This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: New Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (assessed as Mid-importance). Mountains Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'll work on this when I can, but reading it you'd never realise that Sofaer's interpretation has been challenged. A Reassessment of the Fajada Butte Solar Marker INDIAN 'OBSERVATORY' CALLED AN ACCIDENT; [1] "Sun+dagger"+sofaer&hl=en&ei=DpQoTrWuC4Su8gOOusWsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q="Sun dagger" sofaer&f=false [2] Dougweller ( talk) 21:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply

It's been a while since I looked seriously at the Fajada Butte Sun Dagger literature, but the site raises several different issues:

1. Are the solar indications intentional and, if so, which ones?
2. Are the lunar indications intentional?
3. Was the stone structure that casts the shadows artificially constructed (as was claimed in the original Sofaer, Zinser, and Sinclair article in Science) or the result of an accidental rock fall?

The generally accepted view is that

1. The summer solstice indication through the center of the spiral is almost certainly intentional, the other indications are less agreed on.
2. The lunar indications have several strong advocates but are at least as disputed as the minor solar indications.
3. It's generally agreed that the structure was the result of an accidental rock fall, which accidentally created dagger like images (similar rock formations are common in the southwest). These natural images may have been modified by trimming the rocks and were marked by the spiral petroglyph.

Unpacking these different aspects of the site is crucial for any serious discussion. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Have you read Zeilik's article? Dougweller ( talk) 20:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I first read Zeilik's article when it came out, and just took a quick look after your suggestion. It's a good overview of the state of the understanding as of 1985, putting this archaeological site in an ethnohistorical context. Zeilik had written two important papers on the ethnography of Puebloan sun and moon watching just before he wrote this discussion of Fajada Butte, so he has a good understanding of that context.

Zeilik's article is very reliable and should definitely be included among the references for this article. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I think some of it should be integrated into the article. You'd probably do it better than I would! Dougweller ( talk) 21:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll work on it as time allows. For the moment, I've added two critical essays by John Carlson and Mike Zeilik. For balance, I should also dig up what Kim Malville has to say and more recent discussions. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. The article needed more sources and viewpoints. Dougweller ( talk) 06:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

An image used in this article, File:FajadaDiagrams.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:FajadaDiagrams.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Tears ago I saw a documentary on this on PBS. What's most amazing about it is the rocks which form the sun dagger are shaped to deflect its movement vertically as the Earth rotates. That would be some "accidental rockfall", especially when the other slot for the moon light does the same. In that documentary they took a laser to the sight and tested the moon slot and spiral so they wouldn't have to observe it every night for 18 to 19 years. Prior to that, they made a mockup to test with the laser to get vertical deflection from moving the laser horizontally. Bizzybody ( talk) 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

In fact, there are a large number of similar light and shadow interactions throughout the US Southwest, of which the Fajada Butte site is perhaps the most spectacular. There is general consensus that those sites that mark the Sun at the solstices are probably meaningful; there is widespread skepticism about the claimed lunar alignments. This reflects what is known ethnographically about indigenous concerns with the solstices and lack of ethnographic evidence for a concern with / awareness of the lunar standstills.

As to the accidental rockfall issue, the emerging consensus is that most such light and shadow interactions are caused by naturally occurring rock structures, the solar interactions are then noted and marked by petroglyphs or other indications on the natural structures. SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply