Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sirfiroth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jammer wrote: I mean, who develops a written
> > language and then doesn't write of the
> > cornerstones of their beliefs?
>
> > How do you know it was a cornerstone of their
> > beliefs? Can you prove it wasn't written down?
>
> I don't KNOW if acoustics was important to them. I
> asked anyone who had actual knowledge if they had
> glyphs that represented sounds...
> My concept was "if they didn't have a written
> representation then acoustics couldn't have been a
> very important part of their design"...
>
> I ASKED because i didn't know the answer. That's a
> good way for these boards to function.
> It's called open minded learning...
>
> > Truthfully Jammer, we just don't know,
> > so why not give the benefit of the doubt and
> > explore the possibilities.
>
> That WOULD be what I meant by "I for one have no
> problem with accepting statements "it may have
> been deliberate"
>
> Jammer
You ask if Maya had written representations for sound. If graphic representations are acceptable the answer is YES!
Start with Mayan "speech scrolls". They are strikingly similar to the speech balloons seen in comic strips. Until recently, I believed their scribal content was thought to represent only spoken words.
That conventional wisdom was challenged in a paper by Steven Houston & Karl Taube, who reinterptreted certain speech scrolls as not speech but "vibrant sounds" of ballcourt play.
[“An Archaeology of the Senses: Perceptions & Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10:2 (2000) 261-94).]
Their reinterpretation is offered as epigraphic evidence of Maya awareness of sounds of play in ballcourts. It resonates with their paper's title, since sound is one of our five (six?) senses. Sensory archaeology is already a major trend in archaeology.
Their abstract includes:
"The ancient Maya and other Mesoamerican peoples showed an intense interest in invoking the senses, especially hearing, sight, and smell.”
The authors reinterpreted certain scrolls seen in a ballcourt rollout to signify "vibrant sounds"of the ballgame heard in the ballcourt. (The critical rollout is Kerr 5435)
Maybe archaeoacoustics won't need to wait for a quarter century for acceptance, as did archaeoastronomy, now widely accepted. Anthony Avini and other advocates found archaeologists resistant. They demanded proof of ancient awareness of periodic motions of the sun, the moon, or the stars. The only proof they'd accept was epigraphic. Somehow, advocates came up with acceptable epigraphy. I was told that's how archaeoastronomy became an accepted science.
Can this specific finding of Houston and Taube be offered as "proof" (actually, evidence) for archaeoacoustics?
I trust that archaeoacoustic scoffers including list editors will promptly challenge these eminent mesoamericanists, as they have challenged us, insisting we have not provided proof of the premise of archaeoacoustics by not showing cultural evidence of it's presence.
Why should archaeoacoustics' advocates need to meet a higher standard of evidence than archaeoastronomy?
Observe that facts and arguments considered so far in this post are strongly cultural and only incidently acoustical. When acoustics fully enters archaeology it brings with it a new set of science based tools. Analytical and experimental tools. Early collaboration between archaeologists and acousticians has already led to significant advancement.
Evidence of sound awareness is still not evidence of intentional acoustic design. But we have such evidence. When list skeptics accept the legitimacy of scholarly search for intentionality.
I hope they will, eventually. Based on fair assessments. Though scholarly challenge is a legitimate part of science, my perception is that archaeoacoustics advocates are having more fun than the devil's advocate, and are making more discoveries too!