On the Orientation of Ancient Temples and Other Anomalies Raphael G. Kazmann Introduction There exists a large body of information, consisting mostly of artifacts and empirical data from the distant past, which provides an extraordinary opportunity for modem researchers. Examples include accurate engineering surveys of ancient structures together with extant literature from the same periods. This paper focuses on reported anomalies in the orientation of ancient temples and on the existence of a great number of forts which have vitrified walls (how and why they became vitrified is unknown) and very tentatively proposes an overall hypothesis to explain this data. These anomalies were not properly explained in the literature wherein they were first recorded. The observations have been, essentially, forgotten by the scientific community, or at least badly neglected. Even now they do not fit into any current scientific framework despite progress in the sciences of dating and great progress in the understanding of archeological sequences. Scientists make many of their most important discoveries while investigating anomalies, those empirical observations that do not fit into the accepted paradigms generally used by workers in the field. Some of these anomalies, when reconsidered in light of scientific advances, are resolved and subsequently open up new lines of inquiry that may force the rethinking of existing explanations. The writer has assembled examples of this information and presents it in the hope that someone can throw light on the empirical data, or add to it. The working hypothesis presented at the end of the discussion is meant primarily to provoke interest and argument. The anomaly which is the point of departure for this paper concerns the orientation of ancient temples. There are, lundamentally, two types of temple orientation: solstitial and equinoctial. This paper treats the latter. The ancient equinoctial temple was one oriented so that the first rays of the rising sun on the equinoctial day fleetingly illuminated the temple's altar and the image of the resident deity. In the case of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, the first rays of the equinoctial sun illuminated the Ark of the Covenant.^(1) There can be little doubt that when any equinoctial temple was laid out, the orientation was East-West. How accurate was the orientation? We must remember that there was no particular need for haste in laying out a new temple, nor was there a need for sophisticated astronomical or surveying instruments. One possible method of alignment follows: set a vertical pole, with the use of a plumb-bob, and mark the tip of the shadow in midmorning. Then draw a circle with the pole as the center and the distance to the tip of the morning's shadow-mark as the radius. In the afternoon, mark the point where the tip of the shadow just intersects the circle. Then bisect the angle between the two marked points and the central pole by intersecting two equal arcs using the shadow marks as the centers. The line that bisects the angle is N-S. The Pythagorean relationship could then be used to construct a perpendicular to the N-S line thus identifying the axis of the proposed temple. The procedure could be repeated as often as needed to fix the E-W line accurately. This critical parameter could have been verified during an equinox by building a long hut (50 to 100 meters in length) with this orientation at the site of the altar. Minor adjustments could then be made. A one degree error in a 100 meter line would place the altar of the temple 194 cm from its proper location. This would not have been tolerated by the priesthood. If we assume that a maximum error of 10 cm would be tolerated, the orientation would be accurate to approximately 3 minutes of arc. After many years of field work, Kaufman^(2), a member of the physics faculty of Hebrew University in Jerusalem whose hobby was archaeology, finally established the location of the first (Solomon's) and second (Herod 's) temples and calculated the orientation of each. Both temples were built on the same spot, one set of foundations overlying the other with the same location for the holy of holies. In response to a letter of inquiry, he stated that the first temple was oriented 6 degrees North of East and the second temple was oriented exactly East-West. He estimated his error of measurement to be about 0.2 degrees, more or less. Meticulous the priesthood might have been, but throughout the archaeological literature we find instance after instance where the temple was built to replace another on the same site, but whose foundation was oriented differently. Wright,^(3) who excavated Shechem, had this to say about a pair of temple foundations (probably solstitial, not equinoctial): It is clear now that the Israelite structure's exterior walls had simply followed the outline of what remained of the Late Bronze Age temple 2. Yet the first and most inexplicable fact about temple 2 is that the axis was shifted. Whereas temple 1 was oriented 28 degrees South of East, temple 2 was oriented 33 degrees South of East... Why the axis was shifted 5 degrees farther south is an unsolved mystery... A rather striking parallel to the structures unearthed at Shechem is found in level VII of Alalakh in Northern Syria dating from the Seventeenth or early Sixteenth Century. The problem of differing orientations has been of interest for more than a century. In 1894, Lockyer published a book in which the orientations of more than 20 temples was discussed.