[argiopetech]

Nit: There were no ancient "scientists". People who studied what we now call scientific fields of inquiry were called natural philosophers until the late 1800s.

As for the solar year, none of the other planets (which the sun and moon were considered, along with Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) have an obvious correlation with our orbit, so I'd imagine they just considered this the dance of the heavens.

[matthewdgreen]

There have always been scientists, at least since the first human formulated a hypothesis about nature and tested that hypothesis with observation or experiment. The term “natural philosopher” is much younger than the science of astronomy, which dates back to pre-agricultural history.

[argiopetech]

Alternatively, "There have always been natural philosophers, at least since the first human formulated a hypothesis about nature and tested that hypothesis with observation or experiment. The term “scientist” is much younger than the philosophy of astronomy, which dates back to pre-agricultural history."

It's an ill-formed argument either way, but since "science" (c. 1834AD) is a newer term than "φυσιολόγο" (c. 350BC), I'm going to argue my rewrite is the more accurate.

I'd also argue that the study of the stars was more religious than scientific, at least prior to Thales of Miletus (who, as far as we know, was the first epistomologist).

[skissane]

> but since "science" (c. 1834AD) is a newer term than "φυσιολόγο" (c. 350BC)

The word "science" is a lot older than 1834. Have a look at page 225 [0] of the 1622 edition of Richard Hooker's Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, where you will read (my emphasis):

> The reason, why no man can attayne beleefe by the bare contemplation of Heaven and Earth, is, for that they neyther are sufficient to give us as much as the least sparke of Light concerning the very principall Mysteries of our Faith; and whatsoever we may learne by them, the same we can onely attaine to know, according to the manner of naturall Sciences, which meere discourse of Wit and Reason findeth out...

Hooker is here using "natural science" ("naturall Sciences") to mean essentially the same thing as the phrase means today. And, although that's from the 1622 edition, that section of the book was first published in 1597, and I believe that passage is the same in the original 1597 edition (Hooker died in 1600).

Earlier in the same book (also first published 1597), he says (page 193 [1], my emphasis):

> It is with teachers of Mathematicall Sciences usuall, for us in this present question necessary, to lay downe first certaine reasonable demands, which in most particulars following are to serve as Principels whereby to worke, and therefore must be before-hand considered.

Once again, here he is using the phrase "mathematical science" ("Mathematicall Sciences") in essentially the same sense as it is used today. (The point he's making there, is he sees the axiomatic methods used in mathematics as a model for theology to emulate.)

And I doubt those are the first uses of the word "science" in a way clearly compatible with contemporary English usage. They were just the earliest I could find after a brief search.

[0] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t0ns23...

[1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t0ns23...