Katherine Reece Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Also.. does David Lubman know what precisely is causing the chirp? As in what >architectural feature creates this.
>
Yes, Catherine. David Lubman knows precisely what is causing the chirp. And has subjected his theory to review by his acoustical peers.

But first, thanks for asking an acoustical question in this discussion. It did seem peculiar to dismiss archaeoacoustics as pseudoscience without considering the supporting acoustical evidence.

My first paper on this subject (1988) reported my discovery of the match between the echo sonogram at the temple of Kukulkan and a free quetzal in its natural habitat - the cloud forest. I presented my analysis of the chirp mechanism in 2002 in an oral paper at the First Pan-American/Iberian Meeting on Acoustics in Cancun, Mexico:: "Acoustical features of two Mayan monuments at Chichen Itza: Accident or design? Abstract at: [adsabs.harvard.edu]

That paper outlined the physical/mathematical theory of the chirped echo, showed my computer simulations, and demonstrated that results compared favorably with field recordings.

The abstract clearly shows that it was offered as a cultural hypothesis to explain actual site sound recordings. Not as a pronouncement of historical fact.

A post-meeting excursion to Chichen Itza by about 200 acoustical scientists and their families allowed successful demonstrations of the chirped echo and two whispering gallery effects in the Great Ballcourt. I must say that most were stunned! Most mesoamericanists on a certain newsgroup denied that there was a whispering gallery, or said it comes and goes mysteriously. (Wrong! It's there and rock solid!) They hadn't noticed the echo at Kukulkan either. When I reported the echo their "establishment" dismissed it with a pseudoscientific explanation. I look forward to an opportunity to report their argument and explain why it is transparently bogus.

Details of the physics of my "quetzal hypothesis" are given in: "Convolution-scattering model for staircase echoes at the temple of Kukulkan". Acoustics ’08, Paris, France, June/July 2008. [intellagence.eu.com] .

Its conclusion was:

"A hypothesis for intentional design of the chirped echo is suggested. It provides a motivation for intentional design from the history and mythology of the Maya and the natural sounds of their ancient environment"

Please notice that I was and am offering a hypothesis. I am not stating this as a historical fact. That's one reason I'm bewildered by your insistence that the quetzal hypothesis must first be proven as historical fact before reporting my hypothesis.

Our discussion has not previously considered acoustical evidence for intentional design at Chichen Itza's "Great Ballcourt": Acoustics of the Great Ball Court at Chichen Itza, Mexico, on web as an ASA Lay Paper [www.acoustics.org]

This paper was favorably reviewed by Discovery News science writer Jennifer Viegas" who quotes British archaeologist Chris Scare (in part) as follows:

" .. Historical Maya writings paint a fuller picture of the games once played on the court, telling of hallucinogenic drugs that may have further heightened the auditory illusions. Fragrant incense has also been unearthed at the site.

Chris Scarre, a professor of archaeology at Durham University in England, recently conducted a survey of acoustical features in ancient structures. He told Discovery News that Lubman's research is "convincing and exciting."

In addition to Mesoamerican structures, Scarre said sound effects can be heard in Paleolithic caves and various European structures, including St. Paul's Cathedral in London, which has a whispering gallery.

"We do not know in detail how (the more ancient) sites were used, and the challenge is to discover a methodology that enables us to construct a convincing argument," Scarre said, adding that he hopes the research "brings sound, music and hearing back into archaeological discussion."

I think you'll agree that Chris Scarre, though not particularly a mesoamericanist (his specialty is early man), stands among the outstanding archaeologists of our times. Yet he too finds this research "convincing and exciting".

If you do denounce this hypothesis as pseudoscience, please copy me on your report to archaeologists Chris Scare, who finds much to like about it, and Brian Fagan, who treats it favorably in his forthcoming intro to archaeology text. They will surely want to know why you believe they have been taken in by charlatans.

But if your attitude toward archaeoacoustics softens, as I hope it will, we may continue - though at serious risk of learning from one-another as specialists in different fields of science.