You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Applied Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

12 February 2023

Archaeoacoustics around the World: A Literature Review (2016–2022)

,
and
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey 64849, NL, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Acoustics and Vibrations

Abstract

Acoustics has been integrated with archaeology to better understand the social and cultural context of past cultures. Specifically, public events such as rituals or ceremonies, where an appreciation of sound propagation was required to hold an event. Various acoustic techniques have been used to study archaeological sites, providing information about the building characteristics and organizational structures of ancient civilizations. This review aims to present recent advances in Archaeoacoustics worldwide over the last seven years (2016–2022). For this purpose, one hundred and five articles were identified and categorized into two topics: (1) Archaeoacoustics in places, and (2) Archaeoacoustics of musical instruments and pieces. In the first topic, three subtopics were identified: (1) measurement and characterization of places, (2) rock art, and (3) simulation, auralization, and virtualization. Regarding the first subtopic, it was identified that the standards for reverberation times in enclosures are generally applied in their development. In the second subtopic, it was determined that the places selected to make paintings were areas with long reverberation time. The last subtopic, simulation, auralization, and virtualization, is the area of most remarkable growth and innovation. Finally, this review opens the debate to seek standardization of a measurement method that allows comparing results from different investigations.

1. Introduction

Archaeoacoustics is the study of archaeological sites through their sound and acoustic characteristics [1,2,3]. Namely, it is the application of acoustics in archaeological spaces [1]. On the one hand, acoustics is a branch of physics that studies the production and propagation of sound waves. Furthermore, it could be defined as the study of the generation, transmission, and reception of energy found in the form of vibratory waves that move through matter, including fluids, solids, or gases [4]. On the other hand, archaeology could be defined as a social science that studies the material remains left by past societies [5]. Additionally, as Subias [6] states, historic archaeology could be defined as the study of the past that has a written record to base research on, while prehistoric is defined as the study of the past that does not have a written record.
Recently, the number of studies on sound generation and propagation in worldwide archaeological sites has been increasing since they have revealed the social and cultural behaviors of ancient societies [1,2]. For example, ancient builders considered auditory conditions (e.g., nature sounds) to make their constructions [2]. In addition to acoustics, archeology has also been supported by physics, anthropology, and architecture to study ancient daily activities, including all those where sound was a key element, such as music production [7].
So far, Archaeoacoustics has had a wide variety of study aims, including socio-political studies to obtain information among different cultures [8]. To meet these aims, it has been necessary to establish methodologies that allow acoustic characterization in archaeological sites with different conditions (e.g., level of conservation). For this purpose, researchers have undertaken their field investigations in several ways, which hinders the reporting of repeatable, reproducible, and comparable results. Therefore, it is required to standardize the acoustic procedures to ensure similar quality characterizations of archaeological zones [9,10]. In this review, the following acoustic parameters were identified as the most used to characterize archeological sites:
  • Reverberation time (T60)—A parameter to measure how long a sound remains after the sound source is turned off. It is measured in seconds and is obtained when the sound energy reduces by 60 dB. Similarly, sound energies reduced by 30 dB (T30) and 20 dB (T20) allow the measurement of the reverberation time when it is not possible to have the energy decay at 60 dB [11]. The T60 calculation formula is:
    T 60 = 0.161 V A
    where:
    • V: room volume is in m3;
    • A: total absorption of the room in Sabins.
  • Sound pressure level (SPL)—A parameter to indicate the magnitude of a sound field measured in dB [11]. The SPL formula is:
    SPL = 20 log 10 ( P P o )
    where:
    • P: sound pressure in Pascals;
    • Po: reference sound pressure (20 µPascals).
  • Early decay time (EDT)—A parameter defined as six times elapses since the sound is off until the SPL drops 10 dB, measured in seconds [11].
