ROCK ART AND ACOUSTICS: INTENTIONAL, ACCIDENTAL, OR IRRELEVANT? - PART 1

Two Mammoths, Rouffignac,

France. Marking a spot of increased

resonance according to

Reznikoff  (2002:48).

Photo: bradshawfoundation.com.

There is a great deal of interest currently in archaeoacoustics, the study and analysis of how sound interacted with rock art and other ritual practices of ancient populations. Indeed, a rock art conference nowadays can hardly be held without at least one paper on Archaeoacoustics being presented. A PBS documentary series, How We Got To Now, hosted by Steven Johnson, devoted its sixth episode to Sound. At the beginnings of the episode Iegor Reznikoff was introduced inside one of the European painted caves - Arcy Sur Cure, in northern France. Reznikoff, who is a professor at the Philosophy Department of the University of Paris at Nanterre, eloquently rhapsodized about the role of sound and echoes in cave art and ritual.

Three rhinoceroses, a site

of naturally high resonance

(Reznikoff 2002:48).

Rouffignac cave, France.

Photo: donsmaps.com.

"In a prehistoric cave, one of the most impressive experiences is to discover the cave, walking in complete or almost complete darkness, and all while making sounds (preferably vocal ones) and to listen to the answer of the cave. In order to figure out where the sounds come from - from far away or from nearby - and whether there is somewhere a strong resonance or not: all this in order to ascertain the direction in which one may proceed further on. Because out vision is limited by darkness, resonance is the only way to know how long or deep the space ahead is. This represents one use of the voice and of the hearing as a sonar device, and there is no doubt that Palaeolithic tribes who visited and decorated the caves proceeded in this way; indeed, in irregular shaped galleries or tunnels, neither oil lamps nor even torches light further than a few meters. This sonar method works: in many cases, proceeding into the direction of the strongest answer of the cave will lead to the locations of paintings. This way of moving around in darkness demonstrates the main importance of sound in discovering space and in proceeding through it; to be sure, it reminds one of the first perception of space the child has in the world of the mother's womb." (Reznikoff 2005:Section 2.5)

Salmon, an area of increased

resonance. Salle des Vagues,

Arcy-sur-Cure cave, Burgundy,

France. Photo: M. Girard.

This is one of his conclusions, that sound (echoes) was used in navigating caves. He talks about the human body as a sonar device, emitting and receiving sound and analyzing the information contained in the returning signal. He also goes into sound as an integral part of ritual; music, vocalization, imitating animal calls, etc. His analysis is not rigorously scientific. The sound production in his studies is vocal and his instrument for receiving the sound is aural, his ear. This is, of course, the way it would have been with our ancestors too.

The ‘Diamond incrusted’ mammoth

in the most resonant location of the

main cave (Reznikoff 2002).

Arcy-sur-Cure (Burgundy, France).

Photograph M. Girard).

"The method consists in studying, or rather listening to, the resonance of sounds in terms of its intensity and duration at different points along the cave walls. In this way, the places with the greatest resonance can be located, or, more generally, the places where the quality of the resonance changes significantly. A map of resonance in the cave galleries can thus be drawn up. In acoustical terms, the changes correspond to the alternation along the cave wall of nodes and antinodes for those frequencies that are characteristic of particular parts of the cave. The matter can, however, be rather complex, because the pitches that make different parts of the cave resound must be identified at the same time. In different parts of the cave, different and, possibly, many pitches (even if only the basic sound is taken into account) can be peculiar to its resonance since its form can be very complex; we are thus faced with two variables: location and pitch." (1995:503)

          Engraved bison in the Niaux Cave,

Ariege, France, here the resonance

lasts for 5 seconds (Reznikoff 2001:49).

Photograph: Internet, public domain.

Reznikoff comes to three main conclusions - what he calls Principles.

1. The density of paintings in a location is proportional to the intensity of the resonance in this location. He qualifies this by admitting that "it is unreasonable to expect all the locations with good resonance to be painted, there are in general too many and some are unsuitable or inaccessible." (Also some painted sites have poor acoustic properties. What does that say about his theory?)

2. Most ideal resonant locations are adorned with paintings or signs. (I am really skeptical here, I know of all sorts of good echo sites with no rock art.)

3. Certain signs are accounted for only in relation to sound. (Possibly true, but since he does not identify those signs we really cannot judge)  (Reznikoff 2008:4140)

So, is Reznikoff right? Well, I can see some logic in his argument that sound would be helpful in navigating caves. But would his results be replicable by another researcher using a different voice and ears, or would personal differences lead to differing results? In other words can his experimental results be replicated by another experimenter (the primary test for scientific validity)? I think not.

I must admit I enjoy reading his papers, they are not dry scientific discourses. He is eloquent, even poetic, in describing his beliefs - but is he correct in his assumptions? I will even agree with him to a certain extent. I do have this caveat, however. I have written previously about my belief that the question of acoustics is overdone in current rock art studies. The fact that rock art sites often produce impressive echoes is assumed to be causative, that the rock art is there because of the echo. As I have written elsewhere, desirable rock panels for rock art and for causing echoes are coincident, but we have no proof that they are related. So, Reznikoff's method of vocalizing and then listing his impressions of what he hears is certainly not scientific, his results must be predominately subjective, but that does not invalidate his efforts, and he surely must be having a lot of fun. Part 2 of this essay will be posted next week.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the originals listed below.

REFERENCES:

Reznikoff, Iegor

1995 On the Sound Dimension of Prehistoric Painted Caves and Rocks, p. 541-57, from Musical Signification: Essays in the Semiotic Theory and Analysis of Music, edited by Eero Tarasti, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin and New York.

2002  Prehistoric Painting, Sound and Rocks, from Studien zur Musikarchaologie III, The Archaeology of Sound: Origin and Organization, Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Istanbul, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden, Westf.

2005 On Primitive Elements of Musical Meaning, Journal of Music and Meaning, vol. 3, Fall 2004/Winter2005, Section 2, http://www.musicandmeaning.net/issues/showArticle.php?artID=3.2

2008 Sound Resonance in Prehistoric Times: A Study of Palaeolithic Painted Caves and Rocks, p. 4137-4141, www.acoustics08-paris.org