3D models shed light on shadowy theory
Using NASA data and 3D modeling, Indiana University Bloomington professor Bernard Frischer and his research team have dispelled a long-held theory regarding the relationship between two famous monuments in ancient Rome.
The Ara Pacis Augustae, or Altar of Augustan Peace, was built in 9 B.C.E. in ancient Rome’s Campus Martius. The marble altar stood as a propagandistic celebration of the peace and prosperity ushered into the new empire by Rome’s first emperor, Augustus. Near the Ara Pacis sat a 71-foot-high granite obelisk brought from Egypt by Augustus, which served as the gnomon, or pointer, of a meridian line. Following a 1976 theory proposed by German scholar Edmund Buchner, popular belief holds that the obelisk (now called the Obelisk of Montecitorio) was positioned to cast a shadow down the center of the altar on Augustus’s birthday on September 23.
Interested in the latest archaeological technology? Researchers at the University of California, San Diego’s Calit2 laboratory recently released the FREE Biblical Archaeology Society eBook Cyber-Archaeology in the Holy Land — The Future of the Past, featuring the latest research on GPS, Light Detection and Ranging Laser Scanning, unmanned aerial drones, 3D artifact scans, CAVE visualization environments and much more.
Using survey and excavation data as well as historical sources, Frischer and his research team created a 3D model of the Ara Pacis and the obelisk—neither of which still sit in their original placement in Rome—as they were originally positioned in the 490-acre Campus Martius along the Via Flaminia, a major roadway in the ancient city. The researchers additionally used data from NASA’s Horizons System, a computation service that can provide information on the position of celestial objects at any point in history as seen from any point on earth. A simulation made by the Virtual World Heritage Laboratory, Indiana University and the IDIA Lab, Ball State University allowed the researchers to test whether or not Buchner’s theory held water—and it did not. The simulation demonstrates that on September 23 in 9 B.C.E., the shadow cast by the obelisk veered south on its approach to the altar and thus did not reach the center of the monument (see video below).
This video simulation tests the popular but outdated theory that the Egyptian obelisk—as part of a great sundial—cast a shadow down the center of the Ara Pacis on September 23, Augustus’s birthday. Video created by Bernard Frischer, Virtual World Heritage Laboratory. Copyright 2013 by Indiana University. All rights reserved.
In an interview with Bible History Daily, Frischer explains what the team further discovered:
On [certain] dates of the year—March 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and October 6, 7, 8, 9, 10—when the sun’s disk is seen atop the obelisk by someone standing either on the Via Flaminia or on the access road from the Via Flaminia to the Ara Pacis, someone standing west of the Ara Pacis sees the shadow cast onto the façade [of the monument].
While the obelisk did not cast a shadow down the middle of the altar on Augustus’s birthday, it did do so on a number of other dates. The researchers found that one of these dates—October 9—was the annual birthday festival of the Temple of Palatine Apollo, the temple Augustus built next to his home to honor his patron deity. That Apollo was important to Augustus is also known from inscriptions on the obelisk stating that the emperor dedicated the monument to the sun god.
Did the ancient Romans commemorate Apollo annually on October 9 at the Ara Pacis? “Perhaps there was a religious procession to see the sun atop the obelisk on October 9, but we don’t have evidence for that. This is merely speculation,” Frischer said.
Visit the BAS Archaeological Technology page for more articles on the 21st-century archaeological toolkit.
As is the case with all disciplines concerning the ancient world, a great deal of evidence that could illuminate ancient cultures has not survived—or could never provide sufficient information taken alone. The work conducted by Frischer and his research associates, however, demonstrates how advanced technology can help us better understand enigmatic aspects of these cultures.
Brian Rose, James B. Pritchard Professor of Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania, commented on Frischer’s innovative work in an email to Bible History Daily:
Prof. Frischer’s research has completely transformed the way that all of us will now teach the horologium. His conclusions are not a complete surprise, since Apollo was Augustus’s patron deity, but no one suspected that his cult was so prominently linked to the Ara Pacis and the obelisk.
The simulations conducted by the researchers were independently confirmed by astrophysicist David Dearborn of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Frischer and his colleague John Fillwalk, Director of the IDIA Lab, recently presented their findings at the Vatican’s Pontifical Archaeological Academy in Rome.
Read the press release from Indiana University Bloomington.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on January 15, 2014.