  • Strength (G)—A parameter defined as the difference between the SPL produced by an omnidirectional source at a point in the room and the SPL produced by the same source located in a free field and measured at a distance of 10 m [11]. The strength formula is:
    G = 10 log 0 P 2 ( t ) dt 0 P A 2 ( t ) dt
    where:
    • P(t): instantaneous sound pressure in Pascals;
    • PA(t): reference sound pressure in Pascals.
  • Articulation loss of consonants (ALcons)—A parameter defined as an indication of the loss of speech intelligibility that occurs in complex acoustic environments [12]. The ALcons formula is:
    ALcons   0.652   ( r LH r H ) 2 T 60   %
    where:
    • r LH : distance sound source-listener;
    • r H : reverberation radius or, critical distance r R , in case of directional sound sources.
  • Speech transmission index (STI)—A parameter between 0 and 1 that indicates the speech transmission quality [11]. The STI formula is:
    STI = ( S / N ¯ ) ap + 15 30
    where:
    • ( S / N ¯ ) ap : total apparent noise/signal.
  • Clarity50 (C50) measures the clarity or intelligibility of speech. It is expressed in decibels. It is related to the sound energy that arrives at a listener within 50 milliseconds [11]. The C50 formula is:
    C 50 = 10 log 0 0.05 P 2 ( t ) dt 0.05 P 2 ( t ) dt
    where:
    • P(t): instantaneous sound pressure in Pascals.
  • Definition (D50) is similar to C50 but is expressed in percentage [12]. The D50 formula is:
    D 50 = 0 0.05 P 2 ( t ) dt 0 P 2 ( t ) dt
    where:
    • P(t): instantaneous sound pressure in Pascals.
  • Clarity80 (C80) measures the clarity or intelligibility of music. It is expressed in dB. It is related to the sound energy that arrives at a listener within 80 milliseconds [11]. The C80 formula is:
    C 80 = 10 log 0 0.08 P 2 ( t ) dt 0.08 P 2 ( t ) dt
    where:
    • P(t): instantaneous sound pressure in Pascals.
In addition to all these acoustic parameters, the most common method used to reproduce audio spatially has been Ambisonics. This method refers to the representation of directional auditory data by using spatial sampling that is then resynthesized through a finite number of point sources [13]. Despite being extensively studied from an architectural standpoint, the acoustic characterization of many archaeological sites has not been thoroughly examined.
Learning more about acoustics and sounds in archaeological sites could provide valuable insights into the cultures and customs of ancient inhabitants. This knowledge not only serves as cultural heritage for humanity, but it is also a way to bring closer the thoughts and worldview of the people who lived in those sites.
However, despite the numerous archaeological sites found worldwide (e.g., Teotihuacan in Mexico, Easter Island in Chile, The Ta Prohm in Cambodia, The Luxor temple in Egypt, Longmen Grottoes in China, and Machu Picchu in Peru), the study of Archaeoacoustics is limited or even nonexistent. Therefore, it is important to consider the most recent scientific advances in this field to identify current research gaps and unanswered questions.
Therefore, the main goal of this paper is to review papers published between 2016 and 2022 in the field of Archaeoacoustics. This review aims to identify recent advances in this field, including (1) the applied technologies to characterize, simulate, or recreate ancient places, (2) the methodologies followed to do so (Section 2), (3) the most relevant findings related to Archaeoacoustics worldwide (Section 3), and (4) a critical opinion about advances towards Archaeoacoustics characterization of worldwide sites (Section 4 and Section 5).

2. Methods

This literature review was carried out based on four steps proposed by [14]. These authors established four main steps:
  • Step 1: Conduct a Search. The databases were analyzed, and those relevant to the study area were established. It was decided to use seven search engines: ScienceDirect, Springer, Scopus, AES E-Library, JASA, Web of Science, and ProQuest. The search was limited to the last seven years [15], 2016 to 2022.
  • Step 2: Identify Keywords. Three keywords were considered for this study, and the following string resulted: Archaeoacoustics OR ((“acoustic measurement” OR “acoustic measurements”) AND (“archaeological site” OR “archaeological sites”)) AND NOT underwater. This string was also used in Spanish to obtain information about Latin America and Spain.
  • Step 3: Review Abstracts and Articles. Three hundred and eighty-six articles were identified, considering all the criteria mentioned above. Chapter thesis, news, and repeated articles were excluded, resulting in one-hundred and five research items.
  • Step 4: Document Results. Every identified article was analyzed, and the findings were summarized and synthesized. The content was encompassed under two categories: (1) Archaeoacoustics in places (ninety-four of them), and (2) Archaeoacoustics of musical instruments and pieces (eleven of them).

