Set the wild echoes flying.

Set the wild echoes flying. BARRY BLESSER & LINDA-RUTH SALTER. Spaces speak, are youlistening? Experiencing aural architecture. xiv+438 pages, 21illustrations. 2007. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology; 978-0-262-02605-5 hardback [pounds sterling]25.95. CHRIS SCARRE Chris Scarre is a leading writer in the fields of archeology and ancient history. He took his MA and PhD degrees at Cambridge University. From 1984 to 1988 he was editor of the acclaimed Past Worlds: The Times Atlas and Archeology & GRAEME LAWSON (ed.). Archaeoacoustics. x+126pages, 68 illustrations, 5 tables. 2006. Cambridge: McDonald Institutefor Archaeological Research The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research is a research institute of the University of Cambridge in England. HistoryThe Institute was established in 1990 through a generous benefaction from the late Dr D. M. McDonald, a well-known and successful industrialist. ; 1-902937-35-X hardback [pounds sterling]25. Second only to scent as the most evanescent ev��a��nes��centadj.Of short duration; passing away quickly. of sensations, soundwould seem particularly elusive of archaeological inquiry. And yet--andobviously--human life is inherently aural, and ancient sound isintertwined in our species' evolution and social existence.Throughout prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to humans have extended the ambit of sound withinstruments, specially created spaces, and composed tonalities. For suchreasons, at some level archaeology must consider ancient sound, even ifin a partially deaf manner. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The two volumes under review form a complementary pair of texts,although not a perfect fit. Barry Blesser and Linda-Ruth Salter'sbook, Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?, is a broad overview, an oftenengaging introduction to aural architecture and spatial acoustics.Archaeoacoustics, edited by Chris Scarre and Graeme Lawson, is acollection of conference papers that present specific case studies aboutthe creation of auditory spaces and, to a lesser extent, the developmentof culturally formalised Adj. 1. formalised - concerned with or characterized by rigorous adherence to recognized forms (especially in religion or art); "highly formalized plays like `Waiting for Godot'"formalistic, formalized sounds in ritual and music. Each book has itsstrengths and weaknesses. Spaces speak Blesser and Salter present their volume as an introduction to auralarchitecture, an inherently multi-disciplinary inquiry into 'theproperties of a space that can be experienced by listening' (p. 5).Arguing that architectural studies have been dominated by the visualsense, the authors point out that while the aural properties of concerthalls, cathedrals and other musical spaces have beenstudied--essentially as constructed extensions of musicalinstruments--the aural architecture of religious, political and socialspaces has not been systematically explored. The authors' agenda is intentionally multi-dimensional andwhile only two chapters (discussed below) would seem directly relevantto an archaeology of sound, in fact there are many points ofarchaeological interest throughout the volume. Thus the chapter entitled'Scientific Perspectives on Spatial Acoustics,' while largelyconcerned with the design of concert halls, includes a bracingly flankdiscussion of the difficulties of studying auditory spatial awareness.The chapter 'Spatial Innovators and Their Private Agendas'focuses on how modern audial au��di��al?adj.Of or relating to the sense of hearing; aural.[audi(o)- + -al1.] architects and kindred specialists aredivided among different scientific sub-cultures and academicdisciplines, but also discusses the social implications of newsoundscapes--an issue relevant for archaeologists thinking aboutprehistoric sound. Two chapters are of immediate archaeological interest. Aural Spacesfrom Prehistory to the Present' is an historical overview filledwith stimulating notions that archaeologists might pursue. For example,Blesser and Salter introduce the concept of an audial icon--anearcon--'a sonic event that contains special iconic meaning notpresent in the sound wave' (p. 82). They cite examples ofprehispanic West Mexican bells and the Aeolian harp Aeolian harpStringed instrument played by the wind (named for the wind god Aeolus). It is usually a long, narrow, shallow box with soundholes and 10 or 12 strings strung lengthwise between two bridges. of ancient Greece The term ancient Greece refers to the periods of Greek history in Classical Antiquity, lasting ca. 750 BC[1] (the archaic period) to 146 BC (the Roman conquest). It is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of Western Civilization. ,an instrument whose taut strings made audible by the passage of wind;archaeological readers may think of other earcons, such as theprehispanic Andean Strombus shell trumpet or the flat drum of nativeNorth America. Blesser and Salter's historical synopsis (pp.94-108) of soundscapes and public spaces in western Europe shouldstimulate archaeologists to consider the audial correlates of sedentism,settlement density, and urbanism. 'Auditory Spatial Awareness as Evolutionary Artifact' isthe weakest chapter, dealing with a subject the authors apparently donot command. For starters, the authors argue that auditory spatialawareness is the product of evolution: well, what else could it be? Yet,when they contend that 'The same evolutionary pressure that ledindividual species to optimize their auditory cortex auditory cortexn.The region of the cerebral cortex that receives auditory data from the medial geniculate body. Also called auditory area. for differentfunctions also operates on small groups of individuals living in theirparticular soundscape sound��scape?n.An atmosphere or environment created by or with sound: the raucous soundscape of a city street; a play with a haunting soundscape. niche' (p. 347), they expose a theoreticalnaivete na��ive��t��or na��?ve��t�� ?n.1. The state or quality of being inexperienced or unsophisticated, especially in being artless, credulous, or uncritical.2. An artless, credulous, or uncritical statement or act. that is earnest but unfounded. Blesser and Salter's summaryof the evolution of mind is well meant, but not attuned to currentcontroversies regarding genetics and natural selection, such as thecomplex overlapping functions of genes. Their background research isspotty: they cite, for example, Leslie Aiello's work on theexpensive tissue hypothesis, but overlook Aiello and Dunbar's workon neocortex size, social group size, and the evolution oflanguage--which is immediately relevant to their discussion. As for theproposition that 'We may speculate that those [humans] with anenhanced auditory spatial awareness had ancestors living in anenvironment where that ability had survival value' (p. 346), isthere any earthly environment where such ability does not have survivalvalue? Overlooking such flaws, Blesser and Salter provide an engagingand often very stimulating overview of the relationships between soundand space, and their book comes close to a primer for archaeologistsinterested in the effective qualities of sound. Archaeoacoustics The contributors to Archaeoacoustics approach the sounds of thepast via a specific and difficult question: even in spaces that havedistinctive audial properties, are the properties intentionalcharacteristics or accidental side-effects? As Aaron Watson (p. 11)notes, '"Intentionality intentionalityProperty of being directed toward an object. Intentionality is exhibited in various mental phenomena. Thus, if a person experiences an emotion toward an object, he has an intentional attitude toward it. " describes the deliberateinvestment of purpose or meaning' either in an artefact See artifact. ,archaeological feature, site, or landscape. In his introductory chapter,'Sound, Place, and Space: Towards an Archaeology ofAcoustics,' Scarre explores this issue of intentionality andusefully compares it to an analogous problem in archaeoastronomy ar��chae��o��as��tron��o��my?n.The study of the knowledge, interpretations, and practices of ancient cultures regarding celestial objects or phenomena.ar . Justas a built environment may have an associated acoustic effect (e.g. anecho), features in the built environment may have an associatedastronomical event (e.g. a solstice alignment). How does one demonstratethat the associations were intentional in the built environment'sdesign? While Scarre proposes two broad lines of validation--patternedrepetition and closeness of fit--other authors explore intentionality inmore specific ways. For example, Steven J. Waller examines the correlation betweenechoing locations and the placement of rock art in two sites (HorseshoeCanyon, Utah and Hieroglyphic hieroglyphic(hī'rəglĭf`ĭk, hī'ərə–)[Gr.,=priestly carving], type of writing used in ancient Egypt. Similar pictographic styles of Crete, Asia Minor, and Central America and Mexico are also called hieroglyphics Canyon, Arizona), arguing that theplacement of rock art and the strength of echoes are positivelyassociated. Similarly, Iegor Reznikoff examines evidence for resonancein a variety of architectural and natural spaces. Parallel toWaller's analysis, Reznikoff finds statistical correlations betweenthe placement of rock art motifs and the audial properties of caves,but, in an interesting extension, points out that caverns and cathedralsshare properties--vaulted chambers and pillars--that enhance