A Comet Gives Birth to an Empire by Sarah K. Yeomans
New Testament Political Figures: The Evidence by Lawrence Mykytiuk
Nero’s Golden House: New Room Exposed in the Domus Aurea
A Second Triumphal Arch of Titus Discovered
Jewish Captives in the Imperial City
Rare Roman Gold Coin Minted by Trajan Found
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership. Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!Subscribe Today
NIce article and it is nice to see that other sources are used to test theories that some takes as facts but are not. After reading the article I was suprised that three veriables were not considered (or at least not mentioned in the article). 1. Drift – if what has been reported that the continents are moving was the amount of movement considered to look over the period from when the alter and obelisk were first built to the date of testing? 2. Earthquakes – SInce this is a geological active area, were any possible drift or subsidence taken into account between construction and the date of the test? and 3. Subsidence – Given the weight of both objects in questions did the test take into effect the buildings weight and possible subsidence? Just wondering because if these three areas were not taken into account then the test/model may not be as accurate as the article implies. I would be interested to hear the response from BAR or Dr. Bernard Frischer of Indiana University, Bloomington IN and his research team. Thank you.
[…] obelisk. Click herefor a full-page story in Il Messaggero, Rome’s leading newspaper. Click here andhere for other news […]
[…] obelisk. Click here for a full-page story in Il Messaggero, Rome’s leading newspaper. Click here and here for other news […]
Isn’t the article about an obelisk and a shadow?
[…] rel="nofollow" title="Leapers 5th Gen 6-24×50 AO Varmint Rifle Scope, Illuminated Mil-Dot Reticle (Sports)”> Revolutionary triple S structure (smart spherical structure) […]
The lack of a year zero is not a huge problem, it’s common logic and a minor inconvenience to historians and mathematicians. It’s like saying that there’s a “huge problem” with having a 12 o’clock am or with a lack of a day zero or month zero. It’s just a minor naming norm, which we need to realize is relational.
Ah, an article from Dr. Cargill defending the use of a secular system, how surprising. The same Dr. Cargill that promotes the sensationalist and anti-Christian Bible Secrets Revealed on this very website. Arguing that we shouldn’t use BC/AD because of accuracy issues is like saying we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas because Christ wasn’t born on the 25th of December. It’s a weak defense that tries to protect it’s true antithetical designs. Most educated people know that Christ wasn’t born on 0 AD, just as we do that Christ wasn’t born on Christmas, the church doesn’t try to hide it. The dating system we use doesn’t hurt the validity of scripture, so this ‘defense of truth’ is a very suspect line of reasoning. It’s a cultural reference, we don’t need to hide it any more than the naming convention for our months. I’m not being asked to honor Caeser and the Roman gods any more than you are being asked to worship the lord. Christians weren’t around in 20 AD, but that doesn’t make the current dating system any less referential to Christ, unless we purposely delineate the naming convention, just as hardline secularists attempt.
This is the reason why the Le Mezquita is one of the most visited cathedrals in Spain. Here are some suggestions on how to become more interesting:.
There’s a huge problem with the BC/AD system, which the BCE/CE bandaid does nothing to fix: there is no year zero. So taking a broken system and calling it by a different name, as if that took care of the problem, is nothing but political correctness.
Most Christians throughout most of Church History didn’t use BC/AD anyway. They dated from the Creation, or the beginning of the Alexandrian/Seleucid era, or from the reign of Domitian.
See this article for: “Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System“.
Christ wasn’t born in the year 1 of this era (unless you discount the accounts of Matthew and Luke that he was born in the reign of Herod, who died 4 years before this), and it’s a bit too late to start renumbering the years of this current era, so let’s use a naming convention that more accurately reflects the “common”/”Christian” era and is less offensive—to Christians who value truth and believe the Bible’s account that B.C./A.D. don’t accurately apply to the birth of Jesus, and those of other faiths—while showing that we as a faith do not feel threatened merely by others’ choice of labels for an accepted (“common”) system of numbering years.
I haven’t read the article yet, but something really bothered me off the bat. It really offends and discourages me that even “Bible History Daily” feels obligation to use the secular advent of B.C.E.. Not only is it obliquely antichristian, but it’s also meaningless in portroyal of history. What does ‘current era’ refer to, eh? We didn’t change the months of the Calendar to reflect secular tradition, they’re still part of the Roman pantheon, but for some reason we can’t make any obvious lineation to the reason we have our current dating system. Kinda outrageous that you fall into line this way, if you ask me.