Well, partly. The earth really _is_ precessing, and this does cause the stellar "backdrop" at each equinox to change, so it's not just a human construct. But it's very, very tiny and progressive, yes.
The objection that I'm aware of against precession of the equinoxes is that Greg Sez (tm) that it don't happen, and when I spoke to him, briefly, about it, he seemed fairly savvy about the whys and forefores of having/not having 'em do so.
> I don't think the Lunars would have any cause to see signs of
> precession _yet_ (thus 'proving' that they have finally got
> the calender right).
However, what might happen, if there's been significant precession since Plentonius' time, or since the latter part of the Darkness, is that myths that depend on certain things happening in the sky at certain times, or at certain relative positions, might "break". Most obviously, the story of the Young God, star towers, and stuff like that. (In this sense, Stonehenge and the Zodiac are "broken", of course.)
Of course, it's possible such things could have been mutated over time without anyone realising it (or those few who do realise it hushing it up...); or such things may be less ancient than they're cracked up to be; and other such shamelessly revisionist notions. Alternatively, the precession may be _so_ small as to make no real diff.
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail