AVIAN SUBJECTS IDENTIFIED IN NAZCA GEOGLYPHS: PART TWO – THE OTHERS!

Last week I began a two-report on a recent paper from the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports titled “Identifying the Bird Figures of the Nasca Pampas: An Ornithological Perspective” by Masaki Eda, Takeshi Yamasaki and Masato Sakai. Now we will look at some more of their conclusions.

BG-4c, Fig. 4c, identified as a parrot

hatchling. Internet, Public Domain.

Parrot hatchling,

abc.net.au.

“Geoglyph BG-4c (Fig. 4c) was listed as a duck (Lumbreras, 2000). The bill is short and thick, and almost as thick as the head. There is a raised portion on the forehead and an irregular circle at the center of the body trunk. If this feature represents a wing, the birds’ upper limbs are quite short. One short leg is recognizable; it is attached to a wide foot with three toes. The tail is short and equal in length to the bill. The small, wing-like feature of the geoglyph suggests that the bird is a flightless bird or a hatchling. When we assume that the bird was standing or walking, we considered that it may represent a precocial species that is able to stand and walk soon after hatching. Ducks (Anatinae, Anatidae) have bills much thinner than the bill depicted in the geoglyph. Ratites have short wings, although their long legs are completely different from the legs in the geoglyph. Assuming the bird is lying (down), it would be a hatchling of the altricial
species. The short and thick bill, rump-like feature on the forehead, short wings, legs, and tails are recognizable in parrot (Psittacidae) hatchlings (personal communications with Dr. Scott Echols). Although exclusive studies involving parrot hatchlings are required to make this assertion, the geoglyph appears to depict one of these birds.” (Masaki et. al. 2019:4)

 BG-5b, Aveni's Frigate Bird,

Identified by Masaki et.al. as a pelican.

Illustration from Aveni, Fig. 8a, p. 31.

BG-5b, Fig. 5b, Identified as a pelican,

Masaki et. al., 2019,

used with permission.

Displaying frigate bird,

(fregata-magnificens),

Photograph oceanlight.com

- Public Domain. 

Peruvian pelican, resting with

head and neck down,

(note small feather crest)

Illustration otlibrary.com

- Public Domain.

Their most controversial identifications is the image that they list as BG-5b.

“The crest depicted in the geoglyph (BG-5b) appears in a wide range of taxonomic groups. In Peru, it is found in pelicans, guans and curassows (Cracidae), hawks and eagles (Accipitridae), antbirds (hamnophilidae), and flycatchers (Muscicapidae). Among these birds, only pelicans have long, hooked bills. Assuming that the protruding portion under the head represents the breast, this geoglyph closely resembles a pelican resting on a reef.” (Masaki et. al. 2019:4)

“Geoglyph BG-5b was listed as a guano bird by Lumbreras (2000), but was also identified as a frigatebird exhibiting display behavior based on the presence of a long, hooked bill and the pouch-like throat feature under the bill (Aveni 2000). In Peru and other South American countries, the term “guano bird” is not taxonomically specific, but includes pelicans (Pelecanidae), boobies (Sulidae), and cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae); these birds breed on islands and produce guano, which is a substance composed of deposited excrement and bird carcasses and used as fertilizer [for its nitrates which were also valuable in the production of black gunpowder]. The geoglyph depicts the head and neck or protruding breast of a bird seen from the side. It is characterized by a distinctive crest and an extremely long bill that is hooked at the tip.” (Masaki et. al. 2019:4)

Although Aveni (2000:31) identified this as a displaying frigate bird (and it certainly has the outline of the head and breast of a displaying frigate bird) the frigate bird does not possess the crest shown on the head of the geoglyph. Masaki et. al. have concluded that this is most likely a pelican. Indeed, I can imagine that a pelican with its head and neck tucked back and its breast protruding could look a lot like that. None of the pelican pictures I have seen showed it with such a prominent crest, but there were raised feathers in many of them that could be called a crest.

