Placing GreekTemples: An Archaeoastronom-

cal Study of the Orientation of Ancient Greek

Religious Structures
EFROSYNI BOUTSIKAS

Abstract
Thi.s paper revisits the generally accepted view
that the normal orientation of ancient Greek
temples is toward the east through a general
analysi.s of 107 Greek temple orientations col-
lected by the author. The paper also attempts
to establish whether there existed a general
principle that related to specific astronomical
observations and could have determined the
orientation of Greek temples. The analysis
applies archaeoastronomical methodology in
investigating orientation patterns of Greek
temples from the Geometric to the Hellenistic
periods in Greece. These first results show
that the Sun does not seem to have played as
decisive a role in the orientation of temples as
currently thought. Instead, there appears to be
a much larger variation than accounted for at
present that cannot be simply explained by the
concept of the predominance of eastern orien-
tations. It is concluded that all-encompassing
interpretations do not appear to apply in Greek
religion and cult practices and that the study of
Greek cult needs to account for local variations,
traditions, and landscapes.
Resumen
Al analizar los alineamientos de 107 templos
griegos la autora del presente artculo som-
ete a nuevo examen la idea, comnmente
aceptada, de que los templos en Grecia Antigua
se orientaban normalmente hacia el Este. Este
artculo tambin trata de verificar si existi
algn principio general relacionado con las
observaciones astronmicas especficas y si
este principio pudo determinar la orientacin
de los templos griegos. El estudio de los
patrones de orientacin de los templos
griegos construidos en Grecia entre el periodo
geomtrico hasta el periodo helenstico
emplea la metodologa arqueoastronmica.
Los primeros resultados demuestran que el
movimiento del sol no parece jugar el papel
tan determinante en la elaboracin de las
orientaciones de los templos como se ha
pensado hasta ahora. En cambio, parece que
la variacin de orientaciones es mucho ms
grande de lo que se supona y ello no puede
explicarse por el hecho de que simplemente
predominan las orientaciones hacia el este. En
conclusin, las interpretaciones que pretenden
explicar la totalidad de orientaciones, no se
aplican a los estudios de la religin griega y de
las prcticas cultuales, por lo tanto, cualquier
estudio de los cultos griegos tiene que tomar
en cuenta las variaciones,tradiciones y paisajes
locales.

Efrosyni Boutsikas is a Lecturer of Classical Archaeology at the University of Kent and presently holds a Visiting Fellowship at the University
of Leicester. She received a B.Sc. in Archaeological Science from the University of Sheffield and an M.A. in Archaeology from the University
of Leicester. Boutsikas completed her Ph.D. (University of Leicester) on astronomy and ancient Creek cult in 2007.

2007-2008 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819. Austin, TX 78713-7819
In 1939 William Bell Dinsmoor published his study
on ihe principles behind ancient Greek temple orien-
tations. His treatment and conclusions in this paper
brought together earlier research that had been ear-
ried out by Francis C. Penrose in the 1890s and by
Heinrich Nissen published between 1869 and 1906.
Dinsmoor's general conclusion on the orientation of
Greek temples followed that of his predecessors, who
argued in favor of the predominant eastern orienta-
tion. He claimed that 73 percent of Greek temples
were oriented within 60 of due east (1939:115-116),
and therefore the placing of Greek temples was dic-
tated by the need to face the rising or setthig Sun. This
result was derived from plotting Nissen*s temple ori-
entations (published in 1906) in a graph in an attempt
to examine the presence of trends. Eighty years since
Dinsmoor's paper, the orientations of Greek temples
have been shoe-horned in such a way that the presence
of a much broader variation of orientationswhich
is in factthecaseis commonly overlooked in favor
of the idea of the predominance of an eastern orienta-
tion, which remains a point of reference for modern
scholars (Beyer 1990; Mikalson 2005:20; Scully
1979:44,151). Prior to Dinsmoor's publication Nissen
and Penrose had argued that temples were aligned to
sunrise on the day of the god's major festival (Nissen
1873:527-528; Penrose 1893:380). The eastern orien-
tation of Greek temples was explained as the result of
Egyptian influence (Nissen 1906:249).
The study presented here intends to offer a much
needed structured and rigorous approach through the
discipline of archaeoastronomy as prescribed by Aveni
(2002). McCluskey (1982.2004). and Ruggles (1984,
1999. 2000a. 2000b). These scholars have pioneered
methods of archaeoastronomical research. leading
to new directions with regard to the contribution of
archaeoastronomy to the reconstruction of past so-
cieties and practices (Ghezzi and Ruggles 2007).
and wherever possible in conjunction with ancient
written sources (McCluskey 2006; Vail and Aveni
2004). This paper challenges for the first time the argu-
ment that Greek temples had a predominantly eastern
orientation, raising as a result serious doubts about
the assumed role of the Sun in the orientation of many
Greek temples. The study presents a general analysis
of the orientation of 107 Greek temples from the Greek
mainland and the islands of the Aegean (Figure 1 ) eol-
lected by the author and covering a time period from
900 to 200 B.C. (Table 1 ). The analysis that follows
tests the existing ideas on the general orientation of
Greek temples andthrough a quantitative assess-
ment of the distribution of the orientations presents
new data in order to test current understanding of the
role and function of the orientation of Greek temples.
It demonstrates that Greek religious structures were
plaeed over a far wider range than can be simply
explained by a solar orientation.
Sample Description
The dataset of this study includes some of the most
important and representative sites of the periods
during which they were constructed and some of the
earliest self-standing religious structures found in
Greece from around 900 B.C. (e.g., Apollo Thermios,
excluding the megara, the function of which has not
been firmly established to this date). The region cov-
ered by this study includes the area covered by the
modern Greek state (Figure 1 ) rather than the world
of Hellenic city-states as a whole, which extended
from the western Mediterranean to the Black Sea. In
the selection procedure of temples to be surveyed,
no deities or types of sites have intentionally been
given greater emphasis. This study includes the vast
majority of religious sites that could be measured
within the study area. All religious structures for
which permission was given and whose preservation
was sufficient have been surveyed (including those
of foreign deities).
The geographical area covered by the sample
presented here includes the Greek mainland and the
Aegean islands of Aigina. Delos. Kos. Naxos. Poros,
Rhodes, Samos, and Tenos. The dataset includes
different types of sites, including temples located in
organically grown settlements that demonstrate the
continuity of a cult over several successive temples
constructed in the same location. Settlements that
developed organically are important to this study, as
they allow the examination of patterns of continu-
ity and. more importantly, observations of changes
in the orientation between successive structures. In
some cases as many as four reconstructions of the
same temple have been measured (e.g., the temples
VOLUME XXI 2007-2008
Table 1. List of the structures included in the dataset of this study

ID Location Site Building Azimuth Altitude Declination

1 Acheron Oracle of the dead Main sanctuary 4 3 53 21

2 Acheron Oracle of the dead Palace of Hades & Persephone 4 0 50 1
3 Aegina Sanctuary of Aphaia Temple of Aphaia 67 1.5 18 35
4 Amphipolis Sanctuary of Attis Temple of Attis 101 4 -5 56
5 Amphipolis Thesmophorio Thesmophorio-Nymphaion 165 11 -36 28
6 Argos Heraion Old Temple of Hera 118 3 -19 12
7 Argos Heraion New Temple of Hera 119 3 -1956
8 Athens Acropolis Parthenon 11 2 11 7
9 Athens Acropolis Temple of Athena Polias 85 3.5 5 48
10 Athens Acropolis Erechtheion 353 3 54 15
M Athens Agora Metroon 102 4.5 -1
12 Athens Agora Temple of Apollo Patroos 97 4.5 -2 59
13 Athens Agora Temple of Zeus & Athena Phatria 99 4.5 -4 33
14 Athens Agora Hephaisteion 104 5 -8 6
15 Athens South slope Old Temple of Dionysos 75 3 13 21
16 Athens South slope New Temple of Dionysos 75 4 1400
17 Bassae Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Af>ollo 4 14 62 1
18 Calydon Ancient Calydon Temple of Apollo 129 1 -29 4
19 Calydon Ancient Calydon Hercwn 180 0.5 -51 36
20 Calydon Ancient Calydon Temple of Artemis 122 3 -22 34
21 Corinth Agora Temple of Apollo 11 3 12 1
22 De los Sanctuary of Apollo Letoon 186 1 -5140
23 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Artemisio 108 3 -12 37
24 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Temple G 347 2 52 19
25 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Poros Temple of Apollo 265 0.5 -4 11
26 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo (Athenians) 263 0.5 -5 23
27 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Great Temple of Apollo 264 0.5 -4 59
28 Dlos Sanctuary of Apollo Dodekatheo 97 3.5 -3 33
29 Dlos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Heraion 172 7 -45 8
30 Dlos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Serapeion C 178 2 -50 52
31 Dlos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Temple of Isis 268 0 -145
32 Dlos Sanctuary of Foreign Gods Serapeion A 297 2 22 24
33 Dlos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Temple of Zeus 286 0 12 17
Hypsistos Mount Kythnos
34 Dlos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Artemis Locheia, 85 0 3 37
Hercules-Baal Zeboul, gods of
Askaion
33 Dlos Sanctuary of Mount Kythnos Sanctuary of Agathe Tyche 266 0 -3 32
36 Dlos Theatre district Aphrodi.sion 170 9 -42 45
37 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Athena Pronaia 177 7 -44 34
38 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Apollo 49 27 47 49
39 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Old Temple of Apollo 49 27 47 49
40 Delphi Sanctuary of Apollo Temple of Athena Pronaia 190 8 -42 42
41 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple A 64 0 192
42 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple 1 70 0 14 37
ID Location Site Building Azimuth Altitude Declination

43 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple B 78 0 8 37

44 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Temple 2 71 0 13 52
45 Dion Sanctuary of Demeter Small temple with offering table 61 0 21 12
46 Dion Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Isis 162 1 -46 7
47 Dion Sanctuary of Egyptian Gods Temple of Hypolympia Aphrodite 68 0 166
48 Dion Temple of Zeus Temple of Zeus Hypsistos 150 1.5 -40 32
49 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Aphrodite 116 8 -!4 15
50 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Themis 129 7 -23 51
51 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Zeus {hiera oikia) 125 7.5 -20 50
52 Dodona Oracle of Zeus New Temple of Dione 110 8 -9 56
53 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Old Temple of Dione 176 12 -38 23
54 Dodona Oracle of Zeus Temple of Hercules 158 3.5 -42 35
55 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Megaron 111 2 -15 27
56 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Solonion 115 2 -18 29
57 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Telestirio-Peisistratid 115 2 -18 29
58 Eleusis Sanctuary of Demeter & Kore Ploutoneion 103 2 -9 18
59 Gortyn Asklepieion Temple of Asklepios 108 20 -1 12
60 Isthmia Sanctuary of Poseidon Old Temple of Poseidon 98 0 -6 35
61 Isthmia Sanctuary of Poseidon New Temple of Poseidon 97 1 -5 4
62 Kos Asklepieion Large Temple of Asklepios 25 1 4647
63 Kos Askiepieion Prostyle Ionic Temple of 114 2 -18 13
Asklepios
64 Lebade i a Temple of Zeus Temple of Zeus Vassileus 64 0 20
65 Mantineia Agora Temple of Hera 93 8 2 32
66 M an ti ne i a Agora Podare i on 86 8 83
67 Megalopolis Agora Temple of Zeus Soter 101 4.5 -5 58
68 Messe ne Asklepieion Temple of Asklepios 115 11 -12 11
69 Messene Asklepieion Temple of Artemis 129 11 -2156
70 Messene Asklepieion Artemision 115 11 -12 11
71 Messene Asklepieion Oikos Asklepeiou & Paidon 215 1 -40 30
72 Naxos City Temple of Apollo Portara 140 0 -38 6
73 Naxos Sanctuary of Dionysos Old Temple of Dionysos 203 4 -43 46
74 Naxos Sanctuary of Dionysos Temple of Dionysos 202 4 -44 11
75 Naxos Sagri Temple of Demeter 213 0 -42 30
76 Nemea Sanctuary of Zeus Temple of Zeus 75 7 168
77 Nemea Sanctuary of Zeus Old Temple of Zeus 75 7 168
78 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Temple of Zeus 83 3 7 28
79 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Heraion 87 2 3 39
80 Olympia Sanctuary of Zeus Pe lope ion 208 3 -42 8
81 Pella Thesmophorio Thesmophorio 267 2 -1 1
82 Pella Thesmophorio Thesmophorio 84 1 447
83 Pe rae hora Heraion Temple of Hera Akraia 93 12 54
84 Poros Sanctuary of Poseidon Temple of Poseidon 68 2 18 13
85 Pylos Nestor's Palace Hiero-Oplostasio 147 2 -37 18
86 Pylos Nestor's Palace Queen's Hall SW entrance 220 0 -35 27
Table l.(Cont.)

ID Location Site Building Azimuth Altitude Declination

87 Pylos Nestor's Palace Megaron 147 3 -36 23

88 Rhodes City of Rhodes , Temple of Aphrodite 93 0 -3 5
89 Rhodes Ialyssos ' "^ Temple of Athena Polias & 184 0 -53 57
1 Zeus Poiieos
90 Rhodes Kameiros Temple of Pythian Apollo 357 0.5 53 36 ;
91 Rhodes Lindos. Acropolis Temple of Lindia Athena 34 0 4121
92 Samos Heraion Rhoecus Temple 79 0.5 8 47 ..
93 Samos Heraion Hekatomhedon II 79 0.5 8 47
94 Samos Heraion Greater Temple of Hera 79 0.5 8 23
95 Samos Heraion Hekatombedon I 77 0.5 9 57
96 Sikyon Acropolis & Agora Temple of Artemis or Apollo 95 2 -2 49
97 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Temple of Poseidon 105 1 -1137
98 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Great Temple of Athena 98 1 -67
99 Sounio Sanctuary of Poseidon Small Temple of Athena 103 1 -10 3
100 Sparta Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia Temple of Artemis Orthia 100 4 -6 16
101 Tegea Temple of Athena Alea Temple of Athena 87 5 5 24
102 Tenos Sanctuary of Poseidon Building B 194 0 -5047
& Amphitite * .

103 Thermum Ancient Thermum Temple of Apollo 191 5 -45 26

104 Thermum Ancient Thermum Megaron A 194 5 -44 44
105 Thermum Ancient Thermum Megaron B 196 4 -45 9
106 Tiryns Palace Temple of Hera ISO 2 -50 42
107 Tiryns Palace Megaron 180 2 -50 42

of Hera in Samos). Sites on eoasts (e.g., Peraeiiora).
in plains (e.g., Messene, Athens), and on hilltops or
mountains (e.g., the Menelaion near Sparta and the
temple of Apollo at Bassae) are also included in the
dataset. The sample contains not only temples that
belonged to settlements of various sizes but also those
with aecess to a number of different resources: some
have limited local trade routes, while others were
cosmopolitan trade centers and therefore subject to a
variety of cultural influences. The study also includes
temple measurements from sanctuaries located out-
side and on the boundaries of urban centers (e.g.. the
Thesmophorion-Nymphaion in Amphipolis) as well
as temples independent of the control of a certain city
(e.g., the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi). Wherever
possible, cities that were planned from the outset
and followed town-planning concepts and principles
before they were laid out have been included in the
sample (e.g.. Rhodes).
Field Methodology
The measurements comprising this study were col-
lected using a magnetic compass and clinometer over
four field seasons. A compass, duly corrected for
magnetic declination, will only determine the direc-
tion relative to true north to an accuracy of around
one degree. Taking into account the highest level of
astronomical precision that the ancient Greeks would
have been capable ofmeasuring,this level of accuracy
is considered adequate. Local magnetic anomalies
were tested in two ways. Minor anomalies were tested
by several measurements taken along each of the long
walls of rectangular structures and from either end of
the wall. Great magnetic anomalies that could have

8 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
 PeracHpra
" ' lathfTiia
Nemea Cortrim
iNBinea 00(10111 ml' i ) -^
^ A
Mantineia, ,ArgoB Afegina Soiinio
impja Gortyn lyns Poros y.
eassa Megaiopos
Ueasene

Lndoa
"3 o

SO 100 150 200 Miles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilon

FiURir; I. Map of ancient Greece showing the sites included in this study. One hundred and seven measurements ot temple
t)ricntations were collected from 42 sites. The map shows 40 sites. The two sites missing are located in Athens. The point
for Athens covers, therefore, three sites: the Acropolis, the south slope, and the Agora. Outline map created by R. A.
LaFleur and Tom Elliott. Copyright 2000-2001, Ancient World Mapping Center, http://www.unc.edu/awmc.

affected a large geographical area were examined by
studying the geology of sites prior to their survey.
The structures of this study were all of rectangular
shape. To determine their orientation the magnetic
bearing was recorded along each of the long walls
from either end. In those cases where only half of the
structure survived, the long and the short walls were
measured from either end. This repetition of mea-
surements was necessary to ensure the most accurate
readings of the temple's orientation. In addition to
measuring the magnetic orientation of each structure,
liorizon profiles were also recorded for the horizon
surrounding each structure.The horizon profiles were
measured using a compass and a clinometer, and
ihcsc measurements involved the combination of the
magnetic orientation of each point and the altitude of
the horizon on that orientation. These measurements
were repeated until the entire horizon profile was
recorded, and all measurements were taken from the
center of the temple's entrance.
I have attempted to ensure that data collection was
as inclusive as possible. And although decisions had
to be made about what sites would be included, the
decision to include temples was mostly driven by
factors of site preservation and accessibility during
field work.
Data Reduction
This study improves the methods of analysis applied
to the orientations compared with previous studies

VOLUME XXI 2007-2008

by accounting for the height of the local horizon
(altitude), refraction, and atmospheric extinction.
The temple orientations have been converted to dec-
linations using the command-driven DOS program
GETDEC created by Clive Ruggles (http://www
.le.ac.uk/archaeology/rug/aa/progs/decpak.html).
which makes corrections for atmospheric refrac-
tion and extinction (Table 1). In order to obtain the
declination of a structure, GETDEC requires the
structure's latitude, the magnetic orientation, the
horizon's altitude, and the magnetic correction. This
means that each declination obtained is specific to the
particular horizon and location. The term declination
in this sense, used when discussing the orientation of
a structure, needs to be explained. Declination is the
angular distance between a celestial object and the
celestial equator, whether to the north or the south; it
is the celestial counterpart of terrestrial latitude. As
a result, a structure as sueh cannot have a declina-
tion. This term is employed throughout this paper in
order to denote the exact part of the celestial sphere
toward which the structure is oriented and to therefore
be compared to the celestial objects with the same
or similar declination or "celestial latitude." In the
present context the declination is more informative
than the azimuth (bearing of magnetic compass) of
a structure. This is because by using declination we
instantly account for extinction, latitude, and the alti-
tude of the local horizon aligned with the structure's
entrance. In addition, the use of declination enables a
direct comparison between the orientation of a struc-
ture and the position of a specific celestial object, or
a position on the horizon.
The declinations of horizon points indicate which
celestial bodies rise and set there and (once preces-
sion, refraction, atmospheric extinction, and proper
motion are allowed for) which ones would have risen
or set there at any given era in the past. Furthermore,
by obtaining declinations for spcifie points along
a horizon (horizon profiles), we can calculate the
declination of any point on the horizon profile and
hence reconstruct the celestial bodies visible at that
particular horizon at different times. The orientations
were plotted in the form of cumulative frequency dis-
tribution (curvigram). Each declination shown in the
following graph is represented by a computed curve.
10 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
The peak of the curve is the deduced declination. The
curve of each declination is centered on the median of
all the measurements of the structure's orientation and
with a standard deviation determined by combining
the standard deviation of those measurements with
the uncertainty in the magnetic declination. These
eurves allow us, therefore, to investigate the patterns
of emerging distribution, with the added advantage
of avoiding the display of a false accuracy (given the
limited precision of the instrument used) that a simple
point in the place of the curve would have offered.
The Orientation of Greek Temples
Graph 1 shows the distribution ofthe deduced temple
declinations. Three general groups of orientations are
depicted in the graph. The largest group of measure-
ments points broadly east and west, spanning the
declination range -30 to -1-23 with distinct borders at
the northern and southern ends. The vast majority of
this group falls within the solar range (Graph 2, high-
lighted section). Within this group there is a particular
concentration of declinations between -8 and +H.
This concentration, if interpreted in terms of sunrise
or sunset, represents a range of dates falling roughly
within one month of the equinoxes. If we were to
argue that the position ofthe rising or setting Sun on
the horizon at the time ofthe equinoxes was used as
a factor in orienting some Greek religious structures,
we would expect that the distribution of such a group
of declinations would show an accumulation of data
at the time of the actual equinox (declination 0). As
shown in Graph 1, the dataset includes no structures
oriented between 0 and 2, only two structures have
declination -1, and one structure declination -2.
This very distinct absence of data in the range of the
Sun rising at the actual equinox may signify that the
concentration of data around the equinoxes, although
empirically real, could be an example of "unintended
astronomical alignment by those who constructed it"
(Ruggles 2000b: 152).
The declinations falling within the east-west
group comprise 65.3 percent ofthe total amount of
data (70 measurements). Of the 70 measurements be-
longing to this group,eight face toward the west: the
Poros temple of Apollo, the temple ofthe Athenians
and Great temple of Apollo, the temples of Zeus
 Temple declinations

TI I I I t i l I I I I I I r I I I I M I f i f i I I 11 t I I r n Tn I I I I fi M r r 111

beclinatior
GRAPH I. The distribution of the orientations of 107 Greek temples from 900 to 200 B.C. The Y axis shows the temple
count. The graph includes adjustments for standard deviation. Southern declinations are between -60 and -40 (to the left).
Western and eastern declinations overlap in the center, and northern ones are between +40 and -i-70 (to the right).

Temple

oxo p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
CM CM T- t -
(N t CJd o t o o m o i o o i o o
beclinatiorT
GRAPH 2. Reproduction of the distribution of data, displaying the range of declinations visited by the Sun during its annual
movement (-24 to +24) (highlighted section). In the highlighted area both eastern and western declinations are included.
This group comprises 58 percent of the total sample facing toward eastern declinations and 7.4 percent of the total sample
facing toward western declinations.

Hypsistos and Agathe Tyche on Mount Kythnos, the
temple of Isis and the Serapeion A in the Sanctuary
of Foreign Gods, all from the islandof Delos.and the
west entrance of the Thesmophorion in Pella. This
result deduces that the eastern declinations are there-
fot^ 62, comprising 58 percent of the total sample
collected for this study. This result confirms earlier
indications that a large number of Greek temples face
toward the east. However, the eastern orientations of
this study comprise a considerably smaller part of the
total data than earlier conclusions: Dinsmoor argued
that 73 percent of Greek temples were oriented within
60 of due east ( 1939:1 LS-116). The present sample
indicates that the eastern-facing temples are not as
predominant as previously thought, and in addition,
the distribution of the orientations shows a much
greater variation that cannot be ignored or explained
by the movement of the Sun.
Graph 1 shows the presence of a second group
of data formed toward the southern part of the sky.

VOLUME XXI 2007-2008 11


q q o q q q
o ci d d d d
CD (N
Declination
GRAPH 3. Declinations of twelve temples dedicated to Apollo.
ranging between declinations -55 and -34. This
group cotnprises 25.2 percent of the total sample
(total number of measurements 27). As neither the
Sun nor the Moon visit these declinations, if the
orientation of these structures was related to astro-
nomical observations, this could only involve stellar
observations. The constellations rising and setting in
the declinations covered by this group are Centaurus
(KVTQvgo or XfLyiov for the Greeks). Lupus (for
the Greeks a wineskin from which the Centaur was
about to drink, or the Therion [01]QLOV], meaning
"wild animal"). Ara (the Greeks called it Thytrion
or Thysiasterion [0X)Tf]QLOV or 0DaLaoTf|Qiov],
meaning "altar"), Vela (for the ancient Greeks the sail
of the constellation of Argo [Argo Navis]), the south-
em part of Sagittarius (for the Greeks Toxeutes or
Toxotes [To^euTTi orTo^Tr)q], meaning "archer"),
Phoenix (the Egyptian Bennu, possibly named
Phoenix by the Greeks), and the southern part of
Eridanus (EpLOavc or I l o T a ^ in Greek, the latter
meaning "river"). Although perhaps unintended, a
concentration of data is observed between declina-
tions -42 to -46" of 13 structures. These structures
do not indicate a preference with regard to a specific
deity, chronological period, or geographic location.
This subgroup includes hero cults (Pelopeion in
Olympiaand the temple of Herakles in Dodona).other
chthonic cults like the two temples of Athena Pronaia
in Delphi and the temple of Demeter in Nax.os, tem-
12 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
Temple declinations
r "T
q q q q
d o d d d
CD
CO
ples constructed over Mycenaean megara (Apollo in
Thermon [three structures] and Dionysos in Naxos),
a temple dedicated to a foreign deity (temple of Isis
in Dion), as well as the Heraion (two temples) and
the Aphrodision in Delos.
Finally, a small cluster of data is observed in the
northern declinations (-f-40 to -1-68) representing
8.4 percent of the total sample (nine measurements).
This cluster includes only cults of Apollo and chthon-
ic cults. The Apollo temples falling in this group are
those in Delphi. Bassae,in Kameiros of Rhodes, and
temple V in Delos. Although these form a significant
part of the surveyed temples dedicated to Apollo, it
should be noted that the remaining surveyed temples
of Apollo are oriented toward different parts of the
horizon (Graph 3). The temple of Apollo in Corinth
and that of Apollo Patroos in the Athenian Agora face
the east: the temple of Apollo Erethymios in The-
ologos, in Rhodes, is oriented to the northeast; that
of Calydon is toward the southeast; and the temples
of Apollo in Naxos and in Thermon face south. The
northern orientation of the Delian temple F. although
of much earlier date, can he contrasted to the other
Apollo temples on the island, all of which are oriented
toward the west. It is possible that Apoo being the
only ouranic deity represented in this northern group
could be a deliberate choice, but further investigation
is needed in order to examine possible reasons behind
such a choice. Such a study would need to contain
an in-depth analysis of each Apollo cult, the material
culture, and the local horizon and landscape. A study
of the Delphic temple of Apollo has indicated that
its orientation may have been connected to stellar
ohservations.and,morespecifically,it seems possible
Ihat the orientation of the temple, the operation of the
Delphic oracle, and the presence of Apollo in Delphi
for a certain number of months may have been related
10 the movement of the constellation of Delphinus
(Salt and Boutsikas 2005).
This group of northern orientations includes the
following hero cults: the Doric letnple of Asklepeios
in Kos. the north porch of the Erechtheion in Athens,
and the axis of the oracle of the dead in Acheron.
which also includes the underground palace of Hades
and Persephone. Although the evolution of the cult of
Asklepeios from a mortal physician to a Thcssalian
hero, to a chthonic oracular demon to a Panhellenic
Apollonian deity with mantic character is complex
(Compton 2002:320-321), in Kos his cult devel-
oped to an important state cult, retaining, however,
its chthonic character. The temples of Asklepeios in
Kos have different orientations, but they all face the
altar (from different directions). With regard to the
Erechtheion. a recent study of the stnicture and the
north porch indicates that the north porch and the west
celia were of greater cultic significance to the east
porch and celia and that this northem orientation may
have been deliberate and associated with the move-
ment of the constellation of Draco (Boutsikas 2001).
As is apparent from Graphs 1 and 2 and Table l.the
datasel presented here displays no preference toward
the cardinal points. The largest number of data accu-
mulation toward a cardinal point is that facing east,
with, however.only five structures facing within 3 of
due east (jusl under 4.7 percent of the dataset). Three
structures of the examined sample face due south
(within 3), two in Tyrins and one in Calydon, and
only one due north (Rhodes) and due west (Pella).The
analysis of the sample demonstrates a distribution of
orientations that is much wider than the range in the
horizon visited by the Sun (Graph 2). It is evident
that the movement of the Sun alone is not sufficient
to explain the orientation of Greek temples.
In examining the possibility of lunar associations.
Graph 4 shows that the lunar rising or setting points in
the horizon do not seem to have been associated with
the orientation of the temples either. The Moon's path
along the horizon is similar to that of the Sun. hut it
moves a little farther north and south (shaded darker
in Graph 4). As such, it appears difficult to determine
whether the orientations of the east-west group could
be associated with the movement of the Moon or that
of the Sun. However, if the former were the case,
we would expect to find measurements falling also
within the part of the horizon that is only visited by
the Moon: declinations -24 to -30'' and +24*^ to +28
(extending on either side of the solar range). Graph 4
shows explicitly that only one structure (the letiiple
of Apollo in Calydon) is oriented within the space
between the end of the solar range and the southern
and northern major lunar limits.
The data have also been divided into chronological
periods in order to investigate whether a practice of
deliberate general orientation of Greek temples was
introduced at a specific period or whether, if present, it
declined afteracertain time. In the vast majority of re-
ligious sites we encounter continuity in the construc-
tion of religious buildings: the destruction of temples
from natural disasters (e.g., the temple of Apollo at
Delphi, destroyed in 373 B.C. by an earthquake) or
by human action {e.g.. the destruction of the temple
of Poseidon at Sounion by the Persians) was followed
by their replacement with new structures. The new
temples were built either adjacent to or on top of the
old foundations, always dedicated to the same deity.
As ritual practice changes on a slow timescale even in
cases of rapid social change, the chances of identify-
ing trends are greater, as they may be sustained long
enough to be picked up by the archaeological record
(Ruggles 20(X)b: 163).
The investigation of changes in orientation as a
result of the precession of the equinoxes between
successive building phases cannot be examined at this
stage. In order to do so it is necessary to determine
the celestial body toward which the structure was
aligned, but such a conclusion needs to be determined
through the examination of archaeological and liter-
ary evidence rather than by using the orientation of
subsequent structures in order to fix on a celestial
body that simply shares the orientation. In the case
of Greece there is no single celestial body that could
VOLUME XXI 2007-2008 13
 Temple declinations

eclinatiorT "

GRAPH 4. Reproduction of the distribution of the dataset. with the annual path of the Moon shaded darker (-30 to +28).
superimposed on the solar declination range.