^(4) He, too, had no idea why temples built on the same site should be oriented differently. Penrose,^(5) a colleague of Lockyer's, visited a number of temple sites in Sicily, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor and calculated the orientations of their foundations. He published tables of his observations and presented his idea of dating the temples by assuming that the rise of some star would give the priests warning that the sun was about to rise on the equinoctial or solstitial day. He did his best to identify the probable star at each temple location. Then, using astronomical tables, he attempted to determine when the star was in the correct location to serve as a signal, and thus date the temple. This idea did not prove fruitful but he left us a legacy of the calculated temple orientations. The empirical data contained in Table 1 was collected by Penrose and other reputable investigators and has been published in the scientific literature. Only data regarding what appear to be equinoctial temples are included. Orientation 1 is the older (underlying) foundation. There are no explanations in the archaeological literature for the changes in orientation. For example, the temples at Selinus (Sicily) are located in groups of three on two hills about 1000 meters apart. As you look at the data you can almost feel the frustration of the priests who, all too often, had to abandon one temple and build another. Although the grouping in the table is by increasing azimuth, there is no compelling information as to which is the oldest, although it may well be that the first on the list was the most recent. Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt the ability and competence of the priestly surveyors. They did the best job possible at the time. When constructed, each temple undoubtedly did work as planned. The first thought of the present day observer is that the survey work must have been in error. However, when we remember that the priesthood was probably the most influential group in the local society and that the religious observances required certain heavenly manifestations, in particular the illumination of the altar of the temple at the selected date (in these instances, the day of the equinox), it is not reasonable to suppose that the original orientation was incorrect. A major mistake in orientation would not have been tolerated either by the priesthood or by the local population. I believe that at the time each temple was laid out, the orientation was E-W with very little margin of error. The second and third temples of the Selinus list are different in azimuth by only 5 minutes of arc. Another hypothesis is that earthquakes may have caused the change in azimuth. Although this might be suggested, there is no mention by the archaeologists of breaks in the foundations that would serve to support this theory. Moreover, almost all orientation earthquakes produce up-and-down movement, not rotational. So it is unlikely that earthquakes occurring over a large area and a long period of time all produced differences in temple. Until the advent of the theory of plate tectonics, there was no reasonable explanation for the numerous changes recorded by the archaeologists. So, as a working hypothesis, let us assume that the underlying plates rotated to some extent, first one way then, possibly, another. True, such changes have been postulated, but it is generally believed that these changes occurred over periods of geologic time, not mere centuries. In order to properly understand what happened, and when, we should start with the date that each temple was established. Unfortunately, although Penrose hoped to provide a date for each temple (and he included the dates in his tables), there is no reason to think that his dates are definitive. He himself changed several of his published dates when he submitted his second paper, and there has been no particular motivation for archaeologists to try to date them exactly. Moreover, most of the temple foundations were unearthed before radio-carbon dating was even dreamed of. So we really don't know, except for the temples at Jerusalem, when the foundations were built. (The first temple in Jerusalem was probably laid out in 950 BCE, and the second Temple about 525 BCE.) The matter is intriguing: good data exists relating to the movements of tectonic plates. But movements to produce the observed changes in temple orientation would seem to have been far too rapid to be in accord with present theories of plate tectonics and, unfortunately, we don't know when each temple was built, so the start and duration of any possible plate rotation is also unknown. TABLE 1 ORIENTATION OF TEMPLES Place Deity Orientation 1 Orientation 2 Date Ref GREECE Tegea Minerva 1°23'30'' S of E 2°47'30" N of E 1660 B.C.E. 5 Rhamnus Themis 1°29'46" S of E 1°24'50" S of E 1092 5 Rhamnus Nemesis 1°24'50" S of E 787 5 Athens Minerva 9°05' N of E 2020 5 Athens Jupiter Olym. 2° N of E 1202 5 Athens Jupiter Olym 10°05'02" S of E ? 6 Athens Nike Aptersos 5°43'17" S of E 1130 5 Athens Esculapius 5°33'00" N of E ? 6 Olympia Juno 3°16'02" N of E 1445 5 Olympia Jupiter 7°22'14" N of E 790 5 Corfu Kadarki 4°39'35 " S of E 875 5 Lycosura Despoina 2°11'14" S of E 650 5 Megalopolis Jupiter Sot. 9°42'28" S of E 605 5 Thebes Cabeiron 6°27'45 " S of E 1160 5 Mycenea Unknown 6°40'20" N of E ? 5 ITALY Croton Juno Lacina 2°34' N of E ? 6 Metapontum Unknown 6°57' S of E ? 6 Paestum Neptune 3°09' S of E ? 6 SICILY Girgentl Juno Lacinia 6° N of E 690 6 Hercules 0° Nof E 470 6 Castor 4°00' N of E 400 6 Selinus Unknown 4°52' S of E 795? 6 Unknown 5°35' S of E ? 6 Unknown 5°40' S of E ? 6 Unknown 6°18' S of E ? 6 Unknown 6°40' S of E ? 6 Unknown 7°21' S of E ? 6 Syracuse Minerva (?) 0°42' N of E ? 6 Diana(?) 1°45' S of E ? 6 Olympeicium 7°26' S of E ? 6 ASIA MINOR Ephesus Diana 5°21'05" S of E 715 5 Jerusalem Jehovah (God) 6° N of E 925 2 0° (due East) 525 2 Note: The dates shown in this table are not definitive. Penrose interpreted Herodotus to date the founding of Selinus as 795 B.C.E. Presumably the oldest of the series of temples listed in the table was built shortly thereafter. The dates are all from Penrose, except Selinus and the temples of Solomon and Herod, which are my estimates. The Vitrified Hill-forts Archaeology seems to have been a principal hobby of James Anderson,^(6) a Scottish landowner. In 1777 he published his observations of ancient fortifications in Scotland. These included what he termed were the most remarkable of Scottish fortifications, those forts whose walls were vitrified. Knock Ferrel, one of the forts described by Anderson, is two miles from Dingwall, Rosshire (about four miles north of the city of Inverness). The writer visited Knock Ferrel in 1984, and found that Anderson's description of the wall was accurate: These walls consist of stones pilled rudely upon one another and firmly cemented together by a matter that has been vitrified by means of fire, that forms a kind of artificial rock... Modern archaeologists have investigated these vitrified forts. There are more than 60 such forts in Scotland, and possibly a similar number in northern Europe. Some of the rocks used in the construction of medieval castles were obtained from such vitrified forts. Mackie^(7) summarized the literature on the Scottish forts and Fredriksson and his colleagues^(8) discussed the petrology of the vitrified material obtained from forts in Scotland and northern Europe. This phenomenon, vitrification of walls, was not unique to Scotland and northern Europe. Witness reports of the glazed wall that surrounds Hattusa, the ancient Hittite capital (better known as Boghazkoi, located about 80 km from Ankara, Turkey). Lissner^(9) said that the very brickwork of the wall had been fused by heat into a red slaggy mass. He thought that the destroyers seem to have added fuel to the flames, for the materials in the nearby buildings could hardly have produced such heat. The wall around Hattusa is some 5 meters thick, and reported to be vitrified by the high temperatures that were encountered. A German archaeological expedition has been studying the site for more than half a century. The standard explanation is that the army that captured the city was so enraged that it tried to burn down all the buildings and the wall. We may believe that the conquerors might have been highly enraged by the activities of the Hittites, but they weren't necessarily stupid: After the fighting they may have wished to destroy any residual military capability. It would have been much easier and more effective to tear the wall down and throw the rubble into the nearby ravme. Also, there is no historical record of anyone trying to burn down a stone or brick wall after conquering a city. The vitrification of such walls is not complete. At four sites visited by the writer in Scotland, the walls, which were composed of rocks of various sizes, were usually vitrified only at the points of junction of the rocks and for a small distance within each of the rocks. This vitrification has been widely observed and has produced many arguments as to how it was accomplished. Mackie contends that vitrification has always occurred at the end of the use of the fort, as a process of destruction which caused that end; it did not occur at the beginning of the occupation of any site. Mackie urged future workers to abandon the fanciful notion that vitrified rock is the remains of some weird and peculiarly Scottish prehistoric technology. The radiocarbon dates that have been determined based on carbonized wood found in a few of the forts group into eras of 400 BCE, 800 BCE, and 1200 BCE with a range of about 100 years on either side. There is no doubt that temperatures in excess of 1100 degrees C. were needed in order to produce vitrification. In 1980, Ian Ralston^(10) set fire to a full scale model of a pine-laced wall and produced very limited localized vitrification. He concluded that the results refuted the suggestion that the vitrification was accomplished as a part of the construction of the hill-forts, verifying Mackie's hypothesis. Tentative Conclusions and Recommendations Regardless of the validity of the working hypothesis presented below, the factual observations of the temple orientations and vitrified forts cannot be challenged and should not be ignored. Much work remains to be done on the dating of these artifacts and the writer hopes that some person, or educational foundation, will fund such a study. The paucity of defensible hypotheses points to a glaring deficiency in our current understanding of geological and cosmic phenomena. The scientific community ignores valid observations of physical phenomena at the risk of overlooking something of critical importance in our understanding of the world around us. In recent years the role of extra-terrestrial bodies, from tektites to large meteors, has become recognized as the cause of many earthly phenomena, from a possible source of life (spores arriving from outer space) to the iridium layer that seems to mark the extinction of many life forms. Inasmuch as the data cited here is empirical and no explanation seems possible based on known geologic forces, I am forced to turn to celestial bodies as a possible cause of the results that have been observed. Let us postulate a planetary-sized body that, for some period of time that might be as much as 2000 years, approached the earth periodically. The gravitational, electrical and magnetic forces associated with such fly-bys could speed up the normal movement of tectonic plates, cause earthquakes and could well result in rotating the plates. If so, such rotary movement might have been first in one direction, then in another. Apparently, after about 400 BCE, the close approaches ceased, because temples built after that time seem to be oriented correctly. As to the hill-forts and the vitrified walls of Hattusa: These were fortifications built on the topographically highest points. Assume that there was a great difference in electrical potential between the earth and the heavenly visitor. As it passed overhead we can imagine that a series of gigantic lightning storms occurred, touching the high points briefly, much like the sparks in a rim-fire spark plug. Each contact would be very brief, the energy would be seen as a Jovian thunderbolt, much stronger than a normal lightning bolt (which sometimes produces worms of fused sand in deserts). The rock walls would be fused where the rocks touched. The surfaces of the walls of cities (and possibly some of the houses in them) would be fused from the violence of the energy exchange. A number of unanswered questions remain: Was the earth's axis with respect to the ecliptic altered, even briefly, by such fly-bys? Have mountain tops been examined for vitrified patches of rock? Can the dates of the fly-bys be established, approximately, by radio-carbon dating of organic remains found on the sites? Can the dates of the foundations of temples be established? Possibly the re-examination of the temple sites to search for organic remains or the remnants of organic artifacts might provide material for dating. Since the research does not seem to fall under any single academic discipline, an interdisciplinary research project is required. Acknowledgments: The writer's field work in Scotland was guided by Ian Ralston, at that time a member of the Geography Department of the University of Aberdeen, presently with the Department of Archaeology of the University of Edinburgh. Ralston's acquaintance with hill-fort sites, his literary guidance, and his experimental work in trying to vitrify a wall have been most helpful. Asher Kaufman, a member of the Physics Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who identified the foundations of the first and second temples, has also pointed the way for some of my research. Reference 1. (was p. 51, footnote #1). J. Morgenstem, "The Gates of Righteousness," Heb. Union College Ann., Vol. VII, 1929. 2. (p. 51, #2). A. Kaufman, "Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood," Biblical Archaeological Review IX:2 (Mar-Apr, 1983), pp.40-59. 3. (p. 51, #3). G. E. Wright, Shechen (McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 96-98. 4. (p. 52, #1). J. N. Lockyer, The Dawn of Astronomy (Cassell and Company, London, 1894): Reprinted 1964, M.I.T Press Paperback Series, MIT 15, Cambridge, Mass. 5. (p. 52, #2). F. C. Penrose, "On the Results of the Examination of a Number of Greek Temples," Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. of London, (A) Vol.184 (1894), pp.805-834. See also idem, "On the Orientation of Greek Temples and Dates of Their Foundation," Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. of London, (A) Vol.190 (1898), pp.43-65. 6. (p. 54, #1). J. Anderson, "The Ancient Fortifications of Scotland," Archaeologia (1777), Vol.6, pp.241-266. 7. (p. 54, #2). E. W. Mackie, "The Vitrified Forts of Scotland," in Ed D. W. Harding, Hill-Forts: Later Prehistoric Earthworks in Britain and Ireland (Acad. Press, NY, 1976), pp.205-235. 8. (p. 55, #1). K. Fredrikssor, E. Y. Anthony and B. J. Fredriksson, "The Celtic Vitrified Forts," in D. R. C. Kempe and A. P. Harvey, eds., The Petrology of Archaeological Artifacts (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983), pp. 154-170. 9. (p. 55, #2). I. Lissner, The Living Past -- The Great Civilizations of Mankind (London, Jonathan Cape, 1957), p.84. 10. (p. 55, #3). I. Ralston, "The Yorkshire Television Vitrified Wall Experiment at East Tullos," City of Aberdeen District, Proc. Soc. Antiq. of Scotland, Vol.116 (1986), pp.17-40.