ROCK ART AND ACOUSTICS: INTENTIONAL, ACCIDENTAL, OR IRRELEVANT - PART 2?

Lithophones, Organ and Chimes,

Caverns of Luray, VA,

1906 postcard.

Last week I reported on Iegor Reznikoff's researches into the subject of acoustics of rock art sites. This week I am adding conclusions of a couple of other authors and other evidence.

In the acoustics of a cliff, cave, or rock shelter, there are essentially two types of sound that are considered: naturally occurring sounds such as water, wind, and animal noises, etc., and human-caused sounds (whether vocal or mechanical). Vocal human sounds would include speaking, singing, whistling, or imitating animal calls, etc. Mechanical human caused sounds include drums, flutes, whistles, bull-roarers, etc. - and lithophones. Lithophones are a human-caused sound as well but are often considered separately as a special type of musical instrument. A lithophone is a percussion instrument consisting of certain dense rocks that ring with musical notes when struck. Stalactites and stalagmite formations in many caves will do this as well as separate stones and boulders.

Concerning human-caused sounds Fazenda (et.al.) writes that "It is likely that both speech and music were part of the cultures that used the caves, given that speech evolved earlier and examples of musical instruments in the human cultures under study here have been reported in archaeological studies." (p. 1337)

While it is undeniable that some echoes or resonance effects will be produced in virtually any cave or rock shelter, or even open cliff rock art site it has to be remembered that although geologic time seems unchanging there are continuous changes and modifications to the shapes and surfaces of these sites.

"At the same time it must be recognized that the internal morphology and structure of the caves has undergone processes of modification (both human and natural) that inevitably affect their acoustics. Some areas of these caves may hence exhibit acoustic responses that have changed since prehistory. The most significant naturally occurring change to the architecture of the caves came about through the closing or sealing of their original entrances by rock-falls or by sediment accumulation." (Fazenda et al. 2017:1334-5)

This means that the acoustic effects being detected today may be different than any effects intended when the rock art was created, and basing scientific assumptions on conditions that may have changed seems to make little sense. Also, rock art sites can have wildly different acoustic properties; from amplified resonance, to diminished or muddled resonance.

Painted Canyon, Val Verde County, TX,

photograph Peter Faris, March 2004.

I have even been at a rock art site that acted as a whisper channel wherein a sound made at one point cannot be heard just a few feet away, but is legible again farther down the rock face. This was a cliff face with a slight overhang in a narrow canyon in Texas. The cliff face was pretty much evenly covered with small, delicate red-painted figures, just as many occurring in the null area where the sound was not heard as in the areas of sound receptivity. If acoustic properties governed the placement of rock art I would expect the null area to have many fewer red-painted figures than the areas of intensity. This site, at least, seems to go against the rock art/echoes assumptions.

In their rigorous and excellent 2017 study of acoustics in rock art sites Fazenda and his ten co-authors concluded: "Blesser and Salter (2009:74) observe that, "cave wall images are tangible, enduring manifestations of early humans," and that in contrast sound "has no enduring manifestation, nor of course could it have for any pre-technical peoples," meaning that as a result, "available data are too sparse to draw strong conclusions." In our work a statistical association has been established between acoustic response and the positions of Palaeolithic visual motifs found in these caves. Our primary conclusion is that there is statistical, although weak, evidence, for an association between acoustic responses measured within these caves and the placement of motifs. We found a statistical association between the position of motifs, particularly dots and lines, and places with low frequency resonances and moderate reverberation. Importantly, we must reiterate that the statistically significant association does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between motif placement and acoustic response. In other words, our evidence does not suggest that the positioning of motifs can be explained simply through relationships with acoustics, and we are not suggesting that motif positioning was based solely on an appreciation of sound properties. Indeed, we also found that motifs are statistically less likely to be found further into the caves, away from its original entrance, and this result further illustrates the complex relationship between early human behavior and features of these caves." (Fazenda:1347)

Great Gallery, Horseshoe Canyon,

Canyonlands, Wayne County, UT,

photograph Don I. Campbell,

May 1984.