resonanceand allow for the 'magic practice [of] singing with echoes'(p. 83). Shifting from spaces to instruments, Francisco d'Errico andGraeme Lawson apply 15 criteria to three sets of bone pipes from UpperPalaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, and medieval contexts. Their analysisleads them to accept the medieval and Upper Palaeolithic pipes asmusical artefacts, but to reject the Middle Palaeolithic object as acave-bear femur femur(fē`mər): see leg. punctured by carnivores rather than carved by Mousteriancraftsmen. Conversely, Peter Holmes's study of Bronze AgeScandinavian lurs--thin, cast-brass, lip-reed horns shaped into elegantcurving pairs--indicates that these objects were intentionally mademusical instruments (a conclusion that this reviewer, frankly, foundless than earth-shattering.) Several of the authors deal with the technical challenges ofstudying soundscapes. Ian Cross and Aaron Watson offer a brief overviewof the acoustics of socially organised sounds, questioning whetherstandard 'Western' methods of approaching sound are relevantfor understanding 'pre-modern' experience. They conclude thatwhile the application of standard acoustic methods provides initialstrategies for studying the soundscapes of archaeological sites'rather more work needs to be done to further elucidate themeanings, emotions or powers that ancient soundscapes embodies for thepeople who embodied them' (p. 115). Watson tackles this questionfurther in an engaging essay discussing methods and interpretations ofthe acoustic ambiguities of Neolithic monuments. Less ambiguous soundscapes are the Greco-Roman amphitheatresdiscussed by Eleonora Rocconi, who marshals Classical sources onacoustics and architecture and demonstrates that 'there was indeedamongst the ancient Greeks and Romans an acoustic intentionality...whichwas mindful of acoustic laws, even if their scientific approach wasmainly an empirical-deductive one' (p. 75). In sum, each of thesestudies focus on the issue of intentionality, i.e. whether anarchaeological site or artefact was intentionally selected or modifiedbased on its audial properties. I understand the importance of intentionality, but it isfrustrating that so many authors fail to explore the social implicationsof prehistoric intentions. Only a few of the authors consider what theinstruments and acoustic spaces were intended to do. An exception isIain Morley's survey of hunter-gatherer music that draws'attention to the diversities and similarities of musicalbehaviours and instrumentation' and to the 'implications whichthese hold for the use of acoustical space in the past' (p. 96).His conclusions? Music and dance 'may have an important role inengendering group cohesion and altering mood': most attendeesparticipate in the music unless there are ritual roles assigned tospecific individuals, most of the music is vocal and percussive per��cus��sive?adj.Of, relating to, or characterized by percussion.per��cussive��ly adv. , andsome music is lyrical while other sound 'consists of non-lyricalvocables and animal sounds' (p. 103). Ezra Zubrow and ElizabethBlake also consider intentionality, but as one, although important,issue in the larger problems of the prehistoric transition frompre-music to music. They propose a hypothesis linking human heartbeats,the tempo of flint knapping and the origins of rhythm, just one elementin an interesting article that serves as a research design intoprehistoric sound systems. Again, these papers generally avoid discussing the socialimplications of prehistoric sound. This avoidance is partly due to theoriginal conference's emphasis on intentionality, but clearly mostarchaeologists would be interested in the social significance of sound.Were prehistoric sound systems creations vital for human adaptation orare they epiphenomena? Is evidence for acoustic intentionalitycorrelated with other developments in the evolution of mind (e.g. withother symbolic systems)? What is the social significance of correlatingrock art placement and echoes, and what does it imply when other sitesof the same cultural traditions (e.g. the Barrier Canyon Rock Art stylethat Waller studies) lack those acoustic properties? As an archaeologist who has written on the ancient experience ofplace, I wish these volumes had been published sooner, as they representmajor advances in the reconstruction of aural experience. Further, theyare valuable resources for thinking about how an 'archaeology ofthe senses' might proceed. These two books leave numerous questionsunanswered, but point to new directions for archaeological research intothe sound of the past. Jerry D. Moore, Department of Anthropology, California StateUniversity Enrollment Dominguez Hills, 1000 E. Victoria Street, Carson, CA 90747,USA (Email: jmoore@csudh.edu)