David Lubman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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 I understand it, there is already wide acceptance of evidence of some archaeoacoustical phenomena - namely, conch shells and other such objects.

Conch shells, however, are in a different class from alleged archaeoacoustical-architectural phenomena - chirps, rattles, etc.

Nevertheless, as soon as it can be seen that there is corroborating cultural evidence that ties in with archaeoacoustical-architectural theories, I am sure that the latter will start to enjoy closer scrutiny by Mesoamerican academics, eventually leading to wider acceptance.

Trouble is, corroborating cultural evidence seems rather thin on the ground at the moment ...

> 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.

What else would you have expected archaeologists to do?

> The only proof they'd accept
> was epigraphic. Somehow, advocates came up with
> acceptable epigraphy.

The "somehow" here presumably refers to the manner in which the previously unrealised significance of phenomena such as iconography and architectural alignments, together with other evidence in e.g. the Dresden Codex, was gradually revealed after close scrutiny by academics such as Lamb and Aveni, whose areas of expertise include not only archaeoastronomy, but also anthropology.

> 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 don't know why it wouldn't be evidence of '"vibrant sounds" of the ballgame heard in the ballcourt,' which sounds perfectly reasonable. This, however, is not, as I understand it, the same thing as archaeoacoustical-architectural theories that make claims about chirps, rattles, etc.

> 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.

OK ...

"archaeoacoustic scoffers" - I can speak only for myself here. However, as previously mentioned, I see no reason why certain objects and phenomena, such as conch shells (and, in another context, the shofarot of ancient Israel) should not have been used to produce certain sounds in certain contexts.

However, what I am asking for is evidence to support certain archaeoacoustical-architectural claims - mainly chirping and rattling - that have been put forward here.

To sum up: I question some archaeoacoustical theories, but accept some others. A distinction therefore has to be drawn between these two responses to certain theories.

> Why should archaeoacoustics' advocates need to
> meet a higher standard of evidence than
> archaeoastronomy?

Who said that they had to "meet a higher standard"?

Why can they not meet the same, or a similar, standard of evidence as that of Mayan archaeoastronomy?

> Observe that facts and arguments considered so far
> in this post are strongly cultural and only
> incidently acoustical.

So far, you've mentioned Houston & Taube's '"vibrant sounds" of ballcourt play' (which I've already discussed), and then the problems faced by Mesoamerican archaeoastronomers in finding acceptance by the wider Mesoamerican academic community. I can't see how these references tie in with this particular comment, though.

> 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.

I don't think that this statement has been expressed with sufficient clarity.

What we are principally concerned with here are alleged archaeoacoustical-architectural contexts. It has been suggested that certain auditory phenomena allegedly produced at some ancient sites constitutes "evidence of intentional acoustic design" on the part of the architects. However:

(a) not everyone necessarily accepts that these auditory phenomena exist anyway; and

(b) even if the phenomena do exist, it still doesn't necessarily mean that the Mayan architects deliberately designed their buildings with this in mind. Some other form of evidence of intention is therefore required.

> But we have such
> evidence.

Excellent! This would be cultural evidence of the sort that eventually came to light in support of Mesoamerican archaeoastronomical theories? When can we see this new cultural evidence?

> When list skeptics accept the legitimacy
> of scholarly search for intentionality.

All such searches are, of course, perfectly legitimate. The problem seems to be the nature of what constitutes "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!

We hope that you will share your discoveries with us, and look forward to evaluating and discussing them.


Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me