David Lubman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I strongly agree that scientists are more
> prone to mistakes when they make pronouncements
> outside of their field. That’s precisely why
> rejection of acoustical findings at Maya sites is
> spurious. Mayanists rejection is unscientific and
> easily rebutted.
No: this misses the point.
As I said in
a previous post:
Quote
... as we keep saying, the phenomena might be there, but did the Mayans themselves intend their architecture to generate such phenomena?
> Archaeoacoustics is interdisciplinary. It needs
> archaeologists, acousticians, and musicians or
> psychoacousticians.
Not much point, of course, unless it can be shown that the production of such phenomena was intentional on the part of the Maya ...
> Rejecting Mayanists were not just uninterested in
> objective consideration of acoustical findings at
> Chichen Itza. They were downright hostile.
> Mayanists didn’t recognize that acoustics is a
> hard science. Confronted with novel evidence,
> rejecting Mayanists covered their ears and raised
> the drawbridge. That’s simply bad science!
>
> That’s the difference between Mayanists who reject
> intentional acoustics at Chichen Itza and the
> multidisciplinary team at Stanford assembled by
> CCRMA to study Chavín de Huántar. Contrast their
> response with Stanford, whose paper for the
> forthcoming AAAS meeting is titled:
>
> “A Multidisciplinary Methodology for Studying
> Ancient Auditory Environments”
The abstract can be found
here, and includes a reference to:
Quote
the difficult case for intention in acoustic design.
However, as Kat pointed out in
this post:
Quote
...I'm aware of Chavin de Huantar and mentioned it's acoustical properties
in this post on this thread.
The difference between Chavin and the Mesoamerican sites is the ability to prove intention.
> I would gladly have invited Mayanists to speak at
> AAAS. But since they did no science they had
> nothing to contribute.
The problem here, as Kat intimated in her previous post, is that acoustic scientists don't necessarily have an in-depth knowledge of Mayan culture.
> Wayne Van Kirk tried valiantly to persuade
> Mayanists to consider evidence he patiently
> collected for intentional sound at Maya sites.
> Quite a few Mayanists wrote in support of his
> postings.
Could you cite any names? So far, the only Mesoamericanist mentioned by Wayne is Paul Pettennude.
> But the institutional response was
> ridicule and rejection.
>
> That’s when I became interested. As a recognized
> acoustical scientist I thought I could speak to
> other scientists across disciplinary lines. Since
> institutional Mayanists minds were closed. I did
> my best to substitute for them. Our work product
> should improve if Mayanists participate in the
> research instead of obstructing it.
I suspect that one of the main reasons why Mayanists haven't accepted your theories is because of a lack of supporting cultural evidence.
> Here's what's new. Acoustics introduces a new form
> of evidence that is essentially independent of
> culture.
The study of acoustical phenomena certainly seems to have gathered momentum in recent decades.
However, that does not necessarily mean that the ancient Maya realized that their architecture would generate such phenomena ...
So where, then, is the cultural evidence that the Maya did design their buildings with such effects in mind?
> If Mayanists interpretations and
> confident acoustical findings appear to conflict,
> it is the Mayanists task to reconcile them.
Actually, it isn't: the burden falls on those suggesting the new theories. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence from the proponents of the extraordinary claims.
> About a decade ago I was contacted by an academic
> historian of science at a university in Arizona
> who was following the acoustical debate with
> fascination. Archaeologist’s hostility to evidence
> of intentional acoustic design mirrored an earlier
> conflict between archaeoastronomy advocates
> (Anthony Aveni and others) and archaeologists.
> Aveni believed some ancient ritual sites were
> designed to be astronomical observatories. The
> opposition demanded epigraphic evidence that the
> ancients were aware of periodicity of the sun,
> moon, and stars. Eventually, Aveni provided that
> evidence, and archaoastronomy became accepted -
> after about a quarter of a century. The science
> historian thought archaeoacoustics was following a
> parallel path. But archaeoacoustics IS becoming
> accepted science. Unless Mayanist attitude
> changes, the joint paper you asked for will not be
> written, and history will not remember
> rejectionists kindly.
As you say, cultural evidence for Mayan interest in astronomical cycles was eventually forthcoming - for example, Venus symbolism (a bundle of years, with eight dots) from the platform of Venus at Chichen Itza; and Lamb's count of the number of Xs (584 - the number of Earth days in a Venus synodic period) on the facade of the Nunnery at Uxmal.
But where is the corresponding cultural evidence for Mayan knowledge of, and planning for, the production of
acoustical phenomena in their architecture?
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me