|
TRANSLATIONS
Observations of stars at the eastern horizon, at zenith and at the western horizon - at their beginning (mua), in their middle (roto) and at their exit (muri). Is that the explanation for ana mua, ana roto, and ana muri? Is the time of observation given (when in the year and when in the day) and taken for granted?
When observing the sky you cannot see more than about half of it (180º). The right ascension will tell if you have a chance to see a given star. (Although the declination is also a governing factor.) 24 hours for a full circle means 12 hours will correspond to 180º. The distance in the sky between for instance Antares and Spica will be 16 h 26 m minus 13 h 23 m. Converting to minutes: 16 * 60 + 26 = 986 respectively 13 * 60 + 23 = 803. 986 - 803 = 183 and the ratio between 183 and 24 * 60 (= 1440) is 0.127, i.e. the stars are about 0.127 * 360 = 46º apart from each other. You can see both at the same time. (If none of them are below the horizon in the north or south.) Aldebaran, on the other hand, will be far away: 4 * 60 + 33 = 273. It will arrive first of the three stars, yet is called muri. Changing the system of reference from spring equinox to autumn equinox will add 12 hours to the right ascension measures:
Yet, even if now Aldebaran will be muri, Antares will not be mua but roto. Possibly Antares can be identified with kena, and possibly kena is located in the middle (roto) of a calendar for the summer:
In the middle of summer the sun will be standing high and making star observation more difficult than in the winter. The heliacal rising of Antares was once (ca 4,800 BC) observed at autumn equinox (north of the equator). South of the equator it then rose heliacally at spring equinox. Due to the precession of the equinoxes Antares since then has moved forward in the year a quarter of a turn (90º) to arrive at winter solstice (respectively at summer solstice south of the equator).
At winter solstice (on Easter Island) it would have been more easy to see Antares. The time of observation, we can deduce, by reasoning from the fact that it was the heliacal rising of Antares which had moved from spring equinox to midsummer. Antares is rising heliacally at midsummer. In midwinter Antares must be 180º away, i.e. it must be a companion of the sun when it goes down in the west. If ana, in Ana-mua etc, refers to the 'pit' (rua) or 'cave' (ana) into which a heavenly body enters at the western horizon, later to arrive again in the east, then it is not zenith (or nadir) which is relevant. It should be the horizon in the west or in the east. Right ascension is measured in hours and minutes from spring equinox and zenith. Moving to the horizon necessitates changing the measured numbers with 6 h:
If we look for Antares in the evening sky at winter solstice on Easter Island, we need to take the values of the last table and adjust it from spring equinox (north of the equator) to summer solstice (north of the equator) - i.e. from autumn equinox to winter solstice south of the equator:
Moving from north of the equator to south of the equator does not change the daily cycle - evening is evening at the same time north and south of the equator. If kena is Antares, rising heliacally around midsummer on Easter Island, then Anakena sounds like the nadir of kena. And indeed, that is exactly what we can see in the calendar, where Anakena is located at the beginning (mua), after winter solstice:
Even without identifying kena with Antares it is reasonable to find Anakena at the opposite 'pole' of kena. February is Te-hetu'u-pú, the 'star' with a 'hole'. Maybe that is the 'hole' at autumn equinox which once was likened to the exit of sun at the western horizon in its daily cycle? If so, then the other 'hole' ought to be 6 months away at spring equinox, in Hora iti. Yet, there are holes at Aa5-6 and Ab7-25:
Can we harmonize all these facts? One tiny bit of new insight is the form of the legs in Aa5-6, I imagine it resembles the moa glyphs:
Comparing with Ab7-25, where the left hole is closed, there ought to be an open hole illustrated by the legs in Aa5-6. Ab5-4, if we turn the glyph a quarter leftwards, presumably illustrates waning light. In Aa5-5 the same message is delivered by shorter vertical lines at right. In Aa5-6 there is only a thread instead of the 'branch' we can see in Ab7-25, and we should remember Ca1-19--20:
Earlier I have written e.g.:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
