon
72 Naxos
City
Temple of Apollo Portara
73 Naxos
Sanctuary of Dionysos
Old Temple of Dionysos
74 Naxos
Sanctuary of Dionysos
Temple of Dionysos
75 Naxos
Sagri
Temple of Demeter
76 Nemea
Sanctuary of Zeus
Temple of Zeus
77 Nemea
Sanctuary of Zeus
Old Temple of Zeus
78 Olympia
Sanctuary of Zeus
Temple of Zeus
79 Olympia
Sanctuary of Zeus
Heraion
80 Olympia
Sanctuary of Zeus
Pelopeion
81 Pella
Thesmophorio
Thesmophorio
82 Pella
Thesmophorio
Thesmophorio
83 Perachora
Heraion
Temple of Hera Akraia
84 Poros
Sanctuary of Poseidon
Temple of Poseidon
85 Pylos
Nestors Palace
Hiero-Oplostasio
86 Pylos
Nestors Palace
Queens Hall SW entrance

Azimuth Altitude Declination


78
71
61
162
68
150
116
129
125
110
176
158
111
115
115
103
108
98
97
25
114

0
0
0
1
0
1.5
8
7
7.5
8
12
3.5
2
2
2
2
20
0
1
1
2

8 37
13 52
21 12
-46 7
16 6
-40 32
-14 15
-23 51
-20 50
-9 56
-38 23
-42 35
-15 27
-18 29
-18 29
-9 18
-1 12
-6 35
-5 4
46 47
-18 13

64
93
86
101
115
129
115
215
140
203
202
213
75
75
83
87
208
267
84
93
68
147
220

0
8
8
4.5
11
11
11
1
0
4
4
0
7
7
3
2
3
2
1
12
2
2
0

20
2 32
83
-5 58
-12 11
-21 56
-12 11
-40 30
-38 6
-43 46
-44 11
-42 30
16 8
16 8
7 28
3 39
-42 8
-1 1
4 47
54
18 13
-37 18
-35 27

Volume XXI 20072008

Table 1. (Cont.)
ID

Location

Site

87 Pylos
Nestors Palace
88 Rhodes
City of Rhodes
89 Rhodes
Ialyssos

90 Rhodes
Kameiros
91 Rhodes
Lindos, Acropolis
92 Samos
Heraion
93 Samos
Heraion
94 Samos
Heraion
95 Samos
Heraion
96 Sikyon
Acropolis & Agora
97 Sounio
Sanctuary of Poseidon
98 Sounio
Sanctuary of Poseidon
99 Sounio
Sanctuary of Poseidon
100 Sparta
Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia
101 Tegea
Temple of Athena Alea
102 Tenos
Sanctuary of Poseidon

& Amphitite
103 Thermum
Ancient Thermum
104 Thermum
Ancient Thermum
105 Thermum
Ancient Thermum
106 Tiryns
Palace
107 Tiryns
Palace

Building

Azimuth Altitude Declination

Megaron
Temple of Aphrodite
Temple of Athena Polias &
Zeus Polieos
Temple of Pythian Apollo
Temple of Lindia Athena
Rhoecus Temple
Hekatombedon II
Greater Temple of Hera
Hekatombedon I
Temple of Artemis or Apollo
Temple of Poseidon
Great Temple of Athena
Small Temple of Athena
Temple of Artemis Orthia
Temple of Athena
Building B

147
93
184

3
0
0

-36 23
-3 5
-53 57

357
34
79
79
79
77
95
105
98
103
100
87
194

0.5
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2
1
1
1
4
5
0

53 36
41 21
8 47
8 47
8 23
9 57
-2 49
-11 37
-6 7
-10 3
-6 16
5 24
-50 47

Temple of Apollo
Megaron A
Megaron B
Temple of Hera
Megaron

191
194
196
180
180

5
5
4
2
2

-45 26
-44 44
-45 9
-50 42
-50 42

of Hera in Samos). Sites on coasts (e.g., Perachora),


in plains (e.g., Messene, Athens), and on hilltops or
mountains (e.g., the Menelaion near Sparta and the
temple of Apollo at Bassae) are also included in the
dataset. The sample contains not only temples that
belonged to settlements of various sizes but also those
with access to a number of different resources: some
have limited local trade routes, while others were
cosmopolitan trade centers and therefore subject to a
variety of cultural influences. The study also includes
temple measurements from sanctuaries located outside and on the boundaries of urban centers (e.g., the
Thesmophorion-Nymphaion in Amphipolis) as well
as temples independent of the control of a certain city
(e.g., the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi). Wherever
possible, cities that were planned from the outset
and followed town-planning concepts and principles
8

archaeoastronomy

before they were laid out have been included in the


sample (e.g., Rhodes).

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

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

affected a large geographical area were examined by


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

magnetic orientation of each point and the altitude of


the horizon on that orientation. These measurements
were repeated until the entire horizon profile was
recorded, and all measurements were taken from the
center of the temples entrance.
I have attempted to ensure that data collection was
as inclusive as possible. And although decisions had
to be made about what sites would be included, the
decision to include temples was mostly driven by
factors of site preservation and accessibility during
fieldwork.

Data Reduction
This study improves the methods of analysis applied
to the orientations compared with previous studies
Volume XXI 20072008

by accounting for the height of the local horizon


(altitude), refraction, and atmospheric extinction.
The temple orientations have been converted to declinations using the command-driven DOS program
GETDEC created by Clive Ruggles (http://www.
le.ac.uk/archaeology/rug/aa/progs/decpak.html),
which makes corrections for atmospheric refraction and extinction (Table 1). In order to obtain the
declination of a structure, GETDEC requires the
structures latitude, the magnetic orientation, the
horizons altitude, and the magnetic correction. This
means that each declination obtained is specific to the
particular horizon and location. The term declination
in this sense, used when discussing the orientation of
a structure, needs to be explained. Declination is the
angular distance between a celestial object and the
celestial equator, whether to the north or the south; it
is the celestial counterpart of terrestrial latitude. As
a result, a structure as such cannot have a declination. This term is employed throughout this paper in
order to denote the exact part of the celestial sphere
toward which the structure is oriented and to therefore
be compared to the celestial objects with the same
or similar declination or celestial latitude. In the
present context the declination is more informative
than the azimuth (bearing of magnetic compass) of
a structure. This is because by using declination we
instantly account for extinction, latitude, and the altitude of the local horizon aligned with the structures
entrance. In addition, the use of declination enables a
direct comparison between the orientation of a structure and the position of a specific celestial object, or
a position on the horizon.
The declinations of horizon points indicate which
celestial bodies rise and set there and (once precession, refraction, atmospheric extinction, and proper
motion are allowed for) which ones would have risen
or set there at any given era in the past. Furthermore,
by obtaining declinations for specific points along
a horizon (horizon profiles), we can calculate the
declination of any point on the horizon profile and
hence reconstruct the celestial bodies visible at that
particular horizon at different times. The orientations
were plotted in the form of cumulative frequency distribution (curvigram). Each declination shown in the
following graph is represented by a computed curve.
10

archaeoastronomy

The peak of the curve is the deduced declination. The


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

The Orientation of Greek Temples


Graph 1 shows the distribution of the deduced temple
declinations. Three general groups of orientations are
depicted in the graph. The largest group of measurements points broadly east and west, spanning the
declination range -30 to +23 with distinct borders at
the northern and southern ends. The vast majority of
this group falls within the solar range (Graph 2, highlighted section). Within this group there is a particular
concentration of declinations between -8 and +8.
This concentration, if interpreted in terms of sunrise
or sunset, represents a range of dates falling roughly
within one month of the equinoxes. If we were to
argue that the position of the rising or setting Sun on
the horizon at the time of the equinoxes was used as
a factor in orienting some Greek religious structures,
we would expect that the distribution of such a group
of declinations would show an accumulation of data
at the time of the actual equinox (declination 0). As
shown in Graph 1, the dataset includes no structures
oriented between 0 and 2, only two structures have
declination -1, and one structure declination -2. This
very distinct absence of data in the range of the Sun
rising at the actual equinox may signify that the concentration of data around the equinoxes, although
empirically real, could be an example of unintended
astronomical alignment by those who constructed it
(Ruggles 2000b:152).
The declinations falling within the eastwest group
comprise 65.3 percent of the total amount of data (70
measurements). Of the 70 measurements belonging
to this group, eight face toward the west: the Poros
temple of Apollo, the temple of the Athenians and
Great temple of Apollo, the temples of Zeus Hypsistos

graph 1.

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

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

and Agathe Tyche on Mount Kythnos, the temple of


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

data than earlier conclusions: Dinsmoor argued that


73 percent of Greek temples were oriented within
60 of due east (1939:115116). The present sample
indicates that the eastern-facing temples are not as
predominant as previously thought, and in addition,
the distribution of the orientations shows a much
greater variation that cannot be ignored or explained
by the movement of the Sun.
Graph 1 shows the presence of a second group
of data formed toward the southern part of the sky,
Volume XXI 20072008

11

graph 3.

Declinations of twelve temples dedicated to Apollo.

ranging between declinations -55 and -34. This


group comprises 25.2 percent of the total sample
(total number of measurements 27). As neither the
Sun nor the Moon visit these declinations, if the
orientation of these structures was related to astronomical observations, this could only involve stellar
observations. The constellations rising and setting in
the declinations covered by this group are Centaurus
( or for the Greeks), Lupus (for
the Greeks a wineskin from which the Centaur was
about to drink, or the Therion [], meaning
wild animal), Ara (the Greeks called it Thytrion or
Thysiasterion [ or ], meaning altar), Vela (for the ancient Greeks the sail of
the constellation of Argo [Argo Navis]), the southern
part of Sagittarius (for the Greeks Toxeutes or Toxotes
[ or ], meaning archer), Phoenix (the Egyptian Bennu, possibly named Phoenix
by the Greeks), and the southern part of Eridanus
( or in Greek, the latter meaning
river). Although perhaps unintended, a concentration of data is observed between declinations -42 to
-46 of 13 structures. These structures do not indicate
a preference with regard to a specific deity, chronological period, or geographic location. This subgroup
includes hero cults (Pelopeion in Olympia and the
temple of Herakles in Dodona), other chthonic cults
like the two temples of Athena Pronaia in Delphi and
the temple of Demeter in Naxos, temples constructed
12

archaeoastronomy

over Mycenaean megara (Apollo in Thermon [three


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

an in-depth analysis of each Apollo cult, the material


culture, and the local horizon and landscape. A study
of the Delphic temple of Apollo has indicated that
its orientation may have been connected to stellar
observations, and, more specifically, it seems possible
that the orientation of the temple, the operation of the
Delphic oracle, and the presence of Apollo in Delphi
for a certain number of months may have been related
to the movement of the constellation of Delphinus
(Salt and Boutsikas 2005).
This group of northern orientations includes the
following hero cults: the Doric temple of Asklepios
in Kos, the north porch of the Erechtheion in Athens,
and the axis of the oracle of the dead in Acheron,
which also includes the underground palace of Hades
and Persephone. Although the evolution of the cult
of Asklepios from a mortal physician to a Thessalian
hero, to a chthonic oracular demon to a Panhellenic
Apollonian deity with mantic character is complex
(Compton 2002:320321), in Kos his cult developed
to an important state cult, retaining, however, its
chthonic character. The temples of Asklepios in Kos
have different orientations, but they all face the altar
(from different directions). With regard to the Erechtheion, a recent study of the structure and the north
porch indicates that the north porch and the west cella
were of greater cultic significance to the east porch
and cella and that this northern orientation may have
been deliberate and associated with the movement of
the constellation of Draco (Boutsikas 2007).
As is apparent from Graphs 1 and 2 and Table 1, the
dataset presented here displays no preference toward
the cardinal points. The largest number of data accumulation toward a cardinal point is that facing east,
with, however, only five structures facing within 3 of
due east (just under 4.7 percent of the dataset). Three
structures of the examined sample face due south
(within 3), two in Tyrins and one in Calydon, and
only one due north (Rhodes) and due west (Pella). The
analysis of the sample demonstrates a distribution of
orientations that is much wider than the range in the
horizon visited by the Sun (Graph 2). It is evident
that the movement of the Sun alone is not sufficient
to explain the orientation of Greek temples.
In examining the possibility of lunar associations,
Graph 4 shows that the lunar rising or setting points in

the horizon do not seem to have been associated with


the orientation of the temples either. The Moons path
along the horizon is similar to that of the Sun, but it
moves a little farther north and south (shaded darker
in Graph 4). As such, it appears difficult to determine
whether the orientations of the eastwest group could
be associated with the movement of the Moon or that
of the Sun. However, if the former were the case,
we would expect to find measurements falling also
within the part of the horizon that is only visited by
the Moon: declinations -24 to -30 and +24 to +28
(extending on either side of the solar range). Graph 4
shows explicitly that only one structure (the temple
of Apollo in Calydon) is oriented within the space
between the end of the solar range and the southern
and northern major lunar limits.
The data have also been divided into chronological
periods in order to investigate whether a practice of
deliberate general orientation of Greek temples was
introduced at a specific period or whether, if present, it
declined after a certain time. In the vast majority of religious sites we encounter continuity in the construction of religious buildings; the destruction of temples
from natural disasters (e.g., the temple of Apollo at
Delphi, destroyed in 373 B.C. by an earthquake) or
by human action (e.g., the destruction of the temple
of Poseidon at Sounion by the Persians) was followed
by their replacement with new structures. The new
temples were built either adjacent to or on top of the
old foundations, always dedicated to the same deity.
As ritual practice changes on a slow timescale even in
cases of rapid social change, the chances of identifying trends are greater, as they may be sustained long
enough to be picked up by the archaeological record
(Ruggles 2000b:163).
The investigation of changes in orientation as a
result of the precession of the equinoxes between
successive building phases cannot be examined at this
stage. In order to do so it is necessary to determine
the celestial body toward which the structure was
aligned, but such a conclusion needs to be determined
through the examination of archaeological and literary evidence rather than by using the orientation of
subsequent structures in order to fix on a celestial
body that simply shares the orientation. In the case
of Greece there is no single celestial body that could
Volume XXI 20072008

13

graph 4.

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

graph 5.

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

have determined the orientation of all or the majority


of temples.
The declinations from this study were split into
subgroups by chronological period as determined
by archaeological finds: Geometric (900700 B.C.),
Archaic (700480 B.C.), Classical (480330 B.C.),
and Hellenistic (330 B.C.A.D. 14). The results of
this analysis produce graphs that in terms of their distribution patterns are similar to those of Graph 1. The
two largest chronological groups were for the Archaic
and Classical periods (Graphs 5 and 6, respectively).
The distribution of the data from the Classical pe14

archaeoastronomy

riod (Graph 6) is representative of those generated


for the other periods also. As demonstrated also in
these two representative graphs, this analysis shows
no visible shift between the consecutive periods.
The graphs generated by the division of the data into
the aforementioned chronological periods depict the
same three clusters of data that have been discussed
previously (eastwest, northsouth).
A preliminary study of the sites included in this
study indicates a frequent shift of orientation between
earlier and later structures. The dataset includes,
among other cases, four sites with four successive

graph 6.