Paper Records

The study of acoustics at archaeological sites has been an ongoing field of research for many years. One of the pioneers in the field of Archaeoacoustics is David Lubman, who was interviewed in [16] about echoes. In 1998, two investigations were identified in Mexico. The first one, conducted by David Lubman [17], examines the chirped echoes produced in the pyramids of Chichen Itza. The second one is related to a visual simulation of the acoustic ray hitting. This effect refers to one of the walls of a pyramid at Cholula, which was a novel methodology at the time [18]. Nowadays, it is possible to simulate the acoustics of complete architectural spaces, even considering the construction materials used. As a case in point, a virtual reconstruction and auralization of a medieval cathedral in southern Italy was achieved by [19]. Another example is the study conducted by [20], where the acoustics of two Roman theaters were characterized. Furthermore, acoustic analysis of painted rocks from ancient times have been conducted to investigate whether acoustics were present in ancient cultures (e.g., musical behaviors) [21]. The role of music in ancient cultures has been of great interest, and various studies on musical behaviors and instruments have been conducted, such as the acoustic analysis of wind musical instruments found in Calakmul (Campeche, Mexico) [22].
In line with the literature selected for this review, the following topics and subtopics were considered:
  • Acoustics in archaeological places
    Measurements and characterizations
    Rock art
    Simulation, auralization, and virtualization
  • Musical instruments and pieces

3. Main Findings

3.1. Acoustics in Archaeological Places

3.1.1. Measurement and Characterization

Most investigations on this topic involve conducting measurements on-site at the selected locations, with the exception of the research in [23,24], where a replica of the site was created first. Most of these studies comply with the ISO 3382-1:2009 norm [25], except for [26]. Table 1 and Table 2 present the information related to the characterization of all these worldwide places. Additionally, the research of Đorđević [27] was identified, where a study of vessels was conducted inside churches in Serbia to determine if they were designed and used for acoustic purposes within buildings. The authors found that there is a certain regularity in the position of the vessels that influences the acoustics of the places they studied. Additionally, the investigation of D’Orazio [28] presents a review of acoustic theater designs from 15th to 19th century minor Italian Opera houses. Finally, three investigations using infra and ultrasound and vibration methods were identified to obtain the acoustic characteristics of the sites [29,30,31,32].
Table 1. Archaeoacoustics measurement and characterization of historical worldwide places.
Table 2. Systems and procedures used in measurements and characterization of studies reported in Table 1.

3.1.2. Rock Art

Table 3 describes the investigations related to rock art studies worldwide. In general, works in this category attempted to identify whether acoustic phenomena influenced ancient cultures to select those specific locations for making their paintings. In particular, Diaz Andreu found evidence that inhabitants painted in places with a high level of reverberant sound since they considered the echo to be magical or extraordinary [51]. Waller concluded that some sites were chosen for rock art due to echo, while others were selected due to sound propagation characteristics, as the inhabitants chose these places since sounds could be heard at great distances [52]. Indeed, areas where murals were often painted were generally identified as places with particular acoustic characteristics, such as long reverberation times.
Table 3. Systems and procedures used in rock art studies identified.

3.1.3. Simulation, Auralization, and Virtualization

Table 4 describes the worldwide investigations on simulation, auralization, and virtualization studies. Many of the studies specified the software used, such as CATT-Acoustic, Odeon, Ease, Comsol, Ramsete, IRIS, Dirac, Google Resonance, and Steam Audio. An article by Llorca-Bofí [60] was identified, where simulations and auralizations were carried out from a photogrammetric model of a room. Similar simulations to those performed with manual 3D models were obtained, so this method could be used in other studies. Additionally, a study by Boren [61] was identified, which aimed to determine whether the staging of speeches given by Julius Caesar in ancient Rome were acoustically plausible. Furthermore, an investigation was identified where the acoustic properties of the musical genre Liederistic were studied through an acoustic simulation using the Ramsete software [62].
Table 4. Systems and procedures used in simulation, auralization, and virtualization studies identified.

