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 speciic 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 irst 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 veriicar si existi algn principio general relacionado con las observaciones astronmicas especicas 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 Shefeld 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 inluence (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 irst 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 irmly 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 suficient 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 5

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

ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Location Acheron Acheron Aegina Amphipolis Amphipolis Argos Argos Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Athens Bassae Calydon Calydon Calydon Corinth Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Delos Site Oracle of the dead Oracle of the dead Sanctuary of Aphaia Sanctuary of Attis Thesmophorio Heraion Heraion Acropolis Acropolis Acropolis Agora Agora Agora Agora South slope South slope Sanctuary of Apollo Ancient Calydon Ancient Calydon Ancient Calydon Agora Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Building Azimuth Altitude Declination 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 85 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 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 3 37

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
6

Delos Delos Delphi Delphi Delphi Delphi Dion Dion

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 Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Artemis Locheia, Hercules-Baal Zeboul, gods of Askalon Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Agathe Tyche Theatre district Aphrodision Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Athena Pronaia Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Apollo Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Athena Pronaia Sanctuary of Demeter Temple A Sanctuary of Demeter Temple 1

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

ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

ID 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Location Dion Dion Dion Dion Dion Dion Dodona Dodona Dodona Dodona Dodona Dodona Eleusis Eleusis Eleusis Eleusis Gortyn Isthmia Isthmia Kos Kos Lebadeia Mantineia Mantineia Megalopolis Messene Messene Messene Messene Naxos Naxos Naxos Naxos Nemea Nemea Olympia Olympia Olympia Pella Pella Perachora Poros Pylos Pylos

Site Sanctuary of Demeter Sanctuary of Demeter Sanctuary of Demeter Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Oracle of Zeus Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Asklepieion Sanctuary of Poseidon Sanctuary of Poseidon Asklepieion Asklepieion Temple of Zeus Agora Agora Agora Asklepieion Asklepieion Asklepieion Asklepieion City Sanctuary of Dionysos Sanctuary of Dionysos Sagri Sanctuary of Zeus Sanctuary of Zeus Sanctuary of Zeus Sanctuary of Zeus Sanctuary of Zeus Thesmophorio Thesmophorio Heraion Sanctuary of Poseidon Nestors Palace Nestors Palace

Building Temple B Temple 2 Small temple with offering table Temple of Isis Temple of Hypolympia Aphrodite Temple of Zeus Hypsistos Temple of Aphrodite Temple of Themis Temple of Zeus (hiera oikia) New Temple of Dione Old Temple of Dione Temple of Hercules Megaron Telestirio-Solonion Telestirio-Peisistratid Ploutoneion Temple of Asklepios Old Temple of Poseidon New Temple of Poseidon Large Temple of Asklepios Prostyle Ionic Temple of Asklepios Temple of Zeus Vassileus Temple of Hera Podareion Temple of Zeus Soter Temple of Asklepios Temple of Artemis Artemision Oikos Asklepeiou & Paidon Temple of Apollo Portara Old Temple of Dionysos Temple of Dionysos Temple of Demeter Temple of Zeus Old Temple of Zeus Temple of Zeus Heraion Pelopeion Thesmophorio Thesmophorio Temple of Hera Akraia Temple of Poseidon Hiero-Oplostasio 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 64 93 86 101 115 129 115 215 140 203 202 213 75 75 83 87 208 267 84 93 68 147 220 0 0 0 1 0 1.5 8 7 7.5 8 12 3.5 2 2 2 2 20 0 1 1 2 0 8 8 4.5 11 11 11 1 0 4 4 0 7 7 3 2 3 2 1 12 2 2 0 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 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
7

VOLUME XXI 20072008

Table 1. (Cont.)
ID 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Location Pylos Rhodes Rhodes Rhodes Rhodes Samos Samos Samos Samos Sikyon Sounio Sounio Sounio Sparta Tegea Tenos Thermum Thermum Thermum Tiryns Tiryns Site Nestors Palace City of Rhodes Ialyssos Building Azimuth Altitude Declination 147 93 184 357 34 79 79 79 77 95 105 98 103 100 87 194 191 194 196 180 180 3 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 1 1 1 4 5 0 5 5 4 2 2 -36 23 -3 5 -53 57 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 -45 26 -44 44 -45 9 -50 42 -50 42

Megaron Temple of Aphrodite Temple of Athena Polias & Zeus Polieos Kameiros Temple of Pythian Apollo Lindos, Acropolis Temple of Lindia Athena Heraion Rhoecus Temple Heraion Hekatombedon II Heraion Greater Temple of Hera Heraion Hekatombedon I Acropolis & Agora Temple of Artemis or Apollo Sanctuary of Poseidon Temple of Poseidon Sanctuary of Poseidon Great Temple of Athena Sanctuary of Poseidon Small Temple of Athena Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia Temple of Artemis Orthia Temple of Athena Alea Temple of Athena Sanctuary of Poseidon Building B & Amphitite Ancient Thermum Temple of Apollo Ancient Thermum Megaron A Ancient Thermum Megaron B Palace Temple of Hera Palace Megaron

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 inluences. 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 ield 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 proiles were also recorded for the horizon surrounding each structure. The horizon proiles 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 proile 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 ieldwork.

Data Reduction This study improves the methods of analysis applied to the orientations compared with previous studies
VOLUME XXI 20072008 9

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 speciic 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 speciic 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 speciic points along a horizon (horizon proiles), we can calculate the declination of any point on the horizon proile 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

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 1.

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 conirms 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 speciic 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 signiicant 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 speciically, 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 signiicance 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 ive 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 suficient 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 dificult 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 ind 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 speciic 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 ix 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 inds: 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 identiied 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 irst temple and the second. Only in one case (the temple of Athena Pronaia in Delphi) do the irst 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 signiicance 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 veriication or testing by other researchers who have used his results. This study forms the irst 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 irst 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 oversimpliication 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 ind 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 dificult. The Greeks were well aware that the lunar cycle (approximately 29.5 days) does not it 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 ixed, 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 speciic 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 ifth 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 sacriices 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 suficient. 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 signiicant phases of the culmination of a constellation associated with the myths surrounding the structure and the Acropolis. The association between the deity and the speciic 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 inds, 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 Archeoila 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 Speciic: 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