I have always been a little skeptical of claims that rock art was placed at sites because these sites provide echoes. Not that there can’t have been a relationship between echoes and the art, but that I think that we need more proof than just the presence of echoes at rock art sites. Remember, the best sites for echoes – large, smooth cliff faces- are also probably the best sites for placing rock art. Ethnographic references would certainly help strengthen such claims.
A study (Rainio et al. 2024) has now been conducted in the lake district of Finland by a team from the University of Helsinki which attempts to relates echoes to their rock art. “In this study, we have sought to recapture the sonic practices and sensory experiences of prehistoric hunter-gatherers by examining the acoustic characteristics of their rock art sites. The sites consist of vertical granite cliffs and boulders, located on the shores of lakes, with paintings of humans, boats, and animals. The impulse response measurements indicate that the unchanged cliffs (those whose relation to the water level was the same as in ancient times) reflect sound more efficiently, strongly, and accurately than the nearby reference rocks, or the painted rocks where the water levels have changed. The psychoacoustic criterion and auralization demonstrations indicate that these reflections generated clearly distinct single-repeat echoes, which endowed sounds and noises produced in front of the cliffs with their auditory mirror images.” (Rainio et al. 2024) While their study is certainly scientific, with frequency and volume measurements recorded, I do not believe that their interpretation is correct, and the use of scientific sounding terminology such as “psychoacoustic criterion and auralization” does not make their conclusions accurate or correct. I have referred to this before as hypervocabulation - the use of these scientific sounding words to make a statement come across as important.
“In such an acoustic space, a person approaching the cliff could hear a voice similar to themself responding faster and louder from the direction of the paintings, while the virtual source of the voice moved from inside the cliff to its surface, exactly where the painted images were. Thus, the auditory and visual images overlapped, merging into one multimodal experience.” (Rainio et al. 2024) It seems to me to be common sense that as you get closer to the cliff the echo would return more quickly and somewhat louder. And, I have no idea what would prompt a phrase like “the virtual source of the voice moved from inside the cliff to its surface.” I cannot see the circumstances that would make one think that the echo was coming from inside the cliff instead of bouncing back from the surface.
“Although the exact sounds or noises produced by the hunter-gatherers are beyond our reach, the study shows that the physical environment participated strongly, actively, and vividly in their sonic activities, communicating and co-vibrating with them and creating encounters based on reciprocity between the human and more-than-human worlds.” (Rainio et al. 2024) Although Rainio et al. are correct here that we cannot know the “exact sounds or noises produced by the hunter-gatherers” I think we can make some pretty good guesses. First, I would expect to hear vocalizations, either singing or calls of some sort. Second, I would think that percussive sounds would have been very effective, either the clapping of hands or banging sticks or rocks together to make an echo.
And in summation they write “These specific results only apply to the rock art sites in Finland, but similar acoustic environments may also be found elsewhere, especially at rock art sites comprising vertical smooth cliffs by the water. For the history of sound and music, the research provides an example of how different the role and significance of sound reflections could have been in past societies.” (Rainio et al. 2024) The operant phrase in this quotation is ‘could have been.’ None of this really proves anything.
All in all, I think this is much ado about very little. Yes, echoes bounce back at rock art sites, but that does not mean they are related. Many rock art sites do not produce an effective echo, and if there was a relationship, what about all of the places where you can get an echo but there is no rock art? While I am sure that some sites illustrate a connection between the acoustics and rock art I think that applying this explanation, like archeoastronomy, is probably somewhat overdone. I have been in Horseshoe Canyon, Utah, and found someone running around in front of the Holy Ghost panel hitting rocks with a piece of elk antler. I have also been to sites in western Colorado where a ‘researcher’ was snapping a rat trap to record echoes. It is, however, nice to see actual science applied in this case.
NOTE: For further information you should read the original report listed below.
REFERENCE:
Rainio, Riitta, Julia
Shpinitskaya, Paavo Rinkkala, Jami Pekkanen, Perttu Kesäniemi & Mikko
Ojanen, 2024, Reflected
encounters at hunter-gatherer rock art sites by the water, Sound Studies, 24
Nov 2024. DOI: 10.1080/20551940.2024.2419293. Accessed online 25 November 1924.