David Lubman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My AAAS
> abstract hits hard on intentional design
> . Intentional design is a cornerstone of
> scientific archaeoacoustics.
>
> intentionality is central in in the McDonald
> Institute for Archaeological Research monograph
> "Archaeoacoustics" edited by Chris Scarre and
> Graeme Lawson, (2006). I echo that view in my
> review of that monograph .. in J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
> Volume 121, Issue 4, pp. 1819-1819 (2007); (1
> page)
>
> It is illogical to demand intentionality be proven
> before it is investigated.
It's equally illogical to suppose that the presence of acoustical phenomena necessarily indicates the presence of original intention on the part of the architects.
> Why Was that demand
> imposed? And by whom?
It's a demand that would be inherent in many new theories. (See "Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation" in
this Wiki article.
>
> Compare the stale response of the Mesoamerican
> community to that of Stanford's CCRMA. Their
> archaeologists are very comfortable with questions
> of intentionality. But it didn't stop them from
> creating a fruitful multidisciplinary project.
>
> If adversaries predicted CCRMA would inherit the
> wind by pursuing such obvious nonsense, they were
> wrong. Look! Just look at how much the Chavin
> project is contributing to learning about ths
> Chavin culture. In good part by studying its
> acoustics.
>
> Some mesoamericanists would dismiss
> archaeoacoustics because its early fruit
> challenged preexisting beliefs.
More likely because, in many cases (in particular, the alleged rattlesnake/chirping) they (the Mesoamericanists) can't see any cultural evidence to support the new theories.
> Are they control
> freaks? Most researchers learn to live with
> ambiguity.
I don't think that making belittling observations about Mesoamericanists is going to advance the archaeoacoustical cause much.
> How refreshingly different CCRMA's response. They
> lead with archaeoacoustics.
>
> Do you still believe archaeoacoustics is
> alternative archaeology?
One more time: what I would like to see is cultural evidence in support of some of the archaeoacoustical-architectural theories that you present.
> I think that that may be
> what you started out to prove.
I haven't "started out to prove" anything. Rather, it's the archaeoacoustical-architectural school of thought that appears to be demanding that - despite the apparent absence of supporting cultural evidence - their own theories should be imposed on current views on Mayan history.
Weldon Lamb counted 584 Xs at the Nunnery at Uxmal: just one more piece of evidence in support of the theory that the Maya carried out astronomical observations of the planet Venus. In the light of this and other evidence, the former accepted view of Mayan culture was revised to accommodate their ability as observers of astronomical phenomena.
But, as I asked before, where is the corresponding evidence that would support some of the archaeoacoustical-architectural that we've seen put forward? Many of your and Wayne Van Kirk's recent suggestions about rattlesnakes, plumed serpents, etc., do not appear to have withstood critical examination. Why has the archaeoacoustical-architectural school not sought to address, and refute, Mesomaericanists' objections to such recent suggestions?
In other words, why haven't you answered Bernard? Is it because the archaeoacoustical-architectural school doesn't have the extensive knowledge of Mayan thought, history and culture that would enable them to do so?
> If so, I hope to
> provide more reasons for you to reconsider.
Cultural evidence: that's what I want to see. I repeat: where is it?
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me