What sorts of social structures do you suppose supported the acquisition of such knowledge, and do you think it was necessarily part of the elite or craft specialist kind of agenda?
Today, many astronomers are fully supported to study phenomena occurring at the farthest reaches of the universe. While such extreme specialization is possible in complex societies, I think there is evidence for partial specialization at lesser levels of organization. In Peru, Guaman Poma, and the anonymous author of the Huarochiri manuscript describe village level sky watchers. It is not clear how specialized these individuals were, but they certainly occupied a special niche in villages with rather limited resources.
Acquisition of knowledge requires time and resource expenditure. The more time that an individual can dedicate to study, the more rapidly the knowledge base expands. A general expectation of the annual motion of the sun might be acquired rather casually, and known to most farmers. Precision and prediction requires an individual to spend time and effort making systematic observations, and organizing the resulting data. As a result, the more resources given to support such sky watchers, the more time they have to develop it as a specialized activity.
Why should a social group support an individual to engage in such specialization?
In addition to being time-keepers, these village sky watchers were accepted as sources for other important information. As such, they can be seen as figures with some type of local authority. It is easy to see a continuity between such local village figures, and imperial Inca priests who determined the dates to hold the elaborate ceremonies held at solstices, and the times for planting and harvest. The interest and duties of these intermediaries to a celestial authority figure went beyond simply calling out a date. They were advisors and councilors, part of the imperial elite.
You’re an astronomer by training, isn’t that right? How did you first get involved in archaeology?
As an astronomer/astrophysicist, I have always been interested in the history of my field. Initially this was to develop an understanding of where and why astronomers had made mistakes in the past. For example, why did Tycho reject the heliocentric theory of Copernicus? There are no answers in the back of the book for modern research questions, so it is only by looking at the development of (now) well understood knowledge, that we can see (and correct) the thought processes that led us astray. While living in England I became interested in the megalithic sites, and the claims of astronomy that were made for them. On returning to the U.S., I encountered/made an opportunity to travel to Peru, and study the astronomy of the Inca. Recognizing that this activity bordered on archaeology, I sought archaeologists as collaborators. Happily, I encountered open minded colleagues who saw value in the skills that I could contribute. This led to a number of successful collaborations in which we learned much more than we could have as individuals with narrow disciplinary boundaries.