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

reconstructions of the same temple (e.g., the Heraion


of Samos and the temples of Dionysos in Sagri,
Naxos), six sites with three successive reconstructions (e.g., the temples of Apollo and Artemis on
Delos), and nineteen sites with two reconstructions
(e.g., the temples of Dionysos in Athens, the temples
of Poseidon in Isthmia, and the temples of Demeter in
Dion). In a number of cases two or more successive
temples with different orientations fall in the same
chronological subgroup (e.g., the two temples of
Poseidon at Isthmia and the two temples of Asklepios
in Kos). The general scheme of chronological periods,
as given above, rests on identified changes in technology, the architectural development of structures,
and changes in pottery and art. It becomes apparent
that the boundaries of these periods are not directly
applicable to a study that investigates successive
religious structures.
Graph 7 shows the changes in the temple orientations grouped according to successive structures. In
the majority of the cases (18 out of 28) there is an
observed change in orientation between successive
temples. It is intriguing that in 17 cases out of 18 the
change in orientation occurs between the first temple
and the second. Only in one case (the temple of Athena
Pronaia in Delphi) do the first and second structures
have the same orientation with a change occurring
in the third. The chronological division analysis and
that of the orientation of consecutive structures makes

apparent the need for examining sites with continuity


in the construction of religious structures individually and within their religious context, regardless of
modern views about the time frame of chronological
periods.
The general distribution of temple orientations
reveals clusters of data that may or may not be deliberately placed by the groups who built them. For
more conclusive arguments on either the dismissal
of the possibility that Greek temples were astronomically oriented or, alternatively, in support of a
case for deliberate astronomical orientation, further
investigation of possible reasons and principles behind potential deliberate placing of temples would
be necessary. The following section discusses such
possibilities.

Discussion
Previous research by Dinsmoor, Penrose, and Nissen
focused on the significance of the Sun in the orientation of Greek temples. To this day this idea has been
offered as the explanation for the general principles
behind the orientation of temples. In doing so, however, we overlook a very large body of data that falls
outside positions in the horizon that are visited by
the Sun. Dinsmoors ideas have persisted for years
without any attempt at verification or testing by other
researchers who have used his results. This study
forms the first systematic collection and analysis of
Volume XXI 20072008

15

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

Greek temple orientations in more than a century.


This study takes a first step toward a systematic approach by focusing on a geographically smaller area
that has, however, been surveyed more thoroughly
than before. The present dataset does not include
temples from Asia Minor, Italy, and Sicily, as earlier
researchers attempted. I believe that these areas need
to be surveyed just as thoroughly and to be examined
independently before we can attempt to put forward
an all-encompassing model and interpretation of
Greek temple orientations.
This paper provides hard evidence in order to demonstrate that care should be taken when making general statements about the direction of Greek temples,
statements that unavoidably bear weight in what we
perceive as determining factors for this orientation.
The data presented here suggest that the Sun alone
was not the all-encompassing phenomenon determining the placement of the vast majority of Greek
religious structures. In fact, this appears to be a gross
oversimplification of a much more complex and more
interesting pattern of temple orientation and religious
practice. The general analysis shows that 58 percent
of the temple orientations falls within the points on
the horizon that the rising Sun visits in a year and 7.3
16

archaeoastronomy

percent within the points of the setting Sun. A total


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

patterns in the material record but tends to ignore


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

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

method in order for other cities to know that the time


for a certain festival was arriving.
If we suppose for a moment that temples pointed
toward a part of the horizon in which a certain astronomical phenomenon was observed or predicted at
the time when the annual festival was to be held, this
phenomenon had to be annual, like the religious festivals, and connected either to stellar (i.e., the heliacal
rising or setting of stars, apparent acronychal rising,
apparent cosmical setting) or to solar observations
(i.e., the point on the horizon where the Sun rises on a
specific day in the year). As the solar explanation can
be eliminated at least for the data falling outside the
solar range, we may examine the possibility of stellar
associations. Homeric references (circa 750 B.C.) to
such stellar observations (Iliad 18.483489, 22.26
31), Hesiods Works and Days (383384, 609611)
(circa 700 B.C.), and the use of parapegmata from at
least the fifth century B.C. (Hannah 2005b) testify that
alternative timekeeping methods to the lunisolar calendar were known and practiced by the Greeks since
the Geometric period. These methods were thus available in those cases when precise timekeeping was of
the essence, such as the performance of agricultural
activities. In the religious sphere we know that the
gods had to receive their sacrifices at the correct time
every year (Aristophanes Clouds 615626). The use
of star calendars for religious purposes is much easier
to demonstrate during and after the Classical period.
Astronomical observations based on the fourth-century paragegma of Eudoxos are displayed in an Egyptian papyrus from Hibeh, a festival calendar dating
to 300 B.C. that recorded astronomical movements
of interest to the religious authorities, assisting in the
keeping of the festival celebrations: in time with the
agricultural seasons to which the cults were attached
(Hannah 2005a:62). Parapegmata may have been
used throughout the Greek city-states in order to assist
with the timing of the religious festivals (in addition
to other functions). The example of the Pythais in
Athens (the religious procession that the Athenians
sent to Delphi every year) demonstrates clearly
that watching the skies for a sign (in the case of the
Pythais a meteorological sign) before commencing a
religious procession was a reality in ancient Athens,
at least from the second century B.C. (Dillon 1997:24,
Volume XXI 20072008

17

234n118). Rising and setting stars span the entire


range of declinations. The plethora of stars in the night
sky means there is a strong risk of identifying totally
spurious correlations between structure orientations
and stellar bodies. Thus, it is essential that appropriate
criteria are employed in order to avoid random and
ungrounded associations. For a convincing case to be
made, a study of the orientation of a structure must
draw upon epigraphic, historical, mythological, and
archaeological evidence when considering possible
correlations. The simple association of stellar bodies
to a structure that is purely based on the structures
orientation is no longer sufficient.
Preliminary results from the oracle of Apollo in
Delphi (Salt and Boutsikas 2005), the sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia in Sparta (Boutsikas 2008), and the
Erechtheion (Boutsikas 2007:119145) suggest that
there may be a connection between the timing of a
religious activity and a stellar event visible in the
part of the horizon toward which the main temple in
the sanctuary was oriented. The temples of Artemis
Orthia in Sparta and Apollo in Delphi may well have
been oriented toward the heliacal rising of a particular
star or constellation, and in the case of the Erechtheion
the associated cult rites seem to be tightly timed at
the most significant phases of the culmination of a
constellation associated with the myths surrounding the structure and the Acropolis. The association
between the deity and the specific constellation is
demonstrated in all three cases by mythology, by the
connection between the movement of the constellation and the timing of the annual festival, by ancient
historical records, by archaeological finds, and by the
foundation myth of the cult. Such a network of interlocking relationships is hardly surprising: throughout
archaeological and anthropological research we learn
about the enmeshing of landscapes and places with
meanings and symbolism and the necessity of human actions to maintain the cosmic balance (Ruggles
1999:120121). Greek religious practice and cult in
its early stages prior to the development of temples
were performed in the open air. This implies that
normally cult practices and ritual preceded temple
construction. Further studies will establish whether
temple orientation is in fact strongly contextual and
largely determined by local rather than regional
18

archaeoastronomy

trends in cult practice, in other words, whether the


construction and orientation of a temple were unique
and historically situated within the particular group
that built it.

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

Aveni, Anthony F.
2002 Conversing with the Planets: How Science and Myth
Invented the Cosmos. Revised edition. University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Beyer, A.
1990 Die Orientierung griechischer Tempel. Zur Beziehung von Kultbild und Tr. In Licht und Architektur,
edited by W.-D. Heilmeyer and W. Hoepfner, pp.
19. Ernst Wasmuth, Tbingen.
Boutsikas, Efrosyni
2007 Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An Application
of Archaeoastronomy to Greek Religious Architecture, Cosmologies and Landscapes. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, School of Archaeology and
Ancient History, University of Leicester.
2008 The Cult of Artemis Orthia in Greece: A Case of
Astronomical Observations? In Lights and Shadows
in Cultural Astronomy. Proceedings of the SEAC
2005, Isili, Sardinia, 28 June3 July, edited by
Mauro P. Zedda and Juan Belmonte, pp. 197205.
Associazione Archeofila Sarda, Isili.
Compton, Michael T.
2002 The Association of Hygieia with Asklepios in
Graeco-Roman Asklepieion Medicine. Journal
of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences
57:312329.

Dillon, Matthew
1997 Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece. Routledge, London.
Dinsmoor, William Bell
1939 Archaeology and Astronomy. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 80:95173.
Ghezzi, Ivan, and Clive Ruggles
2007 Chankillo: A 2300-Year-Old Solar Observatory in
Coastal Peru. Science 315:12391243.
Hannah, Robert
2005a Greek and Roman Calendars. Constructions of Time
in the Classical World. Duckworth, London.
2005b Euctemons Parapgma. In Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by C. J. Tuplin
and T. E. Rihll, pp. 112132. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
McCluskey, Stephen C.
1982 Archaeoastronomy, Ethnoastronomy, and the History of Science. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 385:342351.
2004 Astronomy, Time and Churches in the Early Middle
Ages. In Villards Legacy: Studies in Medieval Technology, Science and Art in Memory of Jean Gimpel, edited
by M. Zenner, pp. 197210. Ashgate, Aldershot.
2006 Medieval Liturgical Calendar, Sacred Space, and the
Orientation of Churches. In Time and Astronomy in
Past Cultures, edited by A. Soltysiak, pp. 139148.
Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw,
Torun and Warsaw.
Mikalson, Jon D.
2005 Ancient Greek Religion. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Nissen, Heinrich
1873 ber Tempel-Orientierung. Erster Artikel. Rheinisches Museum 28:513557.
1906 Orientation. Studien zur Geschichte der Religion.
Weidmann, Berlin.
Penrose, Francis C.
1893 On the results of an Examination of the Orientations
of a Number of Greek Temples with a View to Connect these Angles with the Amplitudes of Certain
Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and
an Endeavour to Derive therefrom the Dates of
their Foundation by Consideration of the Changes

Produced upon the Right Ascension and Declination


of the Stars by the Precession of the Equinoxes.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, series A, 184:805834.
Ruggles, Clive L. N.
1984 Megalithic Astronomy: A New Archaeological and
Statistical Study of 300 Western Scottish Sites. BAR
British Series 123. British Archaeological Reports,
Oxford.
1999 Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
2000a Ancient AstronomiesAncient Worlds. Journal
for the History of Astronomy: Archaeoastronomy
Supplement 25:S6576.
2000b The General and the Specific: Dealing with Cultural
Diversity. Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture 15:151177.
Ruggles, Clive L. N., and Nick J. Saunders
1993 The Study of Cultural Astronomy. In Astronomies
and Cultures. Papers Derived from the Third Oxford International Symposium on Archaeoastronomy, St. Andrews, United Kingdom, September 1990,
edited by Clive L. N. Ruggles and Nick J. Saunders,
pp. 131. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Salt, Alun, and Efrosyni Boutsikas
2005 Knowing When to Consult the Oracle at Delphi.
Antiquity 79:564572.
Saunders, Nick J.
1991 The Jaguars of Culture: Symbolising Humanity in
Pre-Columbian and Amerindian Societies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Southampton University.
Scully, Vincent
1979 The Earth, the Temple and the Gods. Greek Sacred
Architecture. Revised edition. Yale University
Press, New Haven and London.
Trmpy, Catherine
1997 Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen. Universittsverlag C.
Winter, Heidelberg.
Vail, Gabrielle, and Anthony F. Aveni
2004 The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Understanding an Ancient Maya Manuscript. University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Volume XXI 20072008

19

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi