<p>The site to which you are referring is Sarmisegetusa in old Dacia, which was a well known royal citadel of the Illyrians in Roman times.</p>

<p>Sarmisegetusa was a fortress, not an observatory. The reconstructed posts there were used to hold up ceilings and walls.</p>

<p>Sarmisegetusa backs up against face of the mountain, so half of the horizon cannot even be seen from the site. That fact alone excludes the possibility that anyone was doing any astronomy there.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-03T20:29:07.233Z
This is a good answer. It would be better with a few sources to back up the claims.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-12T18:13:53.217Z
Though perhaps not an actual observatory, the site in question is strongly believed by archaeologists to have been an important sanctuary inside the main citadel, so astronomical *symbolism* is certainly not excluded, even if no astronomical *observation* might have ever been performed there at all.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-19T01:32:32.963Z
I'd like to up vote your answer but I can't until I see some evidence that it's based in fact. Why not include a link to a supporting source for your assertion?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-20T16:11:57.423Z
[Dacian Fortresses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_Fortresses_of_the_Or%C4%83%C8%99tie_Mountains) and [Sarmizegetusa Regia](https://cetateasarmizegetusa.ro/) are located there. A [Google Translation](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://cetateasarmizegetusa.ro/sarmizegetusa-regia/istoricul-cercetarilor/&xid=25657,15700022,15700122,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700208&usg=ALkJrhh9RlR7DvkoXbyL5czS1sACzGQeXQ) of the second link says: Fort, Temple and Roman bath. That's it.
Rob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-03T19:23:47.600Z
2018-03-03T19:23:47.600Z
Tyler Durden
<blockquote>
  <p>Do any numbers in between <strong>80</strong> and <strong>85</strong> (or thereabouts) hold any <em>relatively important</em> or <em>relatively obvious</em> meaning in <strong>ancient</strong> astronomy ?</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p><em>A few clarifications:</em></p>

<ul>
<li><p>By <em>ancient</em> I mean <em>related to human antiquity</em>. (Thus, for instance, although in modern times there are indeed 88 known constellations, almost half of them were unfortunately <em>unknown to the ancients</em>). </p></li>
<li><p>The <em>meaning</em> in question could refer, for instance, to the number of time periods in a specific time cycle, or to the number of stars in a certain constellation, etc. </p></li>
<li><p>By <em>relatively important</em> or <em>relatively obvious</em> I mean something as self-evident and meaningful  to an <strong>ancient</strong> sage as the fact that there are roughly 360 days a year, or that the number of constellations in the northern and southern hemispheres are 21 and 15, respectively (as known to the ancient Greeks, for instance). </p></li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p><em>Some background information:</em></p>

<p>About a century ago, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmizegetusa_Regia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">archaeological site</a>, located in a clearing in the woods, and dating back to the first two centuries BC, was discovered at 45.62°N and 23.31°E, at an altitude of roughly 1,000 meters. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.georggerster.com/sites/default/files/styles/default_xl/public/photos/159_RUMANIA_Sarmizegetusa.tif.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://www.georggerster.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_s/public/photos/159_RUMANIA_Sarmizegetusa.tif.jpg" alt=""></a></p>

<p>The structure, oriented on a NNW-SSE axis, consists of four concentric circles, the second and fourth of which (counted from the exterior towards the interior) have a clear calendrical and astronomical interpretation, pointing to a semester of 180 days, divided into exactly six months of thirty days each, and to a number of 21 + 13 constellations in the boreal and austral hemispheres, comparable to the figure given by the astronomer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Claudius Ptolemy</a> in his famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Almagest</em></a>. I was wondering whether the third circle, consisting of a number of no less than 82, and no more than 84 pillars, might not also have a similar meaning. Now, don't get me wrong, interpretations <em>abound</em>, but most of them tend to be either slightly forced, or are outright pseudo-science. </p>

<p>As an interesting aside, there were, initially, only 68 pillars still standing, which just so happened to be double the number of those which constitute the inner horseshoe (as it is called), making many archaeologists speculate that its builders were aware of the fact that after 68 semesters of 180 days, corresponding to a number of 21 + 13 = 34 years of 360 days, the calendrical error would amount to <em>almost</em> an entire semester. All nice and tidy, but this proposed solution suffered a devastating blow when further excavations, performed by the son of the man who initially discovered the site (both were historians by profession) revealed that the number of pillars comprising the third circle was much higher than previously thought. Furthermore, a certain scientist has already started speculating that the number of elements should be about 84 <em>long before</em> the excavation in question even happened in the first place! (He based his ideas on the fact that if the second circle represents the solar year, and the fourth one basically corrects it, then there should also be a refinement to the nice-but-inaccurate 30 day month as well). However, even this little gem of a theory has a <em>small</em> and <em>insignificant</em> scratch: One of the main reasons why 84 year lunar cycles were even considered in the first place was because its value is a multiple of 28, the latter representing the number of years in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_calendar" rel="nofollow noreferrer">perpetual calendar</a> synchronizing the <em>seven day week</em> to the solar cycle... Just one <em>minor</em> glitch, though: The civilization that built the structure had months of thirty days, divided into five <em>six-day weeks</em>, as is evidenced by the clear and uniform distribution of the pillars forming the second circle. (Certainly, it is not <em>completely</em> impossible for them to have borrowed such a time-correcting mechanism from <em>other</em> neighboring cultures, but it's not <em>highly</em> likely either). So, <em>herein</em> lies the dilemma... </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T06:28:44.507Z
Impossible to answer. You may as well take every stone circle, etc. in the world, count its number of stones, pillars or posts, and try to find an astronomical reason for every number.
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T07:49:39.177Z
@Andy: *Almost* all competent authorities involved in the study of said structure (from historians and anthropologists to mathematicians and engineers) agree that it serves calendric and astronomic functions, which is especially evident from the arrangement of the pillars forming the second and fourth circles. So no, this is not a wild goose chase.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T08:00:49.980Z
@Lucian - I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of that; I wasn't. Just that, as far as I know, in a lot of historic monuments the exact number of stones, posts, barrows etc. is not **so** important. It's their general arrangement that matters - certain alignments and gaps. In other words if wider pillars were available for this particular monument, there simply may have been less of them; the exact number may be an accident. (That was the point I was making, if not very well.)
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T08:07:27.460Z
@Andy: In this particular case, it *does* seem to have mattered, though. As I already said, this is especially evident in the layout of the second and fourth circles, pointing to a 360 day year, and to a number of 13 + 21 constellations in the southern and northern hemispheres (comparable to that of Ptolemy's *Almagest*, which gives a value of 15 + 21).
Lucian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T09:32:41.520Z
Very interesting site by the way. But first, if you haven't already, I'd strongly recommend researching the (replaced?) timbers and if they're in exactly the original locations. And if those four gaps for the pathways are historic or not too. (Very few old sites are totally orginal these days - even Stonehenge has been "restored".)
Andy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T10:15:30.867Z
@Andy: Though many wooden pillars have indeed been reconstructed, their foundations, as well as the various pathway gaps, are made of stone, and have always been part of the site's historical pattern.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T10:23:49.917Z
@Andy: Furthermore, the original 68, which were still standing at the time of its discovery about a century ago, were covered in terracotta.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T15:03:41.803Z
What you're really asking (or should be) is whether the number has significance *to the culture that built the structure*. If, for example, the number 83 had some significance to the ancient Olmecs in Mexico and Guatemala, the fact that you're talking about a monument in Romania would certainly be relevant. You should mention the age and location of the monument **in the question** rather than dribbling out information a bit at a time in the comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmizegetusa_Regia
Keith Thompson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-08T22:40:09.450Z
@KeithThompson: Three observations: (1). The culture in question left virtually no written records, other than a very small amount of short, undeciphered inscriptions using the Greek and Latin alphabets. (2). The fact that there are roughly 180 days in a semester, or approximately 30 days in a month, or that the ancients were aware of about 13 + 21 non-zodiacal constellations, are hardly things local to that particular culture. (3). The site dates from the first or second centuries BC.
Lucian
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-14T18:29:53.880Z
If it's about **years** and not *days*, then maybe it is related to the [Great Conjunctions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction) of Jupiter and Saturn every 20 year (+a little). Every third time in a different constellation.The reason for why we have divided our days into 24 hours, given back and forth calculations of the Babylonians based on this [trigon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Keplers_trigon.jpg) cycle. 3x20=60 which is nicely divided by many integers. (Unless it's just a fence to keep yet undomesticated male and female cattles apart or whatever).
LocalFluff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-14T20:00:16.927Z
"* ... although in modern times there are indeed 88 known constellations ...*" -- Constellations are invented, not discovered. "*45.62°N and 23.31°E*" -- You don't feel the need to mention where in the world that is? "*The civilization that build the structure ...*" -- And you don't say anything about that civilization. If nothing is known about the culture, you could at least say so in the question. According to Wikipedia, they were called the Dacians; why not mention that?
Keith Thompson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-14T20:01:01.890Z
Since you don't know the answer to your question, you almost by definition don't know what information could help someone else answer it. Maybe there's someone out there who knows a lot about Dacian culture. Probably not, but why hide it?
Keith Thompson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-15T01:51:01.003Z
@KeithThompson: The civilization in question is so obscure, even to the ones studying it, that there really isn't that much to tell in the first place. Also, this site has a certain policy regarding the questions (and answers) posted here, in that they should be precise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary details and discussions. Furthermore, no knowledge of that particular culture is needed to find a plausible interpretation for the role of the other two circles. (Not quite sure what else there is to add).
Lucian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-16T21:46:09.307Z
This question appears to be based on a mis-interpretation of the site.  I'd vote to close
James K
<fundamental-astronomy><history>
Numbers 80 to 85 in Ancient Astronomy
Lucian
# Numbers 80 to 85 in Ancient Astronomy

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-07)

> Do any numbers in between **80** and **85** (or thereabouts) hold any *relatively important* or *relatively obvious* meaning in **ancient** astronomy ?

