An Archaeology of the Cosmos Rethinking Agency and

Religion in Ancient America 1st Edition Timothy R.

Pauketat - Downloadable PDF 2025

https://ebookfinal.com/download/an-archaeology-of-the-cosmos-rethinking-
agency-and-religion-in-ancient-america-1st-edition-timothy-r-pauketat/

Visit ebookfinal.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Archaeology of Traditions Agency and History Before

and After Columbus 1st Edition Timothy R. Pauketat

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-archaeology-of-traditions-agency-
and-history-before-and-after-columbus-1st-edition-timothy-r-pauketat/

Ancient Mexico Central America Archaeology and Culture

History Second Edition Susan Toby Evans

https://ebookfinal.com/download/ancient-mexico-central-america-
archaeology-and-culture-history-second-edition-susan-toby-evans/

Ancient Zapotec Religion An Ethnohistorical and

Archaeological Perspective Michael Lind

https://ebookfinal.com/download/ancient-zapotec-religion-an-
ethnohistorical-and-archaeological-perspective-michael-lind/

Mount Mitchell and the Black Mountains An Environmental

History of the Highest Peaks in Eastern America 1st
Edition Timothy Silver
https://ebookfinal.com/download/mount-mitchell-and-the-black-
mountains-an-environmental-history-of-the-highest-peaks-in-eastern-
america-1st-edition-timothy-silver/
Ancient Lives An Introduction to Archaeology and
Prehistory 1st Edition Brian M. Fagan

https://ebookfinal.com/download/ancient-lives-an-introduction-to-
archaeology-and-prehistory-1st-edition-brian-m-fagan/

Religion and Society in Ancient Thessaly 1st Edition Mili

https://ebookfinal.com/download/religion-and-society-in-ancient-
thessaly-1st-edition-mili/

Of Rocks and Water Towards an Archaeology of Place Ömür

Harman■ah

https://ebookfinal.com/download/of-rocks-and-water-towards-an-
archaeology-of-place-omur-harmansah/

Religion and Its Monsters 1st Edition Timothy Kandler Beal

https://ebookfinal.com/download/religion-and-its-monsters-1st-edition-
timothy-kandler-beal/

Religion and the Culture of Print in Modern America 1st

Edition Charles L. Cohen

https://ebookfinal.com/download/religion-and-the-culture-of-print-in-
modern-america-1st-edition-charles-l-cohen/
An Archaeology of the Cosmos Rethinking Agency and
Religion in Ancient America 1st Edition Timothy R.
Pauketat Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Timothy R. Pauketat
ISBN(s): 9780415521291, 0415521297
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 4.69 MB
Year: 2012
Language: english
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE COSMOS

An Archaeology of the Cosmos seeks answers to two fundamental questions of humanity

and human history. The first question concerns that which some use as a defining
element of humanity: religious beliefs. Why do so many people believe in supreme
beings and holy spirits? The second question concerns changes in those beliefs. What
causes beliefs to change?
Using ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence gathered from ancient America,
especially the Great Plains and the pre-Columbian American Indian city of Cahokia,
Timothy Pauketat explores the logical implications of these two fundamental questions.
He finds that religious beliefs are not more resilient than other aspects of culture and
society, and people are not the only causes of historical change.
An Archaeology of the Cosmos examines the intimate association of agency and
religion by studying how relationships between people, places, and things were
bundled together and positioned in ways that constituted the fields of human
experience. This rethinking of agency and religion provides readers with challenging
and thought-provoking conclusions that will lead them to reassess the way they
understand the past.

Timothy R. Pauketat is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign and a Survey Affiliate of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey.
AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF
THE COSMOS

Rethinking Agency and

Religion in Ancient America

Timothy R. Pauketat
First published 2013
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2013 Timothy R. Pauketat
The right of Timothy R. Pauketat to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Pauketat, Timothy R.
An archaeology of the cosmos : rethinking agency and religion in
ancient America / Timothy R. Pauketat.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Indian cosmology–North America. 2. Indians of North America–Religion.
3. Religion and culture–United States. 4. Social archaeology–United States.
5. United States–Antiquities. 6. United States–Religious life and customs. I. Title.
E98.C79P38 2012
970.004’97–dc23
2012014795

ISBN 978-0-415-52128-4 (hbk)

ISBN 978-0-415-52129-1 (pbk)
ISBN 978-0-203-08518-9 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by Taylor & Francis Books
In memory of Michael Litchford,
for whom the encounter with the temple
was an intimate, defining moment.
CONTENTS

List of Figures viii

List of Tables xiii
Acknowledgments xiv

1 Beliefs 1

2 Religion from the Top Down 8

3 Agency, Bundling, and Positioning 27

4 Bundles 43

5 Intimate Parallelisms 59

6 Religion from the Ground Up 88

7 Bringing Religion to a Standstill 133

8 Cosmic Deposits 164

9 Positioning Theory 181

Appendix 191
Notes 192
References 195
Index 226
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Map of ancient North America, showing archaeological

complexes and historic-era tribes mentioned in the text 3
2.1 The Cahokia–East St. Louis–St. Louis districts within the
central complex 18
2.2 Plan view of the city of Cahokia 1050–1150 CE 19
2.3 Early Mississippian semi-subterranean pole-and-thatch buildings:
top, oblique cut-away view of typical wall-trench building shown
without thatch (adapted from Alt and Pauketat 2011); bottom,
reconstruction of Pfeffer site temple, University of Illinois, 2001 20
2.4 Timeline of select North American regions 21
2.5 Indian burial scene, near Lake Kee-waw-nay, Indiana. Long
single file of women in Indian dress following bier carried by four
women; led by a single woman. Two men, one mounted on horse,
watch from side of path, ca. 1837–38 (Winter 1948: courtesy of
the Tippecanoe County Historical Association, Lafayette, Indiana) 26
3.1 Semiotic triad as entangled practically and metaphorically in a
web of relations (Morris 1971; Nöth 1990: 90; Ogden and
Richards 1946; Peirce 1982–89) 37
3.2 Meshwork of knotted or intersecting lines (following Ingold
2007b: Figure 3.1, top) 38
3.3 Five bundles of citations shown as asterisks or intersections
of lines over three phases of time, with dashed lines indicating
a bundle transfer prior to the subsequent phase 40
3.4 Space-time field of bundles (dots are bundles, solid lines are current
associations, and dashed lines are past associations) 41
4.1 Blackfoot medicine-pipe bundle (from Wissler 1912:
Figure 39) 44
 List of Figures ix

4.2 Dance to the medicine-bag of the brave (Catlin 1973: Plate 297,
courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum,
Washington, DC) 46
5.1 Paths of the sun @ latitude N38 degrees over the course of a year 62
5.2 Cahokian embodiment of the cosmos by a Ramey Incised pot
(adapted from Pauketat 2012; Pauketat and Emerson 1991:
Figure 1.3) 63
5.3 A Pawnee earthlodge (adapted from Weltfish 1977: Figure 8–1) 64
5.4 Ponka Fort, Todd County, Nebraska (from Dorsey 1886: 221) 65
5.5 Chaco Canyon’s Pueblo Bonito, view from the northeast,
with arrow indicating north-south masonry wall 66
5.6 Abó, showing continuous cruciform nave, left, and circular
kiva, shaded (from Ivey 1988: Figure 3) 68
5.7 The nave of the Pecos Pueblo church, highlighting its alignment
with the distant escarpment and the setting sun on the equinoxes 68
5.8 Pictograph in Cliff Palace observatory showing horizon
observations (adapted from Malville 2008: Figure 8.10) 71
5.9 Ho-Chunk replica of a traditional calendar stick (courtesy
Chloris Lowe, Jr.) 72
5.10 Horizon chart showing solstitial, equinoctial, and lunar
maximum and minimum rising setting positions at Cahokia’s
Rattlesnake Mound (latitude N38.64 degrees) 74
5.11 Newark and High Bank geometric earthworks, showing
lunar alignments (adapted from Hively and Horn 2006:
Figure 4, 2010: Figure 5.7) 75
5.12 The Chacoan Great House of Kin Kletso, Chaco Canyon,
New Mexico 77
5.13 Chaco Canyon’s central organizational axes (adapted from Sofaer
2008a: Figure 9.9) 79
5.14 Chimney Rock spires between which a lunar maximum
moon would rise 81
5.15 Dakota cosmogram and its associations (adapted from Dorsey
1894: Figure 194) 84
5.16 Close-up of anthropomorphized post in the Carolinas
(portion of an engraving following Theodor de Bry, 1590,
published in L’Univers, Firmin Dido frères, Paris, 1843:
from the collection of the author) 86
6.1 Schematic plan view of Cahokia’s Woodhenge (from
Wittry 1996: Figure 3.1, courtesy of the Wisconsin
Archeological Society) 91
6.2 Sunrise angles and burial orientations of 662 burials from the
Cahokia-related Spoon River area of west-central Illinois (from Harn
1994: Figure 10, courtesy of the Illinois State Museum, Springfield,
Illinois) 92
x List of Figures

6.3 Public buildings atop the principal pyramid at Hiwassee Island,

Tennessee (from Lewis and Kneberg 1946: Plate 18, courtesy
of the University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee) 94
6.4 Terminal Late Woodland and Early Mississippian building alignments
at Cahokia’s Tracts 15A and 15B (building alignments are adjusted to
true north with the azimuth distribution compressed by rotating
orthogonal buildings 90 degrees) 97
6.5 Plan map of downtown Cahokia (adapted from Fowler 1997) 98
6.6 Late Mississippian building alignments at Cahokia’s Tracts 15A
and 15B (building alignments are adjusted to true north with
the azimuth distribution compressed by rotating orthogonal
buildings 90 degrees) 100
6.7 Locations of Cahokia’s ridge-top mounds (top) and reconstructed
contours of the Rattlesnake Mound (bottom) (adapted from Pauketat
2010a) 102
6.8 Select pit burials of women in Mound 72: top, 22 likely female
burials atop former upright post; bottom, four headless and
handless men adjacent to 53 women (from Fowler et al. 1999:
Figures 6.3 and 6.6, courtesy of the Illinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois) 105
6.9 Outline of the final stage of Mound 72 (from Fowler et al.
1999: Figure 3.9, courtesy of the Illinois State Museum,
Springfield, Illinois) 106
6.10 Causeways and earthen pyramids at the Fitzhugh Place site, Madison
Parish, Louisiana (from Squier and Davis 1998: Plate 39) 106
6.11 The largest of two sugarloaf mounds northeast of Cahokia (photo by
D. DeJarnette, 1956, original on file in the North American
Archaeology lab, University of Illinois, Urbana) 107
6.12 Schematic of paired Sugarloaf-Fox mounds northeast of Cahokia 108
6.13 Cypress post base from the Mitchell site, broken at ca. 1200 CE
during the attempted extraction (photograph by James W. Porter,
courtesy of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey, University of
Illinois, Urbana) 112
6.14 Regional map showing the relationship of Cahokia to Emerald and
other upland locations 113
6.15 East St. Louis building alignments, Northside and Southside
(azimuth distribution compressed by rotating orthogonal
buildings 90 degrees) 114
6.16 Mitchell and Grossmann site building alignments (Grossmann building
alignments are adjusted to true north; based on data in
Alt 2006a; Porter 1974: Table 3) 115
6.17 Plan map of the Vaughn Branch site (from Jackson and
Millhouse 2003: Figure 5.1, courtesy of the Illinois State
Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana) 116
 List of Figures xi

6.18 Plan map of the core segment of the J. Spraque site (from Holley,
Parker, Harper et al. 2001: Figure 20.14, courtesy of the Illinois
Department of Transportation, Springfield, Illinois) 117
6.19 Plan map of the John H. Faust #1 site (from Holley, Parker,
Scott et al. 2001: Figure 21.1, courtesy of the Illinois
Department of Transportation, Springfield, Illinois) 118
6.20 Shotgun Ridge site building and post alignment (adapted from
Pauketat et al. 2005) 123
6.21 T-shaped and L-shaped buildings at the Grossmann site,
southwestern Illinois 124
7.1 Schematic map of the Pfeffer site 134
7.2 Plan of rebuilt house at the Pfeffer site 135
7.3 Pfeffer site building alignments (angles relative to true north) 135
7.4 A large hoe blade from the Emerald site (recovered by a
farmer in the 1960s, photograph by the author) 139
7.5 The Great Mound at Emerald showing 1993 and 1996 profile
locations 141
7.6 Composite profile of the Emerald’s Great Mound, 1993 and 1996
excavations 142
7.7 Stacked blanket mantles in the Great Mound at Emerald, 1996 143
7.8 Emerald site showing 1997–98 ISAS excavations and locations of
mounds (map produced by Jeffery Kruchten, courtesy of the Illinois
State Archaeological Survey, University of Illinois, Urbana) 144
7.9 Emerald Avenue as observed by dark lines on 1940 USDA aerial
photograph 145
7.10 LiDAR image of the Emerald site in 2010 (image produced by
Michael Farkas, courtesy of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey,
University of Illinois, Urbana) 145
7.11 LiDAR image showing locations of mounds and inferred
organizational axes 146
7.12 Emerald site building alignments (azimuth distribution compressed by
rotating orthogonal buildings 90 degrees) 147
7.13 The Lange site: top, plan map showing possible axis and
alignments; bottom, artist’s reconstruction of a lunar minimum
observation (images produced by Jason Rein, courtesy of
Prairie Archaeology and Research, Ltd., Springfield, Illinois) 149
7.14 Burial scaffolds: top, slot trench feature sets in the Cahokia region
(adapted from Alt 2006a; D. K. Jackson, personal communication
2008); bottom, a burial platform – Apsaroke (Edward S. Curtis
collection, ca. 1908, image 2764–08, Library of Congress,
Washington, DC) 151
7.15 River Bend Estate mortuary buildings (adapted from Harl et al. 2011:
543, citing Henning 1959) 153
7.16 Schematic plan of Emerald landscape 155
xii List of Figures

7.17 Schematic of the Kincaid and Angel sites (adapted from Black 1967;
Butler et al. 2011) 156
7.18 Mound A at Angel, Indiana, and proposed lunar alignment
(from Black 1967: Figure 261, courtesy of the Indiana Historical
Society, Indianapolis, Indiana) 157
7.19 Locations of Midwestern and mid-southern Mississippian
towns and ancient Woodland locations wrapped in Cahokia/Emerald’s
big-historical bundle 159
7.20 Locations of known masculine and feminine carved Cahokia
redstone figures (adapted from Alt and Pauketat 2007: Figure 11.3) 161
7.21 Orientations of primary female and child interments in the Wilson
Mound (adapted from Alt and Pauketat 2007: Figure 11.1) 162
8.1 Cahokian sculpted redstone goddess. Clockwise from top left: front
view, side view, and rear view closeup of the medicine bag strapped
across shoulders and hanging on the figure’s back (photograph by
Linda Alexander, courtesy of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey,
University of Illinois, Urbana) 167
8.2 Red slipped beaker associated with a Woodhenge solstice post
(see Pauketat 1998a) 170
8.3 Plan view of four pits and a courtyard post at the Pfeffer site 171
8.4 Finger marks visible in yellow lining at base of pit feature 131, Pfeffer site 172
8.5 Profile views of lined pit features 157, 117, and 152,
Pfeffer site 173
8.6 Superimposed building features 129 and 168 at the Pfeffer
site (top) showing yellow clay patch at base of re-excavated
rectangular hole (bottom) 174
8.7 Small temple feature 112 at the Pfeffer site 175
8.8 Partial profile of temple feature 112 at the Pfeffer site, showing
alternating clay-lined floors, laminated silts, refuse-laden fills, and
buckshot fills 176
8.9 Excavated floor of the larger feature-44 temple, Pfeffer site 176
8.10 Partial profile of the feature-44 temple basin (southwest sextant,
view to east) 177
8.11 Plan view of the feature-44 temple, showing floor depression 178
8.12 Plan view of the remains of a building feature 242 at the Grossmann
site with a possible lunar-aligned floor depression 179
8.13 Schematic view of feature-44 temple happenings. Left to right,
building was laid out, dismantled and filled in, and re-excavated and
realigned to a lunar maximum moonrise 179
9.1 Prayer to the Great Mystery (Oglala medicine man Slow Bull, Edward
S. Curtis collection, ca. 1907, image no. 2507–07, Library of
Congress, Washington, DC) 182
9.2 Meshwork showing a religious bundle: (A) a wayfaring organism has
been pulled into a relationship with (B) a celestial object 186
LIST OF TABLES

6.1 Azimuth orientations and possible solstitial alignments in the principal

dual pyramid at Hiwassee Island, Tennessee (based on Lewis and
Kneberg 1946: Plates 13–20) 95
6.2 Rising and setting azimuths of the sun and moon at Cahokia and
Emerald in 1000 CE (calculations based on formulae in Appendix,
following Wood 1980: Chapter 4) 99
6.3 Ridge-top mounds in the greater Cahokia region 103
6.4 Associations of human remains and mortuary temples with marker
posts in the Greater Cahokia region 111
6.5 Azimuth orientations and possible solstitial alignments of select
late eleventh and twelfth century farmsteads and outlier villages in the
greater Cahokia region 119
6.6 T-shaped medicine lodges at Cahokia-related sites 125
6.7 L-shaped medicine lodges at Cahokia-related sites 127
6.8 Lunar standstill years between 990–1150 CE 130
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The researching and writing of this book have been part of a personal journey of
discovery and loss. It began on the floor of an unusual temple, excavated by Susan
Alt, Jeff Kruchten, Tamira Brennan, and Mike Litchford in 2000 as part of the
Richland Archaeological Project. The semi-subterranean remains of this temple
(feature 44) were beautifully preserved, prompting Mike, energized by the encounter, to
organize a class of students at the University of Illinois to rebuild it, which they did
for undergraduate credit in the late winter and early spring of 2001 (Litchford and
Glienke 2006). For me, the temple proved a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an
enigma that, along with other unusual features of the site, needed a key to be
understood.
In essence, this book is the key to the riddle. The writing of it was made possible
by a Weatherhead Fellowship at the School for Advanced Research (SAR) in Santa
Fe, New Mexico, in 2008–9. That year in Santa Fe was among the best of my life,
and I am most grateful to the wonderful people at the SAR, especially President and
Chief Executive Officer James Brooks. I am also indebted to Vice-President for
Academic and Institutional Advancement John Kantner and to the remarkable resident
scholars, research associates, and native artists at the SAR during our time there:
Audra Simpson, Danny Hoffman, Marit Munson, Cedar Sherbert, Wenda Trevathan
and her husband Greg Henry, Dean Falk, Pat Courtney Gold, Jessica Metcalfe, Chris
Donham, and my wife Susan Alt.
This book was also partly inspired by and has benefitted from my participation in a
series of comparative workshops held in Santa Fe. These include several associated
with a cosmology working group at the Santa Fe Institute between 2006 and 2010,
organized by George Gumerman, Murray Gell-Mann, Linda Cordell, and myself,
and another on roads and alignments held at the McCune Foundation and organized
by Anna Sofaer in 2010. I appreciate the generous intellectual sharing and logistical
support received from all, and have benefitted from the stimulating scholarly and
 Acknowledgments xv