3.2. Musical Instruments and Pieces

Table 5 summarizes the worldwide research on studies of musical instruments and pieces. The most studied instruments include turtle shells, bullroarers, aerophones, notched idiophones, and wind instruments.
Table 5. Systems and procedures used in musical instruments and pieces studies identified.

4. Discussion

This work reviews recent investigations in the field of Archaeoacoustics from 2016 to 2022. One-hundred and five papers were selected and divided into two categories: (1) Archaeoacoustics in places and (2) Archaeoacoustics of musical instruments and pieces. Ninety-four papers were classified under the first category, and eleven under the second. The first category was further divided into three subtopics: (1) measurement and sound characterization of sites (28 papers), (2) rock art (11 papers), and (3) simulation, auralization, and virtualization of places (55 papers). According to the information obtained, it was identified that in measurement and characterization studies, six papers (27%) were categorized as prehistoric and sixteen papers (73%) as historic. All rock art studies (eleven papers) were prehistoric, while six papers (12%) of simulation, auralization, and virtualization studies were prehistoric, and forty-six papers (88%) were historic. All studies of musical instruments and pieces (eleven papers) were prehistoric.

4.1. Recent Advances

4.1.1. Measurement and Characterization

The research objective of these studies was to measure the acoustics of a particular place and evaluate the key parameters that affect sound propagation. Acoustic characterization is fundamental to comprehend the sound propagation behavior of a place.
In general, researchers of pre-Hispanic zones attempted to understand if inhabitants in those places considered acoustics when constructing their buildings. Authors proposed that these places could have been used for rituals, mass events, and religious events.
Some other authors sought to characterize more recent places to investigate the acoustic behavior of those sites and how they have changed over time. An example of this investigation is the work conducted in the Acheiropoietos Basilica and the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Greece, where authors aimed to explore the choral songs related to the acoustic conditions of the place [34]. Other examples are the research undertaken by Till [35] and Astolfi [36], who acoustically characterized the Paphos Theater in Cyprus, and the theater of Tyndaris in Italy, respectively. They studied the acoustic characteristics of ancient open-air theaters and the use given to these places. Girón investigated the acoustics of two Roman theaters in the Cartaginensis province of Hispania, Spain [20]. In [38], the authors performed the characterization of the Roman theatre in Spain, which has the best-preserved cavea in Hispania and the amphitheater with its southern restored cavea. Study [39] developed the measurements at eight mosques in Turkey. Additionally, there is the case of an investigation in Mexico, where the acoustic characterization of the Cathedral of Mexico City was carried out [37]. Finally, an interesting work to point out is that conducted by Cox, who used a scale model of the Stonehenge ruins to obtain configurations as those presented in ancient times. In this case, the stones could be relocated to analyze different acoustic scenarios [23].
In terms of measurement quality, it is essential to emphasize that several works [20,23,34,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46] were conducted in accordance with the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard, ensuring that results could be reproduced or compared eventually. Moreover, almost all the studies that characterized spaces used loudspeakers as a sound source, with the exception of [37] that used a gun and [24,46] that used balloons. Astolfi also used a second sound source: a firecracker blast [36]. Most of these studies employed measurement microphones, with the exception of [26]. Some studies also utilized portable recorders. Most of the authors calculated acoustic parameters related to the reverberation time, such as T20, T30, EDT, and T60. In [33,36,37,38,39,42,46], parameters C50, C80, D50, and ALcons were included. Additionally, the authors in [26] reported the power spectrum and level attenuation using different sound sources, and [24] obtained the normal modes of their studied site. Regarding the reverberation time, Table 2 presents information on the values obtained in various investigations. It can be observed that these values vary greatly, which is understandable as the studies were conducted in different places such as cathedrals, open and closed theaters, churches, etc. This results in values ranging from as low as 0.5 s to as high as 15 s.

4.1.2. Rock Art

In rock art studies, researchers generally aimed to determine whether the locations chosen for the paintings corresponded to areas with long reverberation times [21,54,57]. They also investigated whether the inhabitants had any prior knowledge of the acoustic properties of the location [51,52,55]. For example, Fazenda explored five caves in Spain and found that murals were painted in areas with moderate reverberation and low frequency resonances [21]. Mattioli analyzed murals painted in shelter areas in France and Italy and used Ambisonics techniques to record sounds. They found that the shelters had a long reverberation time [53]. Rainio studied three rock cliffs in northern Finland, where large-scale murals with various shapes, such as people playing drums, were found. Those rock cliffs presented a high level of reverberant sound, as well. One of the cliffs even generated a phantom sound source, simulating that the sound came from the paintings [54]. Diaz-Andreu investigated murals in Spain, Italy, and France and proposed that the Neolithic artists who painted them had some understanding of acoustics [51]. Waller hypothesized that some ancient paintings served ritual purposes and were painted in caves with strong echoes, simulating that the paintings spoke. They tested this hypothesis by examining several caves, including Horseshoe Canyon, the Cave of Niaux, and the Cave of Cougnac [52]. Commins analyzed the Lascaux cave, where large bull paintings were found. They found significant echoes in the areas where the paintings were made [55]. A method for measuring the acoustic properties of the Sierra de San Serván area in Extremadura (Spain) was proposed in [57]. The authors used transmission loss (TL) analysis to determine the audibility of distant sounds and concluded that prehistoric artists believed that sounds went beyond their paintings. In Mexico, Díaz-Andreu showed that ancient artists selected the best sonic landscapes to paint their murals in Baja California Sur [56]. In [46], the authors acoustically analyzed three caves out of the 12 Kanheri Caves located in India and found that one of them had high levels of reverberant sound, around 5.145 s. In [58], the authors reported that murals in the Lower Chuya River were located in places where sound is amplified, and music and speech are clearly diffused.
To carry out the acoustic characterization, some works, including [21,46,53,58], followed the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard. Some authors such as [21,54] used frequency sweeps, while others, such as [46,53,55,56,58], generated impulsive noise. Works including [46,53,56] used air balloons, and in [55], concussion idiophones were preferred. The most relevant findings of the selected literature are described in Table 3.

4.1.3. Simulation, Auralization, and Virtualization

Works encompassed under this topic include: (1) simulations of various historical sites [63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,72,76,77,78,79,80,81,86,87,88,92,93] and (2) virtual reality and auralization models of the studied areas [19,71,73,74,75,82,83,84,85,89,90,91,94,95]. The most relevant studies are described as follows:
Alonso performed a 3D simulation of the Cathedral of Granada in Spain to study its acoustic characterization over three different historical periods [63]. Alberdi carried out a similar investigation in Church San Luis de Los Franceses in Spain, where, using acoustic simulations, they studied the church changes throughout history [72]. Acoustic simulations were also performed at the Royal Palace of Caserta in Italy to study the spatial distribution [64]. D’Orazio performed an acoustic simulation of St. John Baptistery in Italy to understand its historical evolution [70]. Suarez made an acoustic simulation of the Islamic temple Aljama Mosque of Cordoba in Spain to obtain different constructive configurations of the past of this temple to reconstruct the historical sound [68]. Sender presented the virtual and acoustic reconstruction of the 14th-century church of the Jeromite monastery of Santa Maria de la Murta in Alzira. This work studies the acoustic evolution of the existing church in comparison with a reconstruction of the destroyed or poorly conserved rooms [75].
In [79], the acoustics of the Palais du Trocadero (1878–1937) were studied through simulations. Those simulations were based on the theory of sound perception and reflections of the first order. However, their method produced many echoes. In 1909, they tried to correct this problem by placing absorbent material, which did not work as expected. The conclusion was that the reflections were reduced using absorbent materials, but a total solution to the problem was not achieved due to surface forms.
In [77], the prediction of Bagenal was studied. This established that the Thomaskirche church had a shorter reverberation in Bach’s time from 1723 to 1750 than in the 16th century, as a result of the Lutheran alterations. They concluded that when the church in 1723 was empty, it had a lower T30 value than today. In contrast, the church in 1539 was more reverberant than today, but when the church had the presence of people, the T30 was less significant. In [81], researchers developed a simulation of the Bell Church to archive the best results from possible constructive materials. The absorption coefficient was acquired using an impedance tube to achieve a similar simulation to the original place. In [78], the authors studied the proscenium of The Alighieri Theatre in Ravenna. They concluded that the proscenium increased the sound force of the soloists, but the intelligibility was reduced. In [67], the authors developed a simulation in the archaeological site named Las Pailas in Argentina to determine the best places to see and hear correctly around the place.
Additionally, Iannace carried out acoustic simulations of the theaters Taormina, Pompeii, and Benevento in Italy to estimate their acoustic features, considering that they were crowded with people. They concluded that acoustics change according to the geometry of the theater and it is influenced by the audience [65]. In [76], researchers developed the simulation of the Lazarica Church to study the acoustic and construction traditions of the place. The study of Kopij was carried out in the Roman Forum, Italy. Initially, they sought to identify the best areas for holding conferences. Once those points were determined, they conducted acoustic simulations of the place to know the approximate number of people who would simultaneously listen to a meeting or event [69]. Duran also developed a simulation of Beaulieu Abbey. They found that it was constructed for promoting sacral music rather than intelligibility [80].
On the other hand, Bo performed simulations of the Syracuse theater in Italy to compare the accuracy of the Odeon and CATT-Acoustic software [66]. Selfridge sought to identify the effectiveness of two audio plugins used in audio spatialization in immersive virtual environments: (1) Google Resonance, and (2) Steam Audio. For this purpose, they did an acoustic simulation of the Hall of St Cecilia in Scotland. They tested two architectonical configurations: one of 1769 and the other of 2018 [74]. Additionally, they performed two different auralizations of sounds. They finally performed a subjective evaluation with participants to determine if they listened differently to these two auralizations. They found that most participants could distinguish between them. Autio undertook a similar investigation. They performed an auralization of Vadstena abbey church in Sweden, as it was in 1470 [71]. In [82,83], the authors developed 3D models of the cathedral of Saint Albert to make a virtual representation of the place to recreate the site using immersive techniques. Grazioli and Rumsey carried out an interactive virtual reality experience of the cathedral of Saint Albert, Italy. They first created a 3D model of the area since the church is currently in ruins. They acoustically characterized the place and auralized the sounds. Later, participants were exposed to the auralized sounds in a virtual reality model to evaluate the degree of sound presence [19,73].

4.1.4. Musical Instruments and Pieces

In the study conducted by Katz, a 3D printer was used to recreate a flute from the Mayan culture located in a Guatemalan museum. The replica was made using photogrammetry techniques [117]. Gillreath-Brown recreated turtle shell rattles found in the United States to prove that these shells were used as musical instruments [114]. Kumbani and Rusch attempted to prove if the bullroarers found in Africa were used as musical instruments, specifically as an aerophone [115,116]. In Latin America, investigators have opted for the characterization of musical instruments into acoustically conditioned cameras. Some of the most relevant studies have been (1) Mayan triple flutes from the archaeological sites of Jaina in Mexico and Copan in Honduras [118], (2) notched idiophones from Teotenango in Mexico [119], (3) aerophones from Calakmul in Mexico [22], (4) horns, trumpets, and pipes [120], and quadruple flutes [121] both in Teotihuacan Mexico.

4.2. Overview of the Main Contributions

4.2.1. Measurement and Characterization

Nowadays, there has been significant progress in simulation, virtualization, and auralization, which enable modifications of materials [74] or constructive features [63,72]. In many instances, this technology can even bring a closer replication of the original sound environment. Auralization and evaluation of sound perception within the environment are also possible. Note that it has been essential to consider the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard to ensure the validity, reproducibility, and comparability of the results obtained.
It is believed that ancient inhabitants had a basic understanding of acoustics and built their structures taking into account the sound properties of the environment, particularly for adding mysticism to religious ceremonies or events. One notable study in this area was the recreation of Stonehenge by Cox. However, this type of model reproduction is only feasible for smaller structures, such as Stonehenge, and not for larger structures such as the pyramids in Mexico, where the size and number of buildings make replication difficult [23].

4.2.2. Rock Art

There is no established methodology for conducting acoustic measurements in relation to rock art. However, new techniques, such as Ambisonics for sound recording, have been incorporated. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of adhering to the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard and using loudspeakers to enhance measurement accuracy.
In general, it is believed that the ancient inhabitants had some notion of acoustics and chose to paint murals in areas with high levels of reverberant sound, including echoes [16,17], to add mysticism to religious or social events.

4.2.3. Simulation, Auralization, and Virtualization

The approach in [63,72,74,77] is interesting since it allows the comparison of acoustic characteristics over time in an area, considering the constructive changes. Acoustic simulations are valuable and could be used to study sound behavior in archaeological sites.
Simulations can be used to spatially identify sound behavior in a room under specific conditions, which is a fascinating approximation, as seen in studies [64,65,68,70,72,75,76,77,80,81,83]. By simulations, the degree of intelligibility of an area could be established, making it possible to define the purpose of different spaces in the past (e.g., social events or conference rooms) [69].
The use of acoustic simulation software such as Odeon and CATT-Acoustic has increased in recent years. For example, Selfridge used auralization techniques to create a virtual acoustical place, which was acoustically evaluated by participants [74]. Autio also presented auralizations of the site; however, these auralizations were not shown to participants [71]. Grazioli and Rumsey went a step further and designed both the 3D model and auralization of the place. It is valuable to note that they also conducted evaluations for participants based on an informal survey. They reported that most participants reported an immersive experience [19,73]. It is also interesting to note the research by Adeeb [81], which proposed using an impedance tube to obtain acoustic characteristics of materials to develop the simulations.

4.2.4. Musical Instruments and Pieces

There is significant evidence of the use of different components (e.g., turtle shells, bullroarers, rocks, bones, etc.) and elements of nature that allowed the inhabitants of several cultures to make musical instruments [22,114,115,116,118,119]. This confirmed that sound has been essential in human life.
As an illustration, Zalaquett recorded musical instruments in a semianechoic room, to obtain their acoustic characteristics. This approach could be applied to estimate the acoustic parameters of other musical instruments around the world (e.g., flutes, notched instruments, and percussion instruments) [22,118,119].
The research conducted by [117] is fascinating since it used photogrammetry techniques to simulate a musical instrument, which could be applied in other areas, for instance, to recreate an entire archaeological zone.