As an example of the above, probably the most remarkable correspondence of echo and rock art I have personally experienced is the Great Gallery in Horseshoe Canyon, Canyonlands, Utah. The cliff wall there seems ideal for rock art and it has inspired a considerable amount of great art there on it. It also casts what I remember as  a strong echo, but even while standing there in front of it and experiencing it I got no sense that the art and the echo had to be somehow connected by other than coincidence.

I know that I do not have the last word on a subject, and I feel that I always have to leave room for error in my assumptions, so I will say here that it is possible that all the claims made for sites that produce strong echoes were chosen for rock art as well because of those echoes. But I know of no way of proving that and, until we do, many of the current claims are unsupported and overblown. The same rock face that is desirable for rock art purposes, probably also is desirable for echoes or other acoustic effects, but that does not mean that the art and the sounds are interrelated in any way.

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 original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

Blesser, B., and Salter L.
2009 Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?:Experiencing Aural Architecture, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Fazenda, Bruno, et al.
2017 Cave Acoustics in Prehistory: Exploring the Association of Paleolithic Visual Motifs and Acoustic Response, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142, (1332-49), https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4998721

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

SPEECH SCROLLS IN ROCK ART?

Chaco Canyon, trail to Penasco Blanco, San Juan county,

New Mexico. Photograph Peter Faris, May 1994. 

A familiar convention in Mesoamerican art is the speech scroll, a curved line or shape in front of the mouth used to indicate that the possessor is speaking. We do know that the rock art creating peoples of Mesoamerica, including Aztec, Maya, and Zapotec, all had symbols to represent speech or sound. These we generically lump together under the title “speech scrolls”. Examples exist in stone sculpture, on painted pottery, and in the few remaining books that survived the Spanish destruction, the codexes. We also know that these peoples had influence on the cultures and rock art of the American southwest. With this in mind I have kept an eye out for the general shape of a Mesoamerican speech scroll in rock art.

Aztec god Xochipilli, p.4, Archaeoacoustics

 Graeme and Lawson, 2006.

Aztec Codex Boturini, Fig. 11, p. 39, The Road To

Aztlan, Fields and Zamudio-Taylor, 2001. 

The Mesoamerican speech scroll was a curved line or scroll found issuing from the mouth, or in the general area of the mouth. My assumption is that a speech scroll connected to the mouth would represent a sound being made (speaking) where a speech scroll that is not connected to the mouth would represent a sound that had been made (previous speaking), but this might just be over thinking the problem. They could, in fact, just be two variations of exactly the same thing, a generic vocalization.

The petroglyphs at the top of this posting are to be found in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, and bear an uncanny resemblance to many examples of the Mesoamerican speech scroll. Do they actually represent speech? I do not know, and we probably cannot know.  Indeed, without a figure in the picture to represent a speaker I must assume that it is unlikely that this was actually intended as a speech scroll. We do, however, know that there were contacts between the people of Chaco Canyon and Mesoamerican civilizations so there is the possibility that some of the imagery also made it to New Mexico. In any case it is fun to speculate.

Figure with speech scroll, carved
Mayan stela, from pu5h.info.

Mayan pottery cups with Camazotz, the bat god.

I have included some examples of Mesoamerican speech scrolls above for comparison, and below I have also included a European example of the same thing.

Figure with banderole (speech scroll),

Bernhard Strigel, 1506, Wikipedia.

As a side note, this phenomenon is also represented in our European art history as is explained in this comment from Wikipedia. “A speech scroll, also called a banderole or phylactery in art history, is an illustrative device denoting speech, song, or, in rarer cases, other types of sound. Developed independently on two continents, the device was in use by European painters during the Medieval and Renaissance periods as well as by artists within Mesoamerican cultures from as early as 650 BC until after the 16th century Spanish conquest. While European speech scrolls were drawn as if they were an actual unfurled scroll, Mesoamerican speech scrolls are merely scroll-shaped, looking much like a question mark.” (Wikipedia)

SOURCES:

Fields, Virginia M., and Victor Zamudio-Taylor,

2001    Aztlan: Destination and Point of Departure, pages 38 – 77, The Road To Aztlan: Art From A Mythic Homeland, edited by Fields, Virginia M., and Victor Zamudio-Taylor,

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles.

Scarre, Chris and Graeme Lawson, editors

2006    Archaeoacoustics, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Wikipedia

THE CHIMU TELEPHONE AND A FLIGHT OF FANCY/FANTASY:

Chauvet lions, from Dawn of Art, by Jean-Marie Chauvet,
Eliette Brunel Deschamps, and Christian Hillaire.

Picture yourself standing in front of a painted panel of lions, or a bear, in a Paleolithic painted cave in Europe. The flickering light of your flame provides the only illumination and the moving shadows almost lend an illusion of movement to the fearsome predator pictured. Then, all of a sudden, you hear a roaring, growling sound. Would that not impress you? Remembering the tin-can telephone from my childhood, what could a Paleolithic shaman do with it to introduce sound to the cave paintings in a dark cave in Europe? Concealed some distance away from a panel of painted animals he could mimic their sounds adding growling and moaning to the expressive imagery. This would provide a very impressive addition to a ceremony.

An article in Smithsonian Magazine, December 2013 issue, written by Neil Baldwin, explained an amazing example of technology attributed to the Chimu culture of the Rio Moche Valley in northern Peru that would have been able to do just that.

One of the earliest examples of ingenuity in the Western

Hemisphere is composed of gourds and twine, Smithsonian

Collections, Neil Baldwin, Smithsonian Magazine, 

December, 2013.

“Nestled in an acid-free corrugated container was the earliest known example of telephone technology in the Western Hemisphere, evoking a lost civilization – and the anonymous ancient techie who dreamed it up.

The gourd-and-twine device, created 1,200 to 1,400 years ago remains tantalizingly functional – and too fragile to test out. “This is unique,” NMAI (National Museum of American Indians) curator Ramiro Matos, an anthropologist and archaeologist who specializes in the study of the central Andes, tells me.

“Only one was ever discovered. It comes from the consciousness of an indigenous society with no written language.”

We’ll never know the trial and error that went into its creation. The marvel of acoustic engineering – cunningly constructed out of two resin-coated gourd receivers, each three – and-one-half inches long; stretched-hide membranes stitched around the bases of the receivers; and cotton-twine cord extending 75 feet when pulled taut.” (Baldwin 2013)

Please note that I am not suggesting any connection between Paleolithic painted caves and the Chimu culture, I know there was none. I am only explaining that my first reaction to seeing Baldwin’s article was to think of adding sound to rock art. In the Chimu case, perhaps adding sound to paintings or carvings in a dim temple interior.

And while on this flight of fancy I can recall another piece of childhood technology that would have been even more effective. What was often called “the growler” (technically it is a string drum) was simply an empty tin can with a hole punched in the center of the bottom and a piece of twine affixed in it. When the twine was rosined and then pulled on while allowing the twine to slip slowly through the fingers, the resulting vibration of the can bottom made a growling/roaring sound like a lion or bear. A variation was made with a round oatmeal box and waxed string, but the metal can was much stronger and could thus be made much louder. 

Now ask yourself, could a paleolithic artist or shaman have had gourds? Or could they perhaps have formed a container out of rawhide to serve the purpose? Could they have made a drum? Did the Paleolithic people ever do this? I have absolutely no indication that they ever did (although I cannot imagine that they did not), but in my imagination I can take a flight of fancy to those dark and so impressive Paleolithic painted caves of Europe. We know that cave interiors have marvelous acoustics anyway, with echoes, whisper channels, and other effects. Now add the roaring, growling sound booming through the cave passages and chambers. How impressive is that?

In any case check out the article in the December 2013 issue of Smithsonian Magazine, and keep an eye on that excellent publication for other fascinating material as well.

NOTE: This posting is a wild flight of fantasy based upon my reaction to a remarkable Chimu artifact that was published in the December 2013 article by Neil Baldwin in Smithsonian magazine. Only the basic facts of the Chimu artifact should be attributed to Smithsonian magazine. All of the other surmise and speculation is from me personally, and should not be attributed to the Smithsonian Society, its magazine, or any of its employees or writers.

REFERENCES:

Baldwin, Neil

2013   Smithsonian Collections, One of the earliest examples of ingenuity in the Western Hemisphere is composed of gourds and twine, Smithsonian Magazine, December.