Temple declinations

o p p p
O
CO
d d d d
CO CD
Declination

GRAPH 5. Distribution of sample dating to the Archaic period (700^80 B.C.) (30 structures).

have determined the orientation of all or the majority
of temples.
The declinations from this study were split into
subgroups by chronological period as determined
by archaeological finds: Geometric (900-700 B.C.),
Archaic (700^80 B.C.). Classical (480-330 B.C.),
and Hellenistic (330 B.C.-A.D. 14). The results of
this analysis produce graphs that in terms of their dis-
tribution patterns are similar to those of Graph 1. The
two largest chronological groups were for the Archaic
and Classical periods (Graphs 5 and 6, respectively).
The distribution of the data from the Classical pe-
riod (Graph 6) is representative of those generated
for the other periods also. As demonstrated also in
these two representative graphs, this analysis shows
no visible shift between the consecutive periods.
The graphs generated by the division of the data into
the aforementioned chronological periods depict the
same three clusters of data that have been discussed
previously (east-west, north, south).
A preliminary study of the sites included in this
study indicates a frequent shift of orientation between
earlier and later structures. The dataset includes,
among other cases, four sites with four successive

14 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Declination
GRAPH 6. Distribution of sample dating to the Classical period (480-330 B.C.) (27 structures).
reconstructions ofthe same temple (e.g., the Heraion
of Samos and the temples of Dionysos in Sagri,
Naxos), six sites with three successive reconstruc-
tions (e.g.. the temples of Apollo and Artemis on
Delos), and nineteen sites with two reconstructions
(e.g., the temples of Dionysos in Athens, the temples
of Poseidon in Isthmia, and the temples of Demeter
in Dion). In a number of cases two or more succes-
sive temples with different orientations fall in the
same chronological subgroup (e.g., the two temples
of Poseidon at Isthmia and the two temples of
Asklepeios in Kos). The general scheme of chrono-
logical periods, as given above, rests on identified
changes in technology, the architectural development
of structures, and changes in pottery and art. It be-
comes apparent that the boundaries of these periods
are not directly applicable to a study that investigates
successive religious structures.
Graph 7 shows the changes in the temple orienta-
tions grouped according to successive structures. In
the majority of the cases (18 out of 28) there is an
observed change in orientation between successive
temples. It is intriguing that in 17 cases out of 18 the
change in orientation occurs between the first temple
and the second. Only in one case (the temple of Athena
Pronaia in Delphi) do the first and second structures
have the same orientation with a change occurring
in the third. The chronological division analysis and
that ofthe orientation of consecutive structures makes
Temple declinations
apparent the need for examining sites with continuity
in the construction of religious structures individu-
ally and within their religious context, regardless of
modern views about the time frame of chronological
periods.
The general distribution of temple orientations
reveals clusters of data that may or may not be de-
liberately placed by the groups who built them. For
more conclusive arguments on either the dismissal
of the possibility that Greek temples were astro-
nomically oriented or. alternatively, in support of a
case for deliberate astronomical orientation, further
investigation of possible reasons and principles be-
hind potential deliberate placing of temples would
be necessary. The following section discusses such
possibilities.
Discussion
Previous research by Dinsmoor, Penrose. and Nissen
focused on the significance ofthe Sun in the orienta-
tion of Greek temples. To this day this idea has been
offered as the explanation for the general principles
behind the orientation of temples. In doing so, how-
ever, we overlook a very large body of data that falls
outside positions in the horizon that are visited by
the Sun. Dinsmoor's ideas have persisted for years
without any attempt at verification or testing by other
researchers who have used his results. This study
forms the first systematic collection and analysis of
VOLUME XXI 2007-2008 15