---

*A few clarifications:*

* By *ancient* I mean *related to human antiquity*. (Thus, for instance, although in modern times there are indeed 88 known constellations, almost half of them were unfortunately *unknown to the ancients*).
* The *meaning* in question could refer, for instance, to the number of time periods in a specific time cycle, or to the number of stars in a certain constellation, etc.
* By *relatively important* or *relatively obvious* I mean something as self-evident and meaningful to an **ancient** sage as the fact that there are roughly 360 days a year, or that the number of constellations in the northern and southern hemispheres are 21 and 15, respectively (as known to the ancient Greeks, for instance).

---

*Some background information:*

About a century ago, an [archaeological site](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmizegetusa_Regia), located in a clearing in the woods, and dating back to the first two centuries BC, was discovered at 45.62°N and 23.31°E, at an altitude of roughly 1,000 meters.

[![](https://www.georggerster.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_s/public/photos/159_RUMANIA_Sarmizegetusa.tif.jpg)](http://www.georggerster.com/sites/default/files/styles/default_xl/public/photos/159_RUMANIA_Sarmizegetusa.tif.jpg)

The structure, oriented on a NNW-SSE axis, consists of four concentric circles, the second and fourth of which (counted from the exterior towards the interior) have a clear calendrical and astronomical interpretation, pointing to a semester of 180 days, divided into exactly six months of thirty days each, and to a number of 21 + 13 constellations in the boreal and austral hemispheres, comparable to the figure given by the astronomer [Claudius Ptolemy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) in his famous [*Almagest*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest). I was wondering whether the third circle, consisting of a number of no less than 82, and no more than 84 pillars, might not also have a similar meaning. Now, don't get me wrong, interpretations *abound*, but most of them tend to be either slightly forced, or are outright pseudo-science.

As an interesting aside, there were, initially, only 68 pillars still standing, which just so happened to be double the number of those which constitute the inner horseshoe (as it is called), making many archaeologists speculate that its builders were aware of the fact that after 68 semesters of 180 days, corresponding to a number of 21 + 13 = 34 years of 360 days, the calendrical error would amount to *almost* an entire semester. All nice and tidy, but this proposed solution suffered a devastating blow when further excavations, performed by the son of the man who initially discovered the site (both were historians by profession) revealed that the number of pillars comprising the third circle was much higher than previously thought. Furthermore, a certain scientist has already started speculating that the number of elements should be about 84 *long before* the excavation in question even happened in the first place! (He based his ideas on the fact that if the second circle represents the solar year, and the fourth one basically corrects it, then there should also be a refinement to the nice-but-inaccurate 30 day month as well). However, even this little gem of a theory has a *small* and *insignificant* scratch: One of the main reasons why 84 year lunar cycles were even considered in the first place was because its value is a multiple of 28, the latter representing the number of years in a [perpetual calendar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_calendar) synchronizing the *seven day week* to the solar cycle... Just one *minor* glitch, though: The civilization that built the structure had months of thirty days, divided into five *six-day weeks*, as is evidenced by the clear and uniform distribution of the pillars forming the second circle. (Certainly, it is not *completely* impossible for them to have borrowed such a time-correcting mechanism from *other* neighboring cultures, but it's not *highly* likely either). So, *herein* lies the dilemma...

**Tags:** fundamental-astronomy, history

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Impossible to answer. You may as well take every stone circle, etc. in the world, count its number of stones, pillars or posts, and try to find an astronomical reason for every number.  
> **username_0**: @username_1: *Almost* all competent authorities involved in the study of said structure (from historians and anthropologists to mathematicians and engineers) agree that it serves calendric and astronomic functions, which is especially evident from the arrangement of the pillars forming the second and fourth circles. So no, this is not a wild goose chase.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 - I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of that; I wasn't. Just that, as far as I know, in a lot of historic monuments the exact number of stones, posts, barrows etc. is not **so** important. It's their general arrangement that matters - certain alignments and gaps. In other words if wider pillars were available for this particular monument, there simply may have been less of them; the exact number may be an accident. (That was the point I was making, if not very well.)  
> **username_0**: @username_1: In this particular case, it *does* seem to have mattered, though. As I already said, this is especially evident in the layout of the second and fourth circles, pointing to a 360 day year, and to a number of 13 + 21 constellations in the southern and northern hemispheres (comparable to that of Ptolemy's *Almagest*, which gives a value of 15 + 21).  
> **username_1**: Very interesting site by the way. But first, if you haven't already, I'd strongly recommend researching the (replaced?) timbers and if they're in exactly the original locations. And if those four gaps for the pathways are historic or not too. (Very few old sites are totally orginal these days - even Stonehenge has been "restored".)  
> **username_0**: @username_1: Though many wooden pillars have indeed been reconstructed, their foundations, as well as the various pathway gaps, are made of stone, and have always been part of the site's historical pattern.  
> **username_0**: @username_1: Furthermore, the original 68, which were still standing at the time of its discovery about a century ago, were covered in terracotta.  
> **username_2**: What you're really asking (or should be) is whether the number has significance *to the culture that built the structure*. If, for example, the number 83 had some significance to the ancient Olmecs in Mexico and Guatemala, the fact that you're talking about a monument in Romania would certainly be relevant. You should mention the age and location of the monument **in the question** rather than dribbling out information a bit at a time in the comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmizegetusa_Regia  
> **username_0**: @KeithThompson: Three observations: (1). The culture in question left virtually no written records, other than a very small amount of short, undeciphered inscriptions using the Greek and Latin alphabets. (2). The fact that there are roughly 180 days in a semester, or approximately 30 days in a month, or that the ancients were aware of about 13 + 21 non-zodiacal constellations, are hardly things local to that particular culture. (3). The site dates from the first or second centuries BC.  
> **username_3**: If it's about **years** and not *days*, then maybe it is related to the [Great Conjunctions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction) of Jupiter and Saturn every 20 year (+a little). Every third time in a different constellation.The reason for why we have divided our days into 24 hours, given back and forth calculations of the Babylonians based on this [trigon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Keplers_trigon.jpg) cycle. 3x20=60 which is nicely divided by many integers. (Unless it's just a fence to keep yet undomesticated male and female cattles apart or whatever).  
> **username_2**: "* ... although in modern times there are indeed 88 known constellations ...*" -- Constellations are invented, not discovered. "*45.62°N and 23.31°E*" -- You don't feel the need to mention where in the world that is? "*The civilization that build the structure ...*" -- And you don't say anything about that civilization. If nothing is known about the culture, you could at least say so in the question. According to Wikipedia, they were called the Dacians; why not mention that?  
> **username_2**: Since you don't know the answer to your question, you almost by definition don't know what information could help someone else answer it. Maybe there's someone out there who knows a lot about Dacian culture. Probably not, but why hide it?  
> **username_0**: @KeithThompson: The civilization in question is so obscure, even to the ones studying it, that there really isn't that much to tell in the first place. Also, this site has a certain policy regarding the questions (and answers) posted here, in that they should be precise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary details and discussions. Furthermore, no knowledge of that particular culture is needed to find a plausible interpretation for the role of the other two circles. (Not quite sure what else there is to add).  
> **username_4**: This question appears to be based on a mis-interpretation of the site.  I'd vote to close  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-03-03. Score: 2

The site to which you are referring is Sarmisegetusa in old Dacia, which was a well known royal citadel of the Illyrians in Roman times.

Sarmisegetusa was a fortress, not an observatory. The reconstructed posts there were used to hold up ceilings and walls.

Sarmisegetusa backs up against face of the mountain, so half of the horizon cannot even be seen from the site. That fact alone excludes the possibility that anyone was doing any astronomy there.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: This is a good answer. It would be better with a few sources to back up the claims.  
> **username_0**: Though perhaps not an actual observatory, the site in question is strongly believed by archaeologists to have been an important sanctuary inside the main citadel, so astronomical *symbolism* is certainly not excluded, even if no astronomical *observation* might have ever been performed there at all.  
> **username_6**: I'd like to up vote your answer but I can't until I see some evidence that it's based in fact. Why not include a link to a supporting source for your assertion?  
> **username_7**: [Dacian Fortresses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_Fortresses_of_the_Or%C4%83%C8%99tie_Mountains) and [Sarmizegetusa Regia](https://cetateasarmizegetusa.ro/) are located there. A [Google Translation](https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://cetateasarmizegetusa.ro/sarmizegetusa-regia/istoricul-cercetarilor/&xid=25657,15700022,15700122,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700208&usg=ALkJrhh9RlR7DvkoXbyL5czS1sACzGQeXQ) of the second link says: Fort, Temple and Roman bath. That's it.  

---