friendly interactions with George, Murray, Linda, Anna, and a host of other great
people in or passing through Santa Fe: Anthony Aveni, Richard Ford, Ed Krupp, Steve
Lekson, Jerry Murdock, Ben Nelson, Judy Tuwaletstiwa, Phil Tuwaletstiwa, William
Romain, Curt Schaafsma, Polly Schaafsma, Rolf Sinclair, Norman Yoffee, and the
late Robert Hall. I also appreciate the various help and discussions regarding this book
or its subject matter in the past three years with David Anderson, Danielle Benden,
Ernie Boszhardt, Margaret Brown Vega, Rosemary Joyce, Chloris Lowe, Terry
Norris, Michael Parker-Pearson, Steffan Peterson, John Robb, Ken Sassaman, Ruth
Van Dyke, and Nieves Zedeño. Some images and photographs were produced by
Linda Alexander, Susan Alt, Michael Farkas, Jeffery Kruchten, and Jason Rein. The
ArcMap digital base maps for the Pfeffer and Grossmann site figures in Chapters 7
and 8 were all produced by Susan Alt. Additional figure assistance was provided by
Joseph Craig and Douglas Jackson.
As noted earlier, much of the Cahokia-related research upon which this book
is based stems from a grant to conduct the Richland Archaeological Project from the
National Science Foundation (SBR-9996169), with additional support from the
University of Illinois and from Joan and Ron Christ, Mr. Robert Hormell, and
Ms. Jo Ann McNaughton-Kade. Aspects of this research have been carried out in
conjunction with the Illinois State Archaeological Survey and the Illinois Department
of Transportation. The book benefitted greatly from the critical comments of
Margaret Brown Vega, Thomas Emerson, Lars Fogelin, William Romain, and Nieves
Zedeño. I am especially grateful to William Romain for walking me through the
trigonometry of archaeoastronomy. Of course, no one besides myself is responsible
for any misrepresentations, errors, or interpretive excesses.
1
BELIEFS

Belief … does not exist in an abstract, discursive space, in an empyrean realm of pure
proclamation, “I Believe.” Belief happens in and through things and what people do
with them.
David Morgan, The Sacred Gaze, 2005, p. 8

This book seeks answers to two fundamental questions of human history. The first
question concerns that which some use as a defining element of humanity: religious
beliefs. Why do so many people believe in supreme beings and holy spirits? The
second question concerns the relationship of those beliefs to history in terms of cause
and effect. Does history cause beliefs, religious and otherwise, such that we and our
beliefs are shaped by the times in which we live? Or do our beliefs change history?
Both of these questions logically lead to more, refined interrogations, such as those
surrounding the Mississippian civilization of ancient North America, the focus of my
attention. Are religious beliefs more resilient than others? If so, why? What makes
any belief or experience religious? Many might look to philosophy or psychology for
answers to such questions. But in so doing they often retrace explanatory pathways
previously trod by others. And they may be overlooking the insights that come from
examining the intersections of human perception, memory, the physical properties of
things, and the movements of non-human bodies in space. Archaeology is the study
of such intersections, and questions about beliefs can be answered through archaeology
by adapting newer theories of agency and religion that draw, in turn, on relational,
animist, phenomenological, practice-based, and non-anthropocentric notions of rela-
tionships, social fields, and landscapes (e.g., Alberti and Bray 2009; Ingold 2011;
Johnson 2007; Knappett and Malafouris 2008).
To some extent, these theories parallel aspects of cognitive theories of religion,
particularly the focus on animist sensibilities and practices (Guthrie 1980, 1993;
Lawson and McCauley 1990; Saler 2009). That such sensibilities and practices are
2 An Archaeology of the Cosmos

contingent on processes of human cognition is likely. But archaeologies of religion

are able to focus more on ritual and the experiential aspects of beliefs (Fogelin 2007,
2008). Some of these archaeological approaches, such as the one espoused herein,
posit that agency is not the same as human intentionality and that religion is not
simply a set of canons or theoretical platitudes held in the mind. On the one hand,
people may be cognizant of what they do without intending anything in particular.
On the other hand, the supernatural associations, beings, and rituals of religion per-
vade all kinds and levels of social life, especially for ancient Americans. Religious
beliefs and experiences may be distinguished from other beliefs and experiences but
possibly not because they are qualitatively distinct from non-religious ones. Rather,
they are more extreme versions of all beliefs and experiences.
So too are the lines between agency and religion blurred in the experience of
living and being. In large part, this is because other beings, things, substances, places,
and forces might also be more or less agentic, which is to say that they might possess
more or less causal power to shape history (cf. Gell 1998; Giddens 1984). Their
agency is always partial and contingent on the web of relationships that define them.
Ritual objects, places, or people can call forth certain emotional states, sensibilities, or
memories. Bodily exertions, chants, and ingested substances can induce visions and,
possibly, altered plans of action. A massive earthquake in America’s heartland in 1811
turned many toward their gods. A great meteor shower in 1833 did likewise, and
induced a Mormon migration. A radio broadcast of a supposed Martian invasion in
1938 led to mass hysteria (see Cantril 1941). Even a rising full moon or a passing
comet might entail a mass movement of people under the right circumstances
(Hartwell 2007; McCafferty 2007).
Such broadened views of agency that elevate the significance of earthly and celes-
tial happenings bring us to the doorstep of religion, that amalgam of practices
whereby people associate and align themselves with the cosmos and its otherworldly
powers. We can understand this intimate association of agency and religion by
studying how relationships between people, places, and things were bundled together
and positioned in ways that constituted the fields of human experience. In this book,
I develop such notions of bundling and positioning through archaeologies of agency
and religion based, in turn, on case material from pre-Columbian and early historic-
period North America. Much of this material derives from the Mississippi valley and
Great Plains, especially the nine-century-old American Indian city of Cahokia. But
I also draw to limited extent on the pre-Columbian and historic-era American
Southwest and Ohio valley (Figure 1.1).
With regard to religion, I must hasten to add that this book does not focus on
delimiting the boundaries of a discrete orthodoxy, or even a series of formal religions,
as exemplified by other books on the “archaeology of religion” (Hinnells 2007; Insoll
2011). Various ancient indigenous North Americans did, of course, practice religion,
by which I mean the ritualized venerations of mystical cosmic powers. But it is
difficult to encapsulate and translate that religious practice into a written account.
Indeed, I remain dubious of some contemporary attempts to do just that by pur-
porting to read the meanings of symbols, imagery, art, and iconography as if there
 Beliefs 3

FIGURE 1.1 Map of ancient North America, showing archaeological complexes and historic-era
tribes mentioned in the text

was one homogeneous and static belief system knowable to any contemporary
analyst. Such attempts at reading the past, some based in normative and structural
points of view, end up colonizing the past (Chapter 2). They do not allow the
people of the past to speak, as it were, for themselves (Pauketat 2011). Instead, they
appropriate the diversity of ancient beliefs—as lived in divergent ways by
men, women, and children—and generate a single narrative understood only by the
analyst.
Such scholarly appropriations of meaning also inhibit archaeological recognition of
the religious causes of historical change (see Chapter 2). This is because religions are
not merely sets of beliefs held in the collective consciousness of people and expressed
through written words, images, or icons, awaiting clever archaeologists to read them
like Rosetta Stones. Rather, beliefs “happen,” as Morgan (2005: 8) notes in the
epigram, “in and through things and what people do with them.” Beliefs have a
form, a materiality, and happen in space and time, on the land, and in the sky. They
can be sensed—seen, heard, smelled, felt, and tasted—and have an emotional impact
4 An Archaeology of the Cosmos

upon the people involved. They do not reside anywhere intact and complete. They
exist only as an ever-changing web of relationships.

Dismissing beliefs
I offer in these pages a way of rethinking theories of agency and religion. Like religion
itself, I heavily reference the celestial realm via archaeoastronomy. Indeed, this book
is partly a personal discovery of archaeoastronomy. Believe me, this has been as much
a surprise to myself as it might be to those who thought they knew me. Of course,
that’s what religious conversions do—they change you. And as a self-proclaimed
minor prophet in a world full of diverse opinions and practices, my job here is to take
up the mantle and proselytize you, the reader. Ultimately, my purpose with this book
is not to create a full-blown archaeological religion. In this single book, I could not and
do not aim to provide all of the necessary support for every point. Certain archae-
oastronomical alignments posited in Chapter 6, for instance, remain untested and
approximate. I am also less than comprehensive when it comes to all of the various
astronomical bodies that might have been important to Native Americans. Indeed,
I barely mention some stars, constellations, or celestial happenings—the Pleides,
Venus, the dippers, supernovae, comets, or the Milky Way—that were undoubtedly
of great importance to ancient people.
Of course, much of what passes as evidence in archaeoastronomy is highly
questionable. The best archaeoastronomers—who tend to be professional astronomers
(unlike myself)—are also the most suspect of such archaeoastronomical evidence (see
Aveni 2001; Ruggles 1999). Some of them will (and perhaps should) remain
unconvinced by my own attempts here. Certainly, in the recent past I would routinely
brush off almost all archaeoastronomical argumentation with a dismissive wave of the
hand: That’s nice but so what? Up to 2007, I was singularly concerned with answers
to the proximate questions of human history: How did something happen in this place
or that? I was not sure that ultimate questions—the big why questions of human
history—were answerable through archaeology. Why do people believe anything? Why
do they build square houses, tall monuments, or cities? Why do they accommodate
social inequality or pay taxes to administrators? Why do some identify intimately with
a leader, place, or thing, while others hate them?
And so, in 2001, I considered what archaeologists should be seeking to explain
about the past, building on practice theory (and lumping the preferred approaches
together as “historical-processual”):

In the new historical-processual archaeology, what people did and how they
negotiated their views of others and of their own pasts was and is cultural
process. This relocation of explanation may deprive archaeologists of direct and
easy access to the ultimate why questions that we like to think we can answer. But
in so doing, we will cease deluding ourselves that we can know – especially
with our present limited databases – the ultimate truths behind complex histories.
(Pauketat 2001: 88)
 Beliefs 5

But this was before a second excavation season at an extraordinary archaeological

site near the ancient city of Cahokia (see Chapter 7). In 2007, my crew, students, and
I returned to a site where we had previously uncovered an enigmatic temple and a
series of pole-and-thatch houses and associated deposits. A linear depression on the
floor of the temple proved especially problematic (see Chapter 8). But by 2007, I had
begun to align the facts: the seemingly inexplicable patterns seemed to parallel astro-
nomical phenomena. I had begun to get religion (the ancient sort). Of course, my
religious conversion runs headlong into the deeply entrenched beliefs of others.
Many will remain dubious of any argument that includes appeals to the moon or
other celestial objects and asterisms. There remains a pervasive Western, rationalist bias in
archaeology that predisposes some researchers—even those who advocate various
social-archaeological, landscape-based, or post-colonial approaches—to be suspicious
of inferences about patterning that suggests cultural order and alignments realized at
scales larger than the immediate and everyday. Such thinking goes beyond the
inferences about human intentionality and choices with which they are comfortable.
This inability to think beyond intentionality and choice is particularly pronounced
among historic archaeologies in North America. Understandably, some worry about
researchers who might superimpose their own astronomical vision on the past, in
much the same way that I worry about those who reconstruct ancient religions. But,
I contend, such dubious researchers also frequently underappreciate the degree to
which either their theories of practice, performance, phenomenology, and agency or,
as likely, their local excavations of houses and individual sites prioritize “everyday
practice” in biased ways rooted in the consumerism and alienation of modernity. We
need to rethink agency and religion.
Other archaeologists also do not like theorizing at such high levels of abstraction
(as in analyzing agency and religion). Many of them are content with small-scale
hypothesis testing and avoid big-picture explanations (although they may think
themselves more scientific than those who might dabble in theories of agency and
religion). Their scientific precepts tend to be located in the realm of commonsense.

QUESTION: Does it matter if ancient people believed that seemingly inert things
possessed a spirit?
COMMONSENSE ANSWER: No, they were thoughtlessly perpetuating an ancient tradition
with little historical effect.
QUESTION: Why did people build Chacoan Great Houses, Hopewellian mounds, or
the city of Cahokia?
COMMONSENSE ANSWER: There must be an adaptive reason for such behaviors;
undoubtedly a perceived economic need or benefit was recognized in advance, and
Chaco, Hopewell, and Cahokia were built in response.

Researchers who answer in such ways may believe that their logic is somehow more
robust than the theoretical constructs of those who seek to interrogate agency
and religion. But, contrary to what they might believe, their answers are not more
scientific. In many cases the opposite is true. Their views are beliefs about science
6 An Archaeology of the Cosmos

rooted in a modern rationality that fails to appreciate the alternate ontologies—the

theories of being—of ancient worlds. Those theories were relational and animistic,
recognizing the interrelatedness of life and the lack of clear boundaries between animate
and inanimate things, places, and substances.
A scientific archaeology of religion, if such a thing be allowed, does not seek to
reconstruct beliefs nor does it reject religion as if peripheral to explanations of the
past. Rather it attempts to understand how religion—as performed in the open,
practiced on the landscape, and experienced in and through things, elements, and
substances—was related to human history. Call it hubris but, in hindsight and with
sufficient empirical data, I do believe that archaeologists can answer the big why
questions of human history. Some of these are to be found by rethinking agency and
religion and by approaching relational ontologies via a theory of bundling and its
related concepts (translation, transference, transubstantiation, positioning, alignment,
and hierophany). My reformulation of our understanding of agency and religion in
the past, using those data and via such theories, should lead one to answers.

Plan of the book

To reach such heady conclusions, I begin in the next chapter with a historical intro-
duction to some traditional ways of thinking about religion, with the help of two
prominent early 19th-century Native American leaders, Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa,
and their Shawnee politico-religious movement. The focus there is on delineating
how certain past approaches in archaeology have constrained our approach to ancient
religion. These have been labeled “representational” and subsume everything from
the idealism and functionalism of the early 20th century to the materialism of the late
20th century and the structural approaches popular in some archaeological circles
today (Barrett 1994: 155; 2000). All of these assume that cultures and cultural mate-
rials are the results, not causes of the beliefs and behavioral processes which they then
merely reflect or represent. I use Mississippian culture and religion to illustrate the
problems of locating belief only in the mind.
In Chapter 3 we begin to move toward more relational, historicized, and phe-
nomenological approaches to understanding religion, largely developed in archaeology
via considerations of human agency. The broad issues underlying these considerations
involve causality. Archaeologies of agency and religion have perpetuated the errors of
older approaches. Newer animist, phenomenological, neuro-phenomenological, and
practice-based applications permit us to recognize the inseparability of religion and
agency as these were manifest in material culture, interactive space, and all other aspects of
social life. These newer approaches are part of theories of bundling and entanglement that
emphasize relationships over agents, the former as defined via motions and experiences in
social fields of beings and things, and the latter as afforded by particular intersections of
these web-like networks, what Tim Ingold (2007b, 2011) now calls “meshworks.”
Such a theory resonates with the cultural practices of North America’s indigenous
people. In Chapter 4, I examine these practices, specifically via the ethnohistory of
American Indian medicine bundles, those carefully wrapped and curated sets of prized,
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
 716 OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY. (905 h h.) The supposition
of minute planetary bodies revolving in a nearly circular orbit of
almost exactly the dimensions of the earth's in a retrograde
direction, and at an inclination not greater than that of some of the
asteroids, stands in such strong opposition to all the analogies of our
system, as to render it in itself highly improbable ; add to which,
that (as no perturbative action could possibly have flung them from
without into such an orbit) they must be supposed to have so
circulated for countless ages, during which time their innumerable
rencontres with the earth must have torn the group to pieces, and
scattered all its members which escaped extinction into orbits of
every different inclination and excentricity. On the other hand, the
ellipse of 33y£ has a decidedly cometary character ; and in such,
retrograde motion is not uncommon. By a most singular coincidence,
remarked almost simultaneously by Messrs. Peters and Schiaparelli
(a coincidence too close and striking to admit of hesitation as to
their community of origin), the elements of the first comet of 1866,
discovered by M. Tempel, coincide almost precisely, in every
particular except in the date of the perihelion passage, with those
we have just derived from the very simple considerations adduced.
The parallel is as below : — Perihelion passage . Perihelion distance .
Excentricity . . Seini-axis major . ] nclination Long, descending node
Periodic time Motion . Meteoric Orbit. Tem pel's Comet. Nov. 13,
1866 Jan. 11, 1866 0-9893* . 0-976.5 09033 . 0-9054 .10340 . 10-
324 18° 31' . 17° 1S'-1 51° 28' . 51 26-1 33*-25 33-176 Retrograde
. Retrograde f * This is the earth's radius vector on Nov. 13. t The
computations of Sig. Schiaparelli, founded on a somewhat different
(and, we are inclined to think, less accurate) situation of the radiant
of last November, lead him to assign the date Nov. 10 for the
perihelion passage, and to the perihelion itself the longitude 56°
25,-9, again agreeing well with that of the comet in question, which
is 60° 28'. But we have preferred (avoiding nil niceties, which, in the
actual uncertainty as to the esact place of the radiant, arc, after all,
premature), fur the sake of perspicuity, to present the ch;iin of
reasoning in a form rcrpiiring almost no calculation.
 NOTES. 717 (905 1 i.) It will not fail to have been observed
that a major semi-axis 10-34 with a perihelion distance 1 will throw
the aphelion of the meteoric orbit to a distance from the sun= 19-
68, that is to say, but a short distance beyond the orbit of Uranus ;
while the fact of the axis major itself lying exactly or at least very
nearly in the plane of the ecliptic, a plane itself very little inclined to
the orbit of Uranus, will ensure a very near appulse of the meteors
to that planet whenever their two mean motions may have brought
or may hereafter bring them to the corresponding parts of their
orbits, allowing for the change (if any) in the position of the axis. We
say, if any, for it is not ot necessity the same as that of the node,
and, though calculable, has not as yet been calculated. This,
however, does not affect the conclusion that such near appulse must
at soine former time have taken place, and will do so ajjain. M.
Leverrier, to whom these considerations seem to have occurred
independently, has concluded that it did take place about the year
a.d. 126 ; and the motion of both bodies being very slow at that
time (the velocity of the meteors being in aphelio only O07 of that of
the earth, or only 1*32 mile per second), they would remain for a
longtime within the influence of the planet's disturbing power, while
at the same time that power would be acting at the greatest
advantage to produce deflection from their line of motion. Hence
that illustrious astronomer was led to conclude, that, just as Jupiter
on a similar occasion seized on and threw into an orbit of short
period Lexell's comet (see art. 585), so at that epoch a wandering
group of planetules, whose existence would, but for that meeting,
have never become known to us, was deflected into the ellipse they
actually describe. Sig. Schiaparelli, on the other hand ; considering
that the semi-minor axis of the meteoric ellipse is but small (0-441),
so that by reason of the moderate inclination the meteor in its
course can never rise much more than 1^ radius of the earth's orbit
above its plane ; appears disposed to attribute their present form of
orbit to the attraction of Jupiter or Saturn, within whose disturbing
influence he considers
 718 OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY. that they must at some
period or other have passed , an opinion which appears to us less
probable, inasmuch as the disturbing force would in that case have
tended chiefly in a direction at right angles to the plane of their
motion, and (by reason of the much greater velocities of both
bodies} have acted for a much shorter time. (905 jj. ) For the
meteors of the 10th of August, adopting as the place of the radiant
the star k Persei, assigned by the observations of Mr. A. S. Herschel
in 1863, and assumhig the orbit to be a parabola (an assumption
which determines the velocity at the moment of rencontre, being to
that of the earth regarded as describing a circle, in the constant ratio
of 2 : 1), a velocity which he found to agree tolerably well with that
directly determined by Mr. Herschel and his co-observers on the
same occasion, M. Schiaparelli has also computed the elements of
their orbit. And again, by a coincidence hardly less striking, these are
found to agree with the elements of the great comet of 1862, as the
following comparison will show : — August Meteors, Scbiaparelli'8
Elements. Comet III. 1862 Elements of Oppolzer. Passage through
descending Node Perihelion Passage Longitude of Perihelion
Longitude of Ascending Node Perihelion Distance Period 1866, Aug.
10;75 — July 23-62 343° 38' 138° 16' 64° 3' 0-9643 Retrograde 1
862, Aug. 22'9 344° 41' 137° 27' 66° 25' 0-9626 123-74 Retrograde
Without supposing the orbit "absolutely parabolic, an ellipse of long
period (say 124 years) would equally well satisfy the conditions ; but
to make the rencontre annual, a complete annular or elliptic stream
of meteors would be required. The radiant point of the August
meteors, however, seems hardly so definite as that of the November
group, the determination in different years by different observers
differing considerably. Both these considerations would seem to
authorize the ascription of a far higher antiquity to the 'utroduction
of this assemblage into our system . giving
 NOTES. 719 time not only for the individual meteors to gain
or lose upon each other in consequence of minute differences in
their periodic time, so as to draw out the original group into a
stream, but to disperse themselves over considerable differences of
inclination and excentricity by the effect of the earth's perturbative
action, while all the phaenomena of the November group point to a
much more recent origin. Note (O), Art. (395). (395 b b.) The total
solar eclipse of Aug. 18. 1868, which, commencing not far from
Aden, at the entrance of the Red Sea, traversed the whole peninsula
of India from Malwa to Masulipatam, and pursued its course
eastward and southward across the Malayan peninsula, to the
extreme northern point of Australia, afforded an excellent
opportunity for the critical examination of the marginal
protuberances as well as the phaenomena of the corona ; which, if
seen at all from a station on the central line, could not be held to
originate in the earth's atmosphere by reason of the great breadth of
the total shadow (at least 115 miles). Accordingly, it was eagerly
seized, and competent observers, well furnished with every requisite
instrument and means of observation and record, took up their
stations at points on or very nearly adjacent to the central line. The
unusual duration of the total obscuration, being nearly six minutes,
allowed ample time for making all the necessary observations, as
well as for securing photographs, which last desideratum was
successfully accomplished at Guntoor in India, by skilled
photographers under the direction of Major Tennant, as also at
Aden. The final results may be thus briefly stated. — 1. The
darkness was by no means so great as was expected : doubtless,
owing to the great amount of light emitted by the corona and the
marginal prominences. The light of the former gave a continuous
spectrum, and moreover was found to be distinctly and strongly
polarized ; everywhere in a plane passing through the ]>oint
examined and the sun's center. This establishes beyond all possible
 720 OUTLINES OP ASTRONOMY. doubt its origin in
reflection from a solar atmosphere exterior to the photosphere (or at
least of some sort of envelope, whether atmospheric or nebulous in
its nature and connexion with the sun) of vast extent, though
probably of small density, and is altogether opposed to its origination
in that of our earth ; our sky light so near the sun exhibiting no trace
of polarization. — 2. The red prominences, which were numerous
and most remarkable, showed no sign of polarization, and were,
therefore, self-luminous. One of them, the most conspicuous,
projected like a horn or tall excrescence to the distance of 3' 10"
from the true limb of the sun, which corresponds to a vertical
elevation of 90,200 miles above the level of the photosphere. Its
outline, as photographed at Guntoor, was as in the annexed
diagram, indicating by its markings a spiral form, like that which
might be conceived to result from a combined rotatory and
ascensional movement, as of a vast column of ignited vapour
rushing upward with a pwirl from the photosphere into the higher
regions of a non-luminous atmosphere. — 3. The light of the
prominences subjected to spectroscopic examination was in
accordance with this idea. It gave no continuous spectrum, but
appeared to consist of distinct monochromatic rays, or definite bright
lines (characteristic of incandescent gases). Of these, M. Janssen,
stationed at Guntoor, saw six, in the red, yellow, green, blue, and
violet regions of the spectrum ; two of them corresponding to
Fraunhofer's lines c, F, indicative of hydrogen. Major Tennant, at the
same station, perceived only four, viz. : c in the red, and d in the
orange (corresponding respectively to hydrogen and sodium ) — one
in the green near f (hydrogen), and a fourth seen with difficulty in
the blue near to G. Lieut. Herschel at Jninkandi (where the total
phase of the eclipse was much interfered with by passing clouds)
perceived distinctly three
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.90%
accurate

NOTES. 721 vivid lines, red, orange, and bine, and no

others, nor any trace of a continuous spectrum. The orange line
proved by measurement to coincide precisely with i>, the others
approximated to c and F, and probably, the difficult circumstances of
the measurements considered, were coincident with those lines. M.
Rayet at Wall Tonne, in the Malayan peninsula, noted no less than
nine brilliant lines corresponding to the solar dark lines b, d, e, b, k,
two adjacent to O, and one between b and f (probably Barium).
These observations are quite decisive as to the gaseous nature and
vehement incandescence of the prominences, and indicate
astonishingly powerful ascensional movements of what might be
called flame (were combustion possible) in an atmosphere reposing
on the photosphere. — 4. Besides these hard and sharply defined
prominences, were also seen ranges irregular in form, of what might
perhaps be considered cloudy or vaporous matter, of less intensity
and softer outline. (395 c c.) Reasoning on the monochromatic
character of the light emitted by incandescent gases, and
speculating on the extreme probability of the solar prominences
being in the nature of tumultuous ejections of such gases, it had
early occurred both to Mr. Huggins and Mr. Lockyer that they might
possibly become the subject of spectroscopic study, as appendages
to the sun's limb, or in the umbra? of spots unilluminated by
photospheric light, without the necessity of waiting for the rare
occurrence of a total eclipse. Accordingly, during the two years
immediately preceding that of Aug. 18. 1868, the former made
several attempts with various spectroscopic and other contrivances
(such as viewing the projected image of the sun's border through
combinations of coloured glasses, &c), to obtain a view of them,
though without success ; and the latter had applied for and obtained
from the Royal Society a grant for the construction of an apparatus
for the purpose, which, however, was not completed till after the
occurrence of the eclipse. Meanwhile the actual observation of the
monochromatic character of their light, and the exact coincidence of
their lines with situations which in the spectrum of the 3a
 722 OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY. photosphere are marked
by a deficiency of light, at once suggested to M. Janssen, as it did
also to Lieut. Herschel, the possibility of discerning, or at all events
of, as it were, feeling them out, the former by means of the
spectroscope, the latter by combinations of coloured glasses. M.
Janssen, on the day immediately following the eclipse, put his
conception into practice, and at once succeeded. Placing the slit of
his spectroscope so as partly to be illuminated by the edge of the
photosphere, and partly by the light (from whatever origin) exterior
to it, he found the spectrum of the former portion in the immediate
neighbourhood of the ray c to be crossed (as might be expected) by
that dark line. At the point of the limb to which his examination was
first directed, nothing was seen beyond. But, on shifting the point of
examination gradually along the limb, a small dot of ruddy light was
perceived, in exact continuation outwards of the dark line, which, on
continuing the movement of the spectroscope along the limb in the
same direction, gradually lengthened, and then again shortened:
thus revealing the existence of a prominence giving out that
particular monochromatic red, whose form and outline he was thus
enabled to trace out. Directing his attention, in like manner, to the
dark line f, the same phenomenon was repeated, in the tint proper
to that region of the spectrum. At some points it was also observed
that the bright line of the prominence encroached upon and
extended into the corresponding dark line of the photosphere. (395
d d.) Mr. Lockyer's apparatus having meanwnilc been completed, he
was at length enabled to announce (on Oct. 20) that after a number
of failures which made the attempt seem hopeless, he had at length
succeeded in observing, as part of the spectrum of a solar
prominence, three bright lines, one absolutely coincident with C, one
near i>, and one nearly coincident with F. On Feb. 16. 1869, another
practical step in the same direction was made by Mr. Huggins, who,
limiting, by an ingenious contrivance, the light admitted to his
spectroscope to rays of about the refrangibility C, widening the alit
sufficiently to admit of the
 NOTES. 723 whole prominence being included in its field,
and absorbing the light of other refrangibilities so admitted by a ruby
glas3, was enabled distinctly to perceive at one view, the form of the
prominence. Almost immediately after, Mr. Lockyer succeeded by
merely widening the slit of his spectroscope, trithout the use of any
absorptive media, in obtaining a clear view of the forms in question.
" The solar and atmospheric spectra being hidden, and the image of
the wide slit alone being visible, the telescope or slit is moved slowly,
and the strange shadow-forms flit past. Here one is reminded, by
the fleecy infinitely delicate cloud-films, of an English hedgerow with
luxuriant elms ; here of a densely intertwined tropical forest, the
intimately interwoven branches threading in all directions; the
prominences generally expanding as they mount upwards, and
changing slowly, indeed almost imperceptibly." Lastly, on the 4th,
5th, and 6th of May, Lieut. Herschel found the spectrum of the solar
envelope to be visible without difficulty, and without other aid than
the spectroscope adapted to his telescope, and was enabled to form
a general picture of the distribution of the luminous region
surrounding the sun. Two prominences were in particular examined,
one of which formed a luminous cloud floating 1' or 2' above the
surface. He perceived also (now for the first time) a fourth line near
g (since seen repeatedly), and subsequently another between f and
G. On this last occasion, having at first swept round the sun and
found nothing particularly worthy of remark, on returning to the
point of departure, he perceived the lines much more brilliant and
intense than usual, and further scrutiny satisfied him that he had
been witness to a u violent and spasmodic eruption of vapour "
lasting only a few minutes ! The mode in which he was enabled thus
to discern the forms of the solar clouds consisted in giving to the
telescope a vibratory motion up and down, on the principle of the
persistence of luminous impressions on the retina, by which the
perception of the total form of an object results from the mental
combination of a series of linear sections of its area. And he
describes the appearance of these solar a a 2
 724 OUTLINES OF ASTRONOMY". clouds as " very similar
to terrestrial — fleecy, irregularshaped, and illuminated ; just such as
eclipses have told us they are." We have thus a new chapter of solar
physics opened out, the commencement, doubtless, of a series of
grand discoveries as to the nature and constitution of the great
central body of our system. Mr. Huggins has also applied spectrum
analysis to the comae and tails of comets in which he considers
satisfactory proof to exist of the presence of carbon.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 2.61%
accurate

725 H O ■< H H •< — M O 9 It E < Si < X i H P I a OS B H

06 C c I Sff-XBl(«XXXXXBjf«S«XXX(p«!XT. OTeomco s « C i "5 Q» »»
w1.4ti.fc-'>, »< * ?»**-• fc CQ.^*0 4 f. «. *0 » C0Q. -• p- J^ p- f. ^
«. ooi^OO^«50ooi«Tf«cr-t~oooiO'"Woovu5toxoio-«nt")ioio(o c c H
M 3 tj. p-OQ.OQ.?-«(a>Ca B CQ.«o c k ' ■ ■ * r» . I * « 'siiitioQit E 1
_, ._ t"- — ft ^ ._ * bi,._ p«^«oo - ^. p«^>cn 0C
The text on this page is estimated to be only 2.54%
accurate

726 APPENDIX. "> T .— re i !» •-• 'J <3 _h > u fctll; £ 8 3

■g (ft ._ 'E/S 'So 3 '>, o = « £ t»:= „ «ocQ..^ca,f-a - a k a a t- k^>
^tq, b tH 3Q £ "E. S .2 •- 1 -s 1 :& 1 a g .2 3 .2 ,'S « 2 a 3 E g.§ s
I'l-a-S.! S'&'a^ §'11 ill 8 5 ? 5 §5 aJJI ST o. §p a.£ .S ?^»3o5? »!o
aOQ.b«sCQ./<15CQ.S;«o p-CQito P" ?. L. 00 . C5 CN C5 t- » * t^.«o
Mtl»t«« « » oo sue Ol O |(>!,f>q097«C*qf),<3

pOO7«9«0»Oi ' > w __ ' ' ' ' ' 3 • ' ' • ' ;=:= ' ■ *§.§_*§ 3
.» |8 =5 »> w a «»
The text on this page is estimated to be only 29.66%
accurate

APPENDIX. 727 II. Synoptic Table of the Elements of the

Planetary System. N.B. — a denotes the mean distance from the
sun, that of the earth heing t.tken for unity ; P the mean sidereal
period in mean solar days ; e the eccentricity in decimal parts of the
semi-axis; i the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic ; Q the
longitude of the ascending node; w that of the perihelion from node
on orbit ; I, the mean longitude of the planet at the moment of the
epoch E, for which the elements are stated ; M the denominator of
the fraction expressing the mass of tlie planet, that of the sun being
1 ; D the diameter ir. miles ; A the density, that of the earth being 1
; T the time of rotation on its axis; d the mean angnlar equatorial
diameter of the body of the planet, at its mean distance from the
earth, in seconds ; « the ellipticity of the spheroid, a* a fraction of
the equatorial diameter; y the inclination of the axis of rotation to
the plane of the ecliptic; H the mean intensity ot light a:id • eat
received, from the sun, that received by the earth being 1. The
asteroids are numbered in their order of discovery. 1 a P e i o The
Sun 0 / ii 5? Mercury 0-3870981 87 -9692. 680 0-2054925 7 0 9 1 6
Venus 0-7233316 224-7007869 0-0068722 3 23 28-5 * Earth 1
0000000 365-2563612 00167918 i Mars 1 -5236923 686-9796458 0-
0931125 1 51 6-2 i Ceres 27664313 1680 650 0-0805096 10 36 27 8
2 Pallns 2-7686906 1683 103 0-2400116 34 43 87 3 Juno 2-6707543
1594*221 0 2-65949 13 1 9 0 4 Vesta 2 «6 1668 2 1325-640 0
0890879 7 7 55 7 5 Astra-a 2-5778960 1511-800 01872123 5 19 5-7
6 Hebe 2-4246290 1379-007 0-2028856 14 46 38-0 7 Iris 2-3860360
1346-212 0-2312145 5 27 53 -3 8 Flora 2 201.5860 1 193 004 0-
1567040 5 53 8 0 9 Metis 2 3860333 1346-211 0-1238156 5 36 7-3
10 Hygeia 8 1511972 2043 200 00993911 3 48 471 11 I'arthenope
2-4524062 1402-770 0-0990197 4 37 0 9 12 Victoria 2 3344916
1302-756 0-2178214 8 23 1-5 19 Egeria 2-57629'70 1510 400
00867520 16 31 54-9 14 Irene 2-5863965 1519 288 0 1656725 9 7
27 -3 15 Eunomia 26441373 1570*452 01868308 11 43 35-2 16
Psyche 2-9263840 1828-493 0*134 1854 3 3 r.8 6 17 Thetis 2-
4732811 14'. 0 721 0 1276441 5 36 5 6 18 Melpomene 2-2956321
1270-430 0 2174420 10 8 58-6 19 Fortuna 2-4415662 1393 481 0-
1572326 1 32 30 2 20 Ma-silia 2 -4089 122 1365-621 01442977 0 41
111 21 Lutrtia 2-4347444 1387-643 0-1617091 3 5 2T0 22 Calliope 2
9094987 1812-699 01019602 13 45 28 4 23 Thalia 2 6282154 1556-
291 0-2321817 10 13 131 '24 Themis 3 14394 15 2036 147 0-
1170627 0 48 5 16 2.5 Phocea 2 3999822 1358-033 0-2547900 21
34 549 26 Proserpina 2 6552100 1580-319 00871572 3 3i 38 0 27
Euterpe 2-3463460 1312760 01736210 1 35 30-3 28 Bcllona 2
7784700 1691986 01500986 9 21 26-3 29 30 Atiiphitrite Urania 2-
5536647 2-3654133 1490 542 1328-795 0 0737850 01 2761 42 6 2
7 6 49 8 1*8 31 Euphr isyne 3-1571421 2048*988 0 2181494 26 26
OH)
The text on this page is estimated to be only 22.45%
accurate

t2H APPENDIX. s // P• ; i 32 1 Pomona 2 5887137 j 1521-

332 0-0802144 o / u j 5 28 51-6 I 33 Polyhymnia 2-8650620 • 1771-
328 0 3381960 1 56 18 '.) j 34 Circe 2-6870950 1 1608-877 0 1056
142 5 26 37-5 : 35 Leueolhea • 3-0060548 1 903 -680 0-2186315 8
10 32 1 36 Atalanta - ! 2-7479006 1663-792 0-2971309 : 18 41 51-6
37 Fides 2 6421 -73 1568-674 01748927 3 7 10 5 :J8 Leda 2-
7401483 1656 758 01554322 6 58 25-3 39 Laetitia 2 76998^0 1683-
862 01 11 1018 10 20 58-3 40 Iliinnoiiia 2 2677226 1247-335 0
0463143 4 15 52-8 41 Daphne' 2 -7 665 5'2 6 1680 725 0 "2690810
16 3 13 7 i 4'i Isis 2 439999 1392-14 0-2256143 8 34 29-8 43
Ariadne 2-203358 1194 61 01675933 3 27 39 1 44 Nysa 2-424741
137910 0- 1503545 3 41 HO-9 45 Eugenia 2-720510 1638-98 0-
0822361 6 34 57-0 | [ 16 Hestia 2-526151 1466*52 0 1646660 2 17
36-7 47 Aglaia • 2-880197 1785 38 0-1324005 5 0 9-6 48 Doris 3-
109420 2002 71 0 0769467 6 29 40-2 49 Pales 3 080259 1971-60 0-
2385024 3 8 45-1 50 Virginia 2-649741 1575-45 0-2873290 2 47 36
9 51 Neniausa 2-365579 1328-94 0 0662400 3 47 53-0 52 Europa 3-
099773 1993-39 0-1014745 7 24 40-3 53 Calypso 2620957 1549-84
0-2038207 5 6 42-7 54 Alexandra 2-714864 1633 88 01966174 11
47 11-3 55 Pandora 2-759621 1674-45 01 420334 7 13 28-1 j 56
Melete 2-5971 10 1528 74 0-2370434 8 1 50-8 57 Mnemosyne 3-
157288 2049-13 0-1041157 15 8 1-6 ; .58 Concordia 2-694441
1615-48 0-0401686 5 16 7J 1 59 Olyinpia. 2-713870 1632-98 01
173539 8 37 41-3 60 Echo 2-39.5088 135219 01847386 3 34 18 7 j
61 Danae 3-003978 1901-71 01684354 18 16 329 ! ! 62 Enito 3-
130695 2023-29 0 1709820 2 12 2S-9 ; j 63 Au-onia 2-393785 1352-
78 0-1247228 5 46 54 5 64 Angelina 2-680557 1603 01 0-1290952 1
19 51-5 ; [ 65 Maximiliana 3-419842 230998 0-1201719 3 28 9-5 66
Maia 2-663544 1587-77 0-1339165 3 2 24-6 67 Asia 2-420277 1375-
29 01848482 5 59 27-3 68 Leto 2-722658 1640-92 01697847 8 10
16-5 69 Hesperia 2-994932 1893 12 01 745242 8 28 25-0 70
Panopea 2-629115 1557 09 01950190 11 31 56-5 71 Niobe 2-
756159 167130 0 1737289 23 18 29-5 72 Feronia 2-274958 1253-31
0 1164641 5 25 55-2 73 CI y tie 2-665541 1589-56 0-0454381 2 24
57-6 74 Galatea 2-575212 1509-45 0-2554310 3 15 43 8 75 Eurydice
2-665856 1589 84 0 3054377 4 59 8-8 76 Freia 3-188960 2080-04
00302110 2 13 30 77 Frijrga 2 673752 1596-91 0-1358136 2 27 55-
2 78 Diana j 2 626316 1554 60 0-2066804 8 39 47 0 79 Euryix.nie|
2-444173 1395-71 0-195332!) 4 36 50-£ 80 Sa|>pho 2-296375
1271-05 0-2v.0al78 8 36 479 81 Terpsichore 28504-28 1757-77
02100461 7 55 220 82 Alcmene 2-764144 167857 0-2299055 2 50
34 U Jupiter 5-2027760 4332-5848212 00481626 1 18 51-3 h Saturn
9-5387861 107592198174 00561502 2 29 35-7 y Uranus 191823900
306868208296 0-0466683 0 46 28-4 y) Neptune 3005660 60186-
6385 0 0084962 1 47 0-6
 Al'I'KNIMX. 729 Synoptic Table of Elements (continued). 8
m L E ■:o / n 0 ' it o i ii 4 V 4.5 57 30 9 74 21 46-9 166 0 48 6 1801.
Jan. 1-0, G. s 74 54 12-9 128 43 53 1 11 33 30 Do. r . 99 30 5-0 100
39 10 2 Do. j 48 0 3-5 332 23 56-6 64 22 55-5 Do. 1 80 48 47 9 148
27 14 1 25 44 50-6 1864. Oct. 120, G. S 172 42 151 122 4 481 354
44 38 9 1864. Sept. 6 0, G. 3 170 52 4-9 54 44 96 268 18 46 8
1864. June, 8 0, G. 4 103 23 117 250 38 10 3 52 34 2 6 1863. Nov.
23 0, G. 5 141 25 43 5 135 20 26 3 262 24 22 5 1864. June, 26 0, G
6 138 37 214 15 22 126 269 8 16 9 1862. May, 31 0, B 7 259 48 13-
3 41 19 33 5 8 9 6 5 1862. Sept. 12-0, W. 8 110 17 48 6 32 54 28-3
68 48 31-9 1848. Jan. 1 0, B. 9 68 31 58*4 71 32 190 248 1 48-7
1863. Mav, 30 0. B. It) 286 43 55-0 2(4 49 57 7 316 54 16-7 1862.
Apr. 26 0, G. 11 125 5 561 317 21 4-7 304 51 4-5 1862. July, 21 0.
B. 12 235 33 34 9 301 56 36-0 312 33 524 1857. Aug. 2-0, G. 13 43
19 45-4 1 19 0 16 2 111 51 594 1864. Jan 10 o. F. 14 86 42 K-8 180
6 33 -9 98 57 33-4 1862. June, 1 o, G. ' I J 293 58 2<>-7 27 37 24-
7 107 0 24 5 1862. Jan. 30 0, W". 16 150 34 1 6 14 44 57 6 226 7
32 6 1863. Apr. 29 5, YV. n 1 25 21 37 2 260 40 8-1 245 5 11 1860.
July, 120. B. m 150 4 SO 7 15 9 58-0 l'»7 39 20 9 1858. Mar. 6 0, G.
19 211 27 18-2 30 29 32 3 41 51 13 5 1860. Nov. 8-0, B 80 206 42
30 8 98 26 22-4 351 y 39 8 1863. Aug. 29 5, B S] 80 30 56 2 326 27
06 349 21 33 0 1860. Jan. 190, G 22 66 36 218 56 34 131 224 46
26-6 I860. Jan. 00, B J 29 67 39 12-0 124 9 6-7 141 3 59-3 1862.
Feb. 19 0, W. ! •J4 36 11 481 139 49 24-2 62 24 39 7 186'.'. Oct. 23
0, G ' 25 214 3 01 302 53 58-3 108 4 27-7 1863. Jan. 13 0, B 1 *.
45 55 3 4 234 50 23-9 61 14. 30 0 I860. Feb. 6 0, G | •27 93 46 22
1 87 40 8-9 311 56 4-5 1863. July, 23-0, K. Sfl 144 41 9-9 122 5*5
29 6 66 3 57-4 1832. Mar. 24 0, B 1 29 356 28 37-9 57 23 121 283
40 58-5 1863. June, 30 0, B. | 30 308 16 8-4 30 52 49 6 73 59 95
1862. Dec. 17 0, B 91 31 28 40 0 94 1.4 6 4 155 10 34 1 1862. Mar.
9 O, B ! 39 220 47 37-3 194 2 32-3 6 29 1-5 1862. Oct. 1 o, W. ; 33
9 6 44-1 342 27 53 9 285 39 12-6 1863. May, 28-5, \V. ! :i4 184 42
23 0 150 14 45-2 105 34 22-0 1863. Jan. 3-0, B. 35 355 51 20-9 201
26 271 69 52 4-3 1863. Nov. 16-5, B 30 359 10 46-4 42 38 20 -O 71
20 46-7 1861. Jan. 0 0, B |7 8 9 37 -4 66 4 28-2 42 34 35 2 1856.
Jan. 0-0 B SB 296 27 34-9 100 51 44 3 112 58 27 6 1856. Jan. 0 0,
B 19 157 20 6-6 2 11 36 7 146 41 34-5 1856. Jan. 1-0, B. M 93 34
23-7 1 2 41-" 225 47 29 8 1863. Mav, 12 0, B. u 179 2 301 2 Jt) 5
20 1 335 S 217 1862. Sept 23 435,11. 12 84 31 6-9 317 59 39 -2
247 46 19-5 I860. Jan. 10. B. •IS 264 35 52-7 277 50 504 132 1 30
2 1863 Jan. o-o, B. ■n HI 3 5 2 HI 28 29 3 116 18 19 1 1860. Jan.
28 -o, B 44 148 5 51-8 229 51 52-7 294 SI 2-8 1858. Jan. 0 0, B i*;
181 33 41 1 354 43 56 3 86 7 34-3 1863. Jan. 0 0, B. ■17 4 11 52 2
313 53 08 116 M 11-4 1859. June, 17-0. B. 1* 185 14 13 2 76 52 38
5 16 6 47 0 1858. Feb. 3-0. B.
 730 APPENDIX. ! 1 a tr L K o / i> u / ii 0 , ii 4 49 290 29 4-
2 32 31 406 159 34 55 3 1860. Jan. 28 o. 1? 50 173 86 12-2 9 51 30
3 8» 16 52 2 1863. Jan. oo, B. 51 175 39 11-2 175 10 53-1 177 11
25 3 1858. Mar. 25-5, M. 52 129 57 165 lol 54 57-2 136 20 51-4
1858. Jan. oo. B 53 144 1 52-5 92 47 35-8 239 19 16-8 1863. May
31 5, B. 54 313 49 0-7 294 53 461 149 40 21 6 1861. Jan. 8 o, B 57
10 57 29-1 11 28 S8-6 28 26 57-6 1858. Dec. 30 0, B. ; 56 194 25
59-4 293 37 37 9 62 16 45-7 1862. Dec. 18 0, B i 57 200 5 25 I 52
53 13 0 28 35 25 6 1860. Jan. 1 0, B j 58 161 11 39-8 180 17 24 0
162 28 261 1860. Jan. O-O, B ' 59 170 22 31-4 16 54 44-4 190 6 18
6 1863. Jan. 0-0, B. ! 60 191 59 47-3 98 30 17 3 232 27 11-8 1863
Jan. 0 — 0-011 w 20470 35307 3-91 0-20 . 0-003 ^ 18780? 39793?
2-88 015 000
 APPENDIX. 731 Names of Discoverers and Dates of
Discovkuy of the Asteroids. Jan. 1. 1801. Mar. 28, 1802. Sept. 1,
1804. Mar. 29, 1807. Dec. 8, 1 845. July 1, 1847. Aug. 13, 1847. Oct.
18, 1847. Apr. 25, 1 848. Apr. 12, 1849. May 11, 1850. Sept. 13,
1850. Nov. 12, 1850. May 19, 1851. July 29, 1851. Mar. 17, 1852.
Apr. 17, 1852. June 24, 1852. Aug. 22, 1852. Sept. 19, 185'2. Not.
15, 1852. Not. 16, 1852. Dec. 15, 1852. Apr. 5, 1853. Apr. 6, 1853.
May 5, 1853. Nov. 8, 1 853. Mar. 1, 1854. Mar. 1, 1854 Mar. 1, 1854.
July 2?, 1854. Sept. 1, 1854. Oct. 26, 1854 Oct. 28, 1 854. Apr. 6,
1854. Apr. 19, 1855. Oct. 5, 1855. Oct. 5, 1 855. Jan. 12 1856. Feb.
8, 1856. Mar. 1. 1856. May 22, 1856. May 23, 1856. Apr. 15, 1857.
May 27, 1857. June 28, 1857. Aug 16, 1857. Sept. 15. 1857. Sept.
19, 1857. Sept. 19, 1857. Oct. 4, 1857. Jan. 22, 1858. Feb. 4, 1858
Apr. 4, 1858. Apr. 11, 1858. Sept. 10, 1858. Ceres Piazzi Pallas
Olbers Juno Harding Vesta Olbers Astraea Hencke Hebe Hencke Iris
Hind Flora Hind Metis? Graham Hygeia Gasparis Parthenope Gasparis
Victoria Hind Egeria ? Giisparis Irene Hind Eunomia Gasparis Psyche
Gasparis Thetis Luther Melpomenp Hind Fortuna Hind IWassilia
Gasparis Lutetia Goldschmidt Calliope Hind Thalia Hind Themis?
Gasparis Phocea Chacornac Proserpina Luther Euterpe Hind Bellona
Luther Amphitrite f Marth \ Pogson Urania Hind Euphrosyne
Ferguson Pomona Goldschmidt Polyhymnia Chacornac Circe
Chacornac Leucothea Luther A talari ta Goldschmidt Fides Luther
Leda Chacornac Laetitia? Chacornac Harmonia Goldschmidt Daphne
Goldschmidt Isis? Pogson Ariadne Pogson Nysa Goldschmidt
Eugenia? Goldschmidt Hestia ? Pogson Aglaia Luther Doris
Goldschmidt Pales? Goldschmidt Virginia Ferguson Nemausa ' ,
Laurent Europa Goldschmidt Calypso Luther Alexandra Goldschmidt
Pandora Searle
The text on this page is estimated to be only 26.29%
accurate

732 APPENDIX. Melete Goldschmidt Sept. S, 1857. i

Mnemosyne Luther Sept. 22, 1 859. Concordia Luther Mar. 24, 1
860. Olympia Chacornac Sept. 13, 1860. Echo Ferguson Sept. 15,
1860. Danae Goldschmidt Sept. 9, 1860. Erato Lesser Sept. 14, I860.
Ausonia Gasparis Feb. 11. 1861. Angelina Tempel Mar. 6, 18ol.
Maximiliaua Tempel Mar. 10, 1861. Maia Tuttle Apr. 10, 1861. Asia
Pogson Apr. 18, 1861. Leto Luther Apr. 29, 1861. Hesperia Sciaparelli
Apr. 29, 1861. Panopea Goldschmidt May 5, 1861. Niobe Luther Aug.
IS; 1861. Feronia Peters Jan. 2<>, 186V. Clytie Tuttle Apr. 7, 1862.
Galatea Tempel Aug. 29, 1862. Eurydice Peters Sept. 22, 1862. Freia
D'Arrest Nov. 14, 1862. Frigga Peters Nov. 12, 1862. Diana Luther
Mar. 15, 1863. i Eurynomc Watson Sept. 14, 1863. Sappho Pogson
May 3, 1864. Terpsichore Tempel Sept. 30, 1864. Alcmene Luther
Nov. 27, 1864. Note. — Many of the names of the Aster >ids appear
to us very unhappily chosen. Thus, confusion is verv likely to arise in
printing or speaking, between Iris and lsis, Lutetia and Lastitia,
Thetis and Metis, Thetis and Themis, Vesta and Heitia, Hygeia and
Egeria, Egeria and Eugenia, Pallas and Pales. Is it too much to hope
that the discoverers of the interfering members of these pairs will
reconsider their names? It is not yet too late: the Nymphs, Dryads,
Oceanidae, &c, afford an infinite choice of classic names, graceful
and euphonious. Metis is known to few as a mythological name,
Pales to fewer as that of a female divinity, Nemausa to none as the
name of anybody (the ancient name nf Nismes "vas Nemausa*). III.
Synoptic Table op the Elements of the Okbiti of the Satellites, so far
as they are known.* 1. Tub Moon. Mean distance from earth Mean
sidereal revolution Mean synodical ditto Exeentriciiy of orbit Mean
revolution of nodes Mean revolution of apogee Mean longitude of
node at epoch Mean longitude of perigee at ditto Mean inclination of
orbit Mean longitude of moon at epoch Mass, that of earth being 1,
Diameter in miles Density, that of the earth being 1, 60' -2734 3300
27d -321661418 29d "5305887 15 0054908070 <>793" -391080
3232d 57/5343 13° 53' 17" 7 ^66 10 7 -5 5 8 39 -96 118 17 8-3 0-
011364 2164-6 0-55654 • The distances are expressed in equatorial
radii of the primaries. The epoch is Jan. 1. 1801, unless otherwise
expressed. The periods, &c, are «.» pressed in mean solar dnys.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 2.42%
accurate

APPENDIX. 733 < C/1 13 ■ cc oo «» i- o> co cm ^ w l» 05

oo cm — :> x f |1 o o Keg M h ZM o-,| Hi II 5 3*■P o » co >o CM
^* . O — «5 S CM • o o o o o O C O O ~ i- i- ii «i v cn to « «o« — w
Q ©> CO O 55 CO 00 1^ CO 00 00 *l* CM — •«• co x oo oo er, >o
60 E * a O O O GS oo to 00 00 O * . # CO T V CM - X — I 00 O o ^
ao "-. . GO 00 CO 00 "5 — • r- co I "3. E-g on a 1 S •'TL o .5 a. E" 5
•St =£ 8.S ■s Etrc i * § 3 St — CM CM — CM T it -r^cooo — «fl -; r-
eo B CO «i — TMt >o _ CM 00 ~ r- CM CM f» r— CM CM -• ."" cm
■WO — — w*»o- co t-^ ot c *J3 E [J - 3 - S C n *e IP S -222 K .E
"2 ■sli f 3-.= £ "" ;- a J If _ u 1 -5 S J! >. -3^3 4> .U > c s si =_:
;^* J< O .« n .5 o^i-, &.-: ■ >- ^. •— — o r? . & '— *£ 1 £ la °-h'If
is 
The text on this page is estimated to be only 5.48%
accurate

734 APPENDIX. p -2 < C - V — W 3D = »4 o bo^t « «j B

«~- * s 5 *• .r c y •— _= ■ * s o Js « o .. x "8 |jl 1 i g y ji c si*! *o
0! r? k e -ms w •o ed a in 165' retr a) 1 1 CO a *c tb-= o C, e 55
The orbits are in 58' to the ecli node is in loi Their motion nearly
circular a! D c 2 O- ) — — ©» £ 1 tf p n » e o » 6 00 — ._ o 60 s B
* O « i-3 ^ — o CI «» „ 2 " ? > S 8 J*. «Bb . o "" 55
The text on this page is estimated to be only 1.64%
accurate

APPENDIX. 735 o < V Q O M « w Ph fa o 00 H w - s £2 V

•w *00 0> "0 Q CO 0» 9* « co »o «S oi :£ »; -i O n CO to ■» «o -H
« V w-ss 50 P 1 «. O o» * *> ** >o w •* CO H ON """ ir> 00 a o oo
• * « Ol O) - "• O 00 TT O — ' S ?• « Ql a' s& 00 ^ «o — -• N c* t-
>c ^ oo SI -1 o to * "* "5 a 5 «o « o «o g; ,= ? •* 00 Q o> ", ^ OT
v 3 S CO ~ *-« (73 V _ ,_ c oo oo 2 £ oo ^620 t- *»■ 00 w 5s 2^
00 "* o>- - .C _ .♦* -rt S r .3-0 B«f «c sico>. : t .a o ® — " * •* Si!?
^1jc£a,,.OC3i> 3"rt!Ka<oS ^a 2"° ='£'E.>: 0 -5 5 o tbcT 3 _ ^: «*.
'-'a* — c~ o « ^ l. — "O ••ooE-;k «i JJ 2 "-3 O es— »Too "53 E| S£
E o 1 2 S «*2_ E "3 o 0 o5 O *~ — B - 3 ccS " u = : £ e n u «• b ■"
Ji B 3 . '> w * "5 « £ 1 is c— - jz ^ cj in e — — ' If" a ■* _ 3 E « .5
~ k £ *• r o csffi'''
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com