S/te and deity
GRAPH 7. Changes in orientation between successive structures. Orientation measurements from 29 cults (of 72 successive
structures).
Greek temple orientations in more than a century.
This study takes a first step toward a systematic ap-
proach by focusing on a geographically smaller area
that has, however, been surveyed more thoroughly
than before. The present dataset does not include
temples from Asia Minor. Italy, and Sicily, as earlier
researchers attempted. I believe that these areas need
to be surveyed just as thoroughly and to be examined
independently before we can attempt to put forward
an all-encompassing model and interpretation of
Greek temple orientations.
This paper provides hard evidence in order to dem-
onstrate that care should be taken when making gen-
eral statements about the direction of Greek temples,
statements that unavoidably bear weight in what we
perceive as determining factors for this orientation.
The data presented here suggest that the Sun alone
was not the all-encompassing phenomenon deter-
mining the placement of the vast majority of Greek
religious structures. In fact, this appears to be a gross
oversimplification of a much more complex and more
interesting pattern of temple orientation and religious
practice. The general analysis shows that 58 percent
of the temple orientations falls within the points on
the horizon that the rising Sun visits in a year and
16 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
First temple
Second temple
DThitd temple
Fourth te rrp le
7.3 percent within the points of the setting Sun. A total
of 34.7 percent of the sample falls outside the solar
range. This also indicates that we need to explore
other ideas about temple orientation and that Panhei-
lenic trends appear unlikely to explain this pattern.
Had the Sun been the predominant factor determining
orientation, we would expect temples to be oriented
within the solar range alone or at the very least to find
only a few exceptions to this rule. The absence of
measurements between the solar range limits and the
major lunar limits (shaded darker in Graph 4). with
the exception of one measurement. does not support a
lunar explanation either. The Moon revisits positions
in the horizon monthly. Exceptions to this are those
declinations close to the major lunar limits that are
visited annually (shaded darker in Graph 4).The prob-
lems of using the Moon as a marker have been noted
by ancient writers (Aristophanes Clouds 615-626)
and by modern researchers (Hannah 2005a:47-50;
Ruggles 1999:60-63), as has the incompatibility
of the calendars of the different Greek city-states
(Hannah 2005a:48: Thucydides 5.19.1), and no fur-
ther discussion is necessary here.
The general analysis presented here is understand-
ably limited: it can enlighten insofar as it indicates
patterns in the material record but "tends to ignore
the rich variety and diversity of symbolism that was
almost certainly perceived in the celestial and terres-
trial environment by a particular culture" (Ruggles
and Saunders 1993:16). Second, in addition to the
problems encompassed in the concept of objective
data,a general visual analysis {like the one presented
here) eliminates the human factor in the depiction of
trends and the creation of these trends as the result of
social processes that cannot be subject to prediction
or universal laws (Ruggles and Saunders 1993:17).
Although it is acknowledged that the meaning and
role of the night sky is neither self-evident nor com-
mon between peoples and is, instead, subject to so-
cial processes and use (Saunders 1991:13), because
of the volume of data presented in this paper, only
an analysis of orientation patterns can be presented
here.
New Directions
Epigraphic, literary, and archaeological evidence
attest that several minor games, competitions, and
celebrations were held in Greek sanctuaries. Usually
there was one major festival that was considered the
largest and most important, held in honor of the deity
to which the sanctuary and the main temple within it
were dedicated.This festival would usually take place
on a set day in the year, most commonly annually or,
in the case of major Panheilenic sanctuaries, every
twoorfouryears. with minorcelebrationson the same
day in the other years. It was important to ensure that
festivals were held on the correct day and that the
calendar did not move out of season. Lunar calen-
dars make such a requirement difficult. The Greeks
were well aware that the lunar cycle (approximately
29.5 days) does not fit into a year comprised of 365
days. They compensated for this by intercalating an
extra month approximately every three years. Each
polis had its own calendar, with different month
names and intercalation times. In addition, although
the new months would always start with the sight-
ing of the new Moon, this was determined by local
observations, was far from fixed, and was subject to
manipulation {Aristophanes Clouds 1134; Trlimpy
1997:1,5). Those festivals that attracted participants
from across Greece demanded a more Panheilenic
timekeeping method in order for other cities to know
that the time for a certain festival was arriving.
If we suppose for a moment that temples pointed
toward a pan of the horizon in which a certain astro-
nomical phenomenon was observed or predicted at
the time when the annual festiva! was to be held, this
phenomenon had to be annual, like the religious fes-
tivals, and connected either to stellar (i.e., the heliacal
rising or setting of stars, apparent acronychal rising,
apparent cosmical setting) or to solar observations
(i.e., the point on the horizon where the Sun rises on
a specific day in the year). As the solar explanation
can be eliminated at least for the data falling outside
the solar range, we may examine the possibility of
stellar associations. Homeric references (circa 750
B.C.) to such stellar observations (Iliad 18.483^89,
22.26-31 ), Hesiod's Works and Ovi {383-384,609-
611) (circa 100 B.C.), and the use of parapegmata
from at least the fifth century B.C. (Hannah 2005b)
testify that alternative timekeeping methods to the
lunisolar calendar were known and practiced by the
Greeks since the Geometric period. These methods
were thus available in those cases when precise time-
keeping was of the essence, such as the performance
of agricultural activities. In the religious sphere we
know that the gods had to receive their sacrifices at
the correct time every year (Aristophanes Clouds
615-626). The use of star calendars for religious
purposes is much easier to demonstrate during and
after the Classical period. Astronomical observations
based on the fourth-century paragegma of Eudoxos
are displayed in an Egyptian papyrus from Hibeh,
a festival calendar dating to 3{X) B.C. that recorded
astronomical movements of interest to the religious
authorities, assisting in the keeping of the festival
celebrations: "in time with the agricultural seasons to
which the cults were attached" (Hannah 2(K)5a:62).
Parapegmata may have been used throughout the
Greek city-states in order to assist with the timing of
the religious festivals (in addition to other functions).
The example of the Pythais in Athens (the religious
procession that the Athenians sent to Delphi every
year) demonstrates clearly that watching the skies
for a sign (in the case of the Pythais a meteorological
sign) before commencing a religious procession was
a reality in ancient Athens, at least from the second
VOLUME XXI 2007-2008 17
century B.C. (Dillon 1997:24,234nll8). Rising and
setting stars span the entire range of declinations.
The plethora of stars in the night sky means there
is a strong iisk of identifying totally spurious cor-
relations between strticture orientations and stellar
bodies. Thus, it is essential that appropriate criteria
are employed in order to avoid random and un-
grounded associations. For a convincing case to be
made, a study of the orientation of a structure must
draw upon epigraphic, historical, mythological, and
archaeological evidence when considering possible
correlations. The simple association of stellar bodies
to a structure that is purely based on the structure's
orientation is no longer sufficient.
Preliminary results from the oracle of Apollo in
Delphi (Salt and Boutsikas 2005), the sanctuary of
Artemis Orthia in Sparta (Boutsikas 2008), and the
Erechtheion (Boutsikas 2007:119-145) suggest that
there may be a connection between the timing of a re-
ligious activity and a stellar event visible in the part of
the horizon toward which the main temple in the sanc-
tuary was oriented. The temples of Artemis Orthia in
Sparta and Apollo in Delphi may well have been ori-
ented toward the heliacal rising of a particular star or
constellation, and in the case of the Erechtheion the as-
sociated cult rites seem to be tightly timed at the most
significant phases of the culmination of a constellation
associated with the myths surrounding the structure
and the Acropolis. The association between the deity
and the specific constellation is demonstrated in all
three cases by mythology, by the connection between
the movement of the constellation and the timing of
the annual festival, by ancient historical records, by
archaeological finds, and by the foundation myth of
the cult. Such a network of interiocking relationships
is hardly surprising: throughout archaeological and
anthropological research we learn about the enmesh-
ing of landscapes and places with meanings and sym-
bolism and the necessity of human actions to maintain
the cosmic balance (Ruggles 1999:120-121). Greek
religious practice and cult in its early stages prior to
the development of temples were performed in the
open air. This implies that normally cult practices and
ritual preceded temple construction. Further studies
will establish whether temple orientation is in fact
strongly contextual and largely determined by local
t8 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
rather than regional trends in cult practice, in other
words, whether the construction and orientation of a
temple were unique and historically situated within
the particular group that built it.
Acknowledgments
This project would not have been possible without
the cooperation of the following Greek Ephorates of
Classical and Prehistoric Antiquities who have kindly
given me permission to survey the archaeological sites
included in this study: A ' , B ' , P , A', E ' , Z ' , 0 ' , I',
I B \ IZ , KA , KB , KST . K Z \ KH . AF , A Z ' ,
AH . I am also very grateful to the British School
at Athens for awarding me the Richard Bradford
McConnell Fund for Landscape Studies in 2004,
which funded the survey of ihe majority of the sites in
the Aegean islands, and to Professor llias Mariolakos
for his help with questions of a geological nature. Fi-
nally, but by no means least, I am indebted to Professor
Robert Hannah. Professor Graham Shipley, and
Professor Clive Ruggles for their feedback and valu-
able comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
References
Aveni. Anthony F.
2002 Conversing with the Planets: How Science and Myth
Invented the Cosmos. Revised edition. University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Beyer, A.
1990 Die Orientierung griechischer Tempel. Zur Bezie-
hung von Kultbild und Tr. In Licht und Architek-
lur, edited by W.-D. Heilmeyer and W. Hoepfner,
pp. 1-9. Ernst Wasmuth. Tbingen.
Boutsikas, Efrosyni
2007 Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An Application
of Archaeoastronomy to Greek Religious Architec-
ture. Cosmologies and Landscapes. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. School of Archaeology and
Ancient History, University of Leicester.
2008 The Cult of Artemis Orthia in Greece: A Case of
Astronomical Observations? In Lights and Shadows
in Cultural Astronomy. Proceedings of the SEAC
2005. Isili. Sardinia. 28 June-3 July, edited by
Mauro P. Zedda and Juan Belmonte. pp. 197-205.
Associazione Archeoiila Sarda. Isili.
Compton, Michael T.
2002 The Association of Hygieia with Asklepios in
Graeco-Roman Asklepieion Medicine. Journal
of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences
57:312-329.
Dillon. Matthew
1997 Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece.
Routledge. London.
Dinsmoor. William Bell
1939 Archaeology and Astronomy. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 80:95-173.
Ghezzi. Ivan, and Clive Ruggles
2007 Chankillo: A 2300-Year-Old Solar Observatory in
Coastal Peru. Science 315:1239-1243.
Hannah. Robert
2(K)5a Cireek and Roman Calendars .Constructions of Time
in the Classical World. Duckworth. London.
2005b Euctemon's Parapgma. In Science and Mathcnuit-
ics in Ancient Greek Culture, edited by C. J. Tuplin
and T. E. Rihll, pp. 112-132. Oxford University
Press. Oxford.
McCluskey. Stephen C.
1982 Archaeoastronomy. Ethnoastronomy, and the His-
tory of Science. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences ^^5:M2-35l.
2004 Astronomy, Time and Churches in the Early Middle
Ages. In VUlard's Legacy: Studies in Medieval Technol-
ogy, Science and Art in Memory of Jean Gimpel, edited
by M.Zenner.pp. 197-210. Ashgate.Aldershot.
2006 Medieval Liturgical Calendar, Sacred Space, and the
Orientation of Churches. In Time and Astronomy in
Past Cultures, citeii by A. Soltysiak,pp. 139-148.
Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw,
Torun and Warsaw.
MikaLson, Jon D.
2005 Ancient Greek Religion. Blackwell Publishing.
Oxford.
Nissen. Heinrich
1873 ber Tempel-Orientierung. Erster Artikel.
Rheinisches Museum 28:513-557,
1906 Orientation. Studien zur Geschichte der Religion.
Weidmann. Berlin.
Penrose. Francis C.
1893 On the results of an Examination of the Orientations
of a Number of Greek Temples with a View to Con-
nect these Angles with the Ampliludes of Certain
Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and
an Endeavour to Derive therefrom the Dates of
their Foundation by Consideration of the Changes
Produced upon the Right Ascension and Declination
of the Stars by the Precession of the Equinoxes.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, series A, 184:805-834.
Ruggles.Clive L. N.
1984 MegalitJiic Astronomy: A New Archaeological and
Statistical Study of 3(X) We.-itern Scottish Sites .^kK
British Series 123. British Archaeological Reports.
Oxford.
1999 Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale
University Press. New Haven and London.
2000a Ancient Astronomies Ancient Worlds. Journal
for the History of Astronomy: Archaeoastronomy
Supplement 25:S65-76.
2000b The General and the Specific: Dealing with Cultural
Diversity. Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of As-
tronomy in Culture 15:151-177.
Ruggles. Clive L. N.. and Nick J. Saunders
1993 The Study ofCultural Astronomy. In A.v/rJnmi'.//
Cultures. Papers Derived front the Third "Oxford"
International Symposium on Archaeoastnmomy.
St. Andrews, United Kingdom. September 1990.
edited by Clive L. N. Ruggles and Nick J. Saunders.
pp. 1-31. University Press of Colorado. Boulder.
Salt. Alun. and Efrosyni Boutsikas
2Ot)5 Knowing When to Consult the Oracle at Delphi.
Antiquity 79:564-572.
Saunders, Nick J.
1991 The Jaguars (if Culture: Symbolising Humanity in
Pre-Columbian and Amerindian Societies. Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archaeol-
ogy. Southampton University.
Scully. Vincent
1979 The Earth, the Temple and the Gods. Greek Sacred
Architecture. Revised edition. Yale University
Press, New Haven and London.
Triimpy, Catherine
1997 Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monats-
namen und Monatsfolgen. Universittsverlag C.
Winter, Heidelberg.
Vail.Gabrielle. and Anthony F. Aveni
2004 The Madrid Codex: New Approaches to Under-
standing an Ancient Maya Manuscript. University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.
VOLUME XXI 2007-2008 19
Copyright of Archaeoastronomy is the property of University of Texas Press and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.