Astronomy of the Ancient Skies

The night sky has captured people’s imagination for cultures across the world throughout human history. From the ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians to the Mayans and Greeks, ancient people used the stars to shape their beliefs, practices, and societies. 

One such civilization was Mesopotamia, where the night sky held great mysteries for the ancient inhabitants of Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria. Ancient Mesopotamians studied celestial bodies like the Moon and planets, blending astronomy, astrology, and religion into “astral science.” They developed a lunar calendar around 3000 BCE, with names for celestial entities like the Moongod dating back to 2500 BCE. By 1800–1000 BCE, they named the five visible planets. These celestial bodies were seen as divine manifestations and interpreted as signs from gods. Moreover, Babylonian scholars recorded celestial events to predict future phenomena, introduced zodiac and mathematical astronomy, and developed horoscopy and astrology by the 5th century BCE. 

Ancient Egyptian astronomy primarily served practical purposes, particularly in time measurement for calendars and daily cycles. The earliest calendar was lunar, synchronized with the star Sirius to align with the natural year. This evolved into a 365-day calendar, divided into three seasons of four 30-day months, with five additional days. The observation of decans rising at nightfall, combined with a 30-day month divided into three 10-day ‘weeks,’ led to the establishment of the 24-hour day. However, the Egyptians also found ways to connect the cosmos to the events of Earth. The Egyptians tracked the movements of stars, particularly Sirius, whose rising was at the same time as the annual flooding of the Nile. This celestial event, known as the “heliacal rising of Sirius,” was believed to lead to agricultural abundance,  and they also built structures like the Great Pyramids of Giza to align with celestial phenomena.

In Mesoamerica, the ancient Mayans had a similar sophisticated astronomical tradition. Mayan astronomers developed detailed and precise calendars that tracked the movements of celestial bodies through centuries of astronomical observations. Specifically, the Maya Long Count calendar, which spans over 5,000 years, reflects their understanding of astronomical cycles and the way in which they were integrated into Mayan society. Celestial events such as solar eclipses and the equinoxes led to rituals, as they would mark important agricultural cycles and religious ceremonies. Moreover, structures such as Chichen Itza were built for ceremonies in order to align with the movements of the sun and stars.

In ancient Greece, philosophers and scholars used the night sky as a means to pose fundamental questions about the nature of the universe and humanity’s place within it. Building upon earlier Babylonian and Egyptian astronomical traditions, Greek scholars such as Thales of Miletus, Pythagoras, and Aristotle sought to understand the fundamental nature of the cosmos. One of the fundamental contributions of Greek astronomy was the idea of a geocentric model of the universe, which stated that Earth was at the center of the universe. This idea was famously articulated by Aristotle, who argued that Earth, being the heaviest element, must occupy the central position in the universe. Additionally, Claudius Ptolemy in his work “Almagest,” developed a mathematical model of planetary motion based on a system of nested circles called epicycles which predicted the positions of the planets relative to Earth. Greek astronomers also applied their knowledge of the cosmos to build various instruments, including the astrolabe and armillary sphere, which allowed for precise measurements of celestial positions and movements. 

Ancient astronomy was some of humanity’s first attempts to decode the universe. The observations and scientific ideas across these diverse civilizations the globe shows the value that humans have placed on this field and the meaning it carries with us. Today, we can continue the legacy of ancient astronomers by continuing to be captivated by the night sky and growing our knowledge of it. 

 

Sources:

Chatley, H. (1939). Ancient Egyptian Astronomy. Nature, 143(3617), 336–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/143336b0

Goldstein, B. R., & Bowen, A. C. (1983). A New View of Early Greek Astronomy. Isis, 74(3), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/353302

Ossendrijver, M.  (2020). The Moon and Planets in Ancient Mesopotamia. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science. Retrieved 20 Apr. 2024, from https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-198.

Tedlock, B. (1999). Maya Astronomy: What We Know and How We Know it. Arch, 14(1), 39.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.