BG-5c, Fig. 5c, identified as a flying

pelican by Masaki et. al. Internet

photograph, Public domain.

Flying Pelican, BG-5c, Fig. 5c,

Illustration Masaki et. al.

Used by permission.

Flying pelican, Internet

photograph, Public domain.

The next example is also listed as a pelican. “BG-5c was listed as a bird (Lumbreras 2000); the geoglyph depicts a bird with a crest and a long, thin bill that is hooked. Its short tail is fan-shaped, and the legs are not drawn. As stated above, pelicans are the only birds in Peru with crests and long, hooked bills. Although pelicans have long necks, they become folded when the bird is in flight. This makes the neck appear shorter and the throat pouch less conspicuous, as is the case with the bird depicted in the geoglyph. In addition, pelicans completely conceal their legs during. For these reasons we have concluded that geoglyphs BG-5b and BG-5c depict pelicans.” (Masaki et. al. 2019:4)

So, are they correct in their assumptions? I certainly have no reason to question their conclusion about the hermit (hummingbird), but does that mean that the other Nazca hummingbird geoglyphs are hummingbirds (Trochilinae), not hermits (Phaethornithinae), or are they just not classified?

The parrot hatchling seems convincing although there is always the possibility that it is just a generic bird geoglyph, only coincidentally possessing the characteristics that the researchers identified. I am the least confident about the pelicans, especially the apparent lack of the large throat pouch that pelicans possess, and which is not apparent in these geoglyphs, but I am not an ornithologist, so I will bow to their expertise on these.

What I find really fascinating is their observation that none of these birds live anywhere near Nazca today. Although the people would have seen pelicans on trips to the coast, the hermits and parrots live a long way away from Nazca, in the Amazon across the Andes to the east. How do we interpret that? And how far did Masaki et. al. go in looking for matches? There might be a better match just a county farther away. All in all though, these are fascinating questions, and a real contribution to our understanding of some of the Nazca geoglyphs.

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 publications listed below.

REFERENCES:

Aveni, A. F.
2000 Between the Lines: The Mystery of the Giant Ground Drawings of Ancient Nasca, Peru, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Lumbreras, L. G.,
2000 Contexto Arqueologico de las Lineas y Geoglifos de Nasca, UNESCO-INC.

Masaki Eda, Takeshi Yamasaki and Masato Sakai,
2019 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Identifying the Bird Figures of the Nasca Pampas: An Ornithological Perspective, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101875

AVIAN SUBJECTS IDENTIFIED IN NAZCA GEOGLYPHS: PART ONE – THE HUMMINGBIRD.

Hummingbird geoglyph, Nazca, Peru.

Photo Masaki Eda, used with

permission.

A favorite pastime of rock art researchers has long been trying to identify animal or plant images portrayed in rock art as to species or breed. This can have productive results in learning the appearance and physical characteristics of extinct species, or in gaining information as to the range of animals or plants during certain prehistoric periods, or give insight into the technology and cultural practices of the peoples who created the images. Now, a paper by non-rock art specialists has provided the identities of some of the birds portrayed in the geoglyphs of the Nazca desert of Peru. Masaki Eda, a Zoo-archaeologist, and self-described Archeo-ornithologist, from the University of Hokkaido in Japan, and his colleagues have applied their knowledge to analyze details in some of the bird geoglyphs and identify these with some degree of certainty and the results are somewhat surprising.

Hummingbird geoglyph, Nazca, Peru.

Photo Masaki Eda, used with permission.

Contrast enhanced by Peter Faris. 

In their report in the Journal of Archaeological Science they said “in this study, we identified bird geoglyphs in Nasca and Pampas de Jumana by noting any recognizable morphological traits. We then categorized the geoglyphs from an ornithological perspective and compared the identified characteristics with those of modern birds in Peru. In addition, we compared our identification results with those of other studies.” (p. 2)

“20 bird geoglyphs comprise the largest number of all geoglyphs that depict plants and animals at the Nasca and Palpa pampas. These geoglyphs are mainly considered to have been created during the late Paracas and the Nasca Period (c. 2400 to 1300 years ago).” (p. 1) Some of the figures previously listed as bird figures were virtually unrecognizable, either too distorted, incomplete, or too damaged to classify, but the researchers attempted to identify 16 of them. 

Koepcke's hermit hummingbird, Peru.

neotropical.birds.cornell.edu,
Public Domain.

The most commonly identified birds at Nazca are the hummingbirds. The first bird listed by Masaki et. al. is one of them. Lumbreras (2000) listed two bird geoglyphs as hummingbirds. “The bird geoglyph “3a” (BG-3a; Fig. 3a) was listed as a hummingbird (Lumbreras 2000) Its bill is notably long (almost as long as the rest of the body) and relatively thin compared to the width of the head. Short legs extend from either side of the body trunk, and each foot has three toes. The tail (with an elongated middle section) is almost as long as the body trunk. In the geoglyph, the bill is extremely long, and appears to be depicted in an exaggerated way. While hummingbirds (Trochilidae) have long bills, long tails, and short legs, these traits are also found in hacamars (Galbulidae). The feet of hummingbirds are anisodactyl (i.e., three toes face forward, and one faces backward), while those of the jacamars are zygodactyls (i.e., two toes face forward and two face backward). We, therefore, consider that geoglyph BF-3a more closely resembles hummingbirds. The family Trochilidae consist of typical brightly-colored hummingbirds (Trochilinae) and dull-colored hermits (Phaethornithinae). In Peru, long and pointed tails only occur in hermits (Fig. 3d), whereas the tails of typical hummingbirds are forked or fanshaped. We, therefore, consider that geoglyph BG-3a depicts hermits.” (Masaki et. al. 2019:2)

If this identification is correct it leaves us with an interesting question to answer. Why, of all the varieties of hummingbird to be found in the same area as Phaethornithidae, would the ancient Nazcans  choose to portray the drab hermit instead of one of the brightly colored “flying jewels” that hummingbirds are usually considered to be? A question of the habitat that this bird is found in will be brought up in Part 2.


NOTE: One image in this posting was retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If this image is 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 this subject you should read the original reports listed below.

REFERENCES:

Lumbreras, L. G.,
2000 Contexto Arqueologico de las Lineas y Geoglifos de Nasca, UNESCO-INC.

Masaki Eda, Takeshi Yamasaki and Masato Sakai,
2019 Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Identifying the Bird Figures of the Nasca Pampas: An Ornithological Perspective, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101875

MORE AZILIAN ENGRAVINGS:

Azilian carved stone plaque,

Angouleme, France.

Internet photo.

On July 15, 2017, I posted a column titled NEW DISCOVERIES IN AZILIAN CULTURE ROCK ART, about the discovery of pictures engraved on stone plaques by the Azilian people in Paleolithic Europe. I have expanded on that subject since with two more columns about the same subject: NEW DISCOVERIES IN AZILIAN ART, on March 15, 2019; and followed by AZILIAN PAINTED PEBBLES, on March 23, 2019. Now discoveries in a new location in France have expanded this yet farther, and added to our appreciation of what was formerly thought of as a artistically impoverished time.

Another Azilian age stone plaque with markings on both sides has been found at an “ancient hunting site” near Angouleme, France.

Azilian carved stone plaque,

Angouleme, France.

Photo Natgeo.com

“Markings appear on both sides off the sandstone, the National Archaeological Research Institute (Inrap) said. The Palaeolithic stone plate, which is said to be about 25cm long, 18cm wide and 3 cm thick, ‘combines geometric and figurative motifs’, Inrap said. According to the institute, the most visible engraving is that of a headless horse,which covers at least half of the stone’s surface on one side. “Legs and hooves are very realistic” Inrap said on its website (in French), adding: “Two other animals, smaller, are also slightly incised. The other animals featured on the stone are slightly smaller, and could be a horse and a deer – which has a distinct shape to its hooves, the institute said.” (Anonymous)

“At 12,000 years old, the five animals engraved on the Angouleme stone represent the youngest examples of more realistic Azilian art. The prehistoric stone was unearthed by researchers from the French National Institute of Preventative Archaeological Research (Inrap). They had been excavating a site located near the station in Angouleme, a district to the north of Bordeaux.” (Randall 2019)

I have stated previously, that “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”. The Azilians, assumed to have been culturally impoverished because they did not seem to create the monumental cave art of their predecessors. We are now beginning to learn that they did create relatively sophisticated art, we just had not found it up until now. And what still waits to be found?

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:

Anonymous,
2019 Prehistoric Stone Engraved With Horses Found in France, 6 June 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48539803

Faris, Peter
2017 New Discoveries in Azilian Culture Rock Art, July 15, 2017,

2019 New Discoveries in Azilian Art, March 15, 2019

2019 Azilian Painted Pebbles, March 23, 2019,https://rockartblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Azilian

Randall, Ian
2019 ‘Exceptional’ Prehistoric Stone Engraved with Horses That’s Believed to be 12,000 –Years-Old is Found in France, Alongside Rudimentary Fireplaces, Animal Bones and a Flint Carving Station, 7 June 2019, https://www.dailymail .co.uk/

A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT!

The former EDITORIALS page on RockArtBlog is changing to COMMENTS AND EDITORIALS. It is my intention to use it for responses to comments that I receive anonymously but are worth replying to - either pro or con. As before, I will continue to respond by e-mail to comments that include an e-mail address. I will also periodically post editorials there.

FLUTE PLAYER, HEALER, OR PIPE SMOKER?

Kneeling Kokopelli, Kelley Place,

Mancos Canyon, Montezuma County, CO.

Photograph Peter Faris, May 1983.

Kokopelli, near Talus House,

Bandelier National Monument,

Los Alamos County, New Mexico.

Photograph Peter Faris, Sept. 1985.

A particular favorite rock art image of everyone in the American southwest is the flute player commonly known as Kokopelli (the hump-backed flute player). I will save the whole question of who he really is for another time, and in this column will deal with what he represents visually, because, while he is called a flute-player there are actually other possibilities.

Consider the range of items that might be held up to the mouth. More common than flutes were bone whistles, usually made of the wing bone of a large bird. Also, a straight pipe would be held to the mouth to smoke it. And, finally, the present fad for identifying Shamanism in rock art would require us to consider the sucking tube used in healing ceremonies by a Shaman.

Grotto Canyon Kokopelli, Alberta,

Canada. After Keyser and Klassen,

2001, p. 105, Fig. 7.13.

In general, flute-player images shown holding a long, straight object may well be flute-players because the other possibilities (whistle, straight pipe, and sucking tube) are shorter. But many of the images are holding items that are suspiciously short like the example above.

Blackfoot eagle bone whistle.
Internet.

Fremont flute, Range Creek,

Utah. www.flutopedia.com.

Pueblo Bonito flute from Chaco

Canyon, New Mexico.

www.flutopedia.com.

So, since whistles were more common that flutes among Native American tribes, a figure holding a short straight object might indeed be playing a whistle instead of a flute. "The eagle bone whistle is a religious object used by some members of Native American spiritual societies in sacred ceremonies - in the Southwest and Plains cultures. The whistle is used in some Peyote ceremonies of some sects of the Native American Church. The eagle bone whistle is also used by the Lakota people in certain ceremonies, such as Sun Dances." (Wikipedia)

Basketmaker cloud-blower,

New Mexico. Internet.

Another possible subject would be the form of a straight pipe known as a cloud-blower. "In North America, the primary purpose of the tobacco smoke is to serve as an offering to the spirits. Across the Americas, tobacco, offered directly or as smoke, allowed for communication with spirits. Among the Pueblos, Parsons describes smoke being blown onto altars in kivas to give luck for ceremonies. At Santa Clara pueblo, pipes smoke was blown to ask for rain and in hunting ceremonies. More specifically, pipes were used in healing ceremonies among the Navajo and other groups." (Davis 2017:38-9)

Chumash cloud-blower.
Steatite, 5¼".
worthpoint.com.

In the West and Southwest smoke is generally considered to represent the clouds and can carry a prayer to the sky during ceremonial use. Additionally, in the southwest, the most common form of pipe used prehistorically was a straight tube, actually known as a cloud blower for this association of smoke to clouds. Given the importance of the sacred nature of this connection is it not possible that the figures we know as flute-players are actually holding a tubular smoking pipe, or cloud blower?

Shaman's "Sucking Tube" from

San Diego County, California.

O'Neal, 1983, picture from Internet.

The final possibility, although my least favorite, is that the figure holding a short object to his lips is a shaman with the tube that he or she uses to suck illness from a patient. As I have said many times previously, I think that the concept of Shamanism is really badly overdone as an explanation in analysis of rock art. So, what do I think is the explanation? I would usually have to go with the flute-player, however, we should be aware that there are always other possibilities.

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:

Davis, Kaitlyn Elizabeth
2017 The Ambassador's Herb: Tobacco Pipes as Evidence for Plains-Pueblo Interaction, Interethic Negotiation, and Ceremonial Exchange in the Northern Rio Grande, Graduate Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Keyser, James D., and Michael A. Klassen
2001   Plains Indian Rock Art, University of  Washington Press, Seattle. Fig. 7.13, p. 105.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-bone_whistle

http://www.flutopedia.com/

https://www.worthpoint.com/

O'Neil, Dennis H.
1983  A Shaman's "Sucking Tube" from San Diego County, California, Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropoloty, No. 5, issue 2.

A REPLY TO A COMMENT BY VDINETS:

vdinets has left a new comment on my post "A RIDICULOUS CLAIM - THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS ARE ORIENTED TO THE STARS IN ORION’S BELT: November 10, 2018.

Now this is a great comment, whoever you are, and one that I can reply to.
“It's an old claim (dating back at least to the 1960s if I remember correctly). Supposedly you have to use the map of the Orion's Belt the way it looked at the time the pyramids were built (star positions have changed a bit). I never checked it, but I don't find the theory to be so obviously bonkers. The plan of the Giza Pyramids does look at least superficially similar to the Belt, and doing this doesn't require any particularly advanced knowledge, certainly not compared to what was required to build the pyramids themselves. You can build the first two pyramids anywhere you want, and then just calculate the angle and the distance to the third one to make a "scale model" of the Belt.” – vdinets

Thank you for your reasonable and well-written response to my original column. I must confess that I may have too quickly and easily assumed the theory is bogus because of the sources promoting it. In Matthew 7:16 Jesus said “by their fruits you will recognize them” and some of these sources are definitely fruitcakes. Many others are serious believers who get misled by these false prophets. In order to test my conclusion I went to orbitsimulator.com and ran Orion from about 30,000 BC to 30,000 AD with the point of view set to Egypt. While some of the peripheral stars moved the stars in his belt did not shift an iota - if I did it right. I think I will stick with my original conclusions with this caveat added. I have no way of knowing if Orion inspired the placement of the three pyramids of Giza. You have no way of knowing it either, no-one does. I should perhaps been a little tighter in stating my premise. The fringies are claiming that it is a perfect replica and alignment and I have proved to my satisfaction that it is not that. I have no idea what inspired the placement of the three major pyramids at Giza, and until an inscription or papyrus is found concerning it nobody can know. It is only an interesting speculation that the simulation does not back up.

REFERENCE:

http://orbitsimulator.com/gravitySimulatorCloud/properMotionHome.html

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