5. Conclusions

After the review, two main topics were identified: acoustics in archaeological places and acoustics in musical instruments and pieces. The first topic accounted for 89.5% of the articles and was divided into three subtopics: (1) measurements and characterizations at 26.6%, (2) rock art at 10.5%, and (3) simulation, auralization, and virtualization at 52.4%. The topic of musical instruments accounted for 10.5% of the articles.
Regarding the measurement and characterization studies, it was found that the articles mostly used the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard related to measuring acoustic parameters in rooms. However, there is currently no standard for open spaces; so, the ISO 3382-1:2009 is often used in these cases. Additionally, it is feasible to identify the best acoustic parameters to characterize open-air archaeological sites, as proposed in [36].
Furthermore, it is essential to determine an adequate number of recording points to achieve accurate measurements in different archaeological sites, as stated in [35]. Additionally, replicas of different archaeological sites should be constructed to test different configurations and obtain multiple acoustic characterizations, as done in [23]. Many investigations in this field also include simulations of the areas being measured.
Despite the aforementioned points, the ISO 3382-1:2009 standard has been used in open spaces. This raises the need to develop more specific methodologies for these cases [20,33,34,37], such as theories of sound propagation outdoors [124]. Additionally, it is required to identify other acoustic parameters [36].
In the case of rock art, many authors concluded that the places where the murals were painted had some acoustic behavior. Although, it cannot be proven in all cases that the painters understood acoustics, it seems very likely that they had certain considerations, even sacred, for choosing those sites. Some researchers have used air balloons to obtain the impulse response for measuring these places. In this subtopic, the investigations that used ISO 3382-1:2009 standard were minimal.
It would be interesting to acoustically characterize other caves with painted murals to compare them to previous studies [21,51,52,53,54,55]. Virtualizing these caves with new technologies could be an interesting approach to recreate the sounds and places. Establishing a methodology for measuring rock art would be desirable to ensure that all investigations meet the same standards.
The area related to simulation, auralization, and virtualization is currently growing and developing, mainly due to the advancement of computational capabilities (e.g., CATT-Acoustic, Odeon, Ease, Ramsete, etc.), which allows more options in the field of simulation and recreation of spaces. On the other hand, for the studies related to rock art and musical instruments, we identified the fewest number of investigations, making these areas an opportunity for further research. The relevance of these types of studies lies in gaining a better understanding of past cultures.
Measurements only provide the current acoustic characteristics of the buildings, not the original acoustic characteristics that the buildings had with their original materials. Therefore, using methods such as the impedance tube, as used by Adeeb [81], to obtain the original materials’ acoustic characteristics enables simulations that are closer to the original acoustic characteristics of the buildings, enabling virtual recreation of environments that are as authentic as possible.
In this subtopic, the norm ISO 3382-1:2009 is only applicable when the first step is to make measurements of the original place.
It would be possible to create 3D models that allow acoustic simulations of different archaeological sites, as proposed in [33,37]. In archaeological zones, acoustic evaluations could be conducted inside buildings, as seen in [26]. With the advancement of new technologies, it could be interesting to virtually recreate spaces and make auralizations to generate virtual scenarios similar to real ones to better understand the acoustic behavior of archaeological sites [63,64,65,72]. Furthermore, it is necessary to establish the number of points required to perform auralizations that allow participants to move freely through an area of interest [74].
Finally, it could be interesting to conduct auralizations of different sounds in archaeological zones to evaluate sound perception using both quantitative and qualitative methods, building upon previous work [19,73]. All of this could be enhanced by utilizing neuroscience to evaluate the participants’ experience by measuring their response to a virtual acoustic environment.
In the subtopic of musical instruments and pieces, these investigations seek to characterize the studied musical instruments acoustically. Although there is no single methodology, different authors present different approaches, such as the use of the photogrammetry technique used by Katz to make a model of the instrument and then obtain its acoustic characteristics, even though these will not be exactly the same as the original due to the materials used for their manufacture [117]. The research done by Katz could be extrapolated to create 3D models of complete archaeological sites for simulating virtual acoustic spaces [117]. However, the ISO 3382-1:2009 norm is not applicable for musical instruments and pieces studies.
Within the studies of musical instruments, there is a methodological approach developed by Zalaquett to characterize musical instruments, it could be desirable to replicate this methodology to characterize other musical instruments in different archaeological sites [22,118,119] to deepen and generalize its use. Finally, it could be interesting to study the use of bones and rocks as musical instruments, such as the notched idiophones investigated by [22,118,119] and rock gongs by [123].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.N.-R.; Methodology, G.N.-R. and L.M.A.-V.; Validation, G.N.-R., L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z.; Formal Analysis, G.N.-R.; Investigation, G.N.-R.; Resources, L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z.; Writing—original draft preparation, G.N.-R.; Writing—review and editing, L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z.; Visualization, G.N.-R.; Supervision, L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z.; Project Administration, G.N.-R., L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z.; Funding Acquisition, L.M.A.-V. and D.I.I.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología: CVU: 740424; Tecnológico de Monterrey: CVU: 740424.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to CONACYT and the Tecnologico de Monterrey for their invaluable support in providing the necessary resources for this project. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Neuroengineering and Neuroacoustics research group for their guidance and support throughout this investigation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Valenzuela, J.; Díaz-Andreu, M.; Escera, C. Psychology Meets Archaeology: Psychoarchaeoacoustics for Understanding Ancient Minds and Their Relationship to the Sacred. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 550794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Debertolis, P.; Bisconti, N. Archaeoacoustics in Ancient Sites. A New Way to Analyzing Archaeological Locations. In Proceedings of the 1st International Virtual Conference on Advanced Scientific Results SCIECONF 2013, Žilina, Slovakia, 10–11 June 2013; pp. 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aletta, F.; Kang, J. Historical Acoustics: Relationships between People and Sound over Time. Acoustics 2020, 2, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kinsler, L.; Frey, A.; Coopens, A.; Sanders, J. Fundamentos de Acústica, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alvarez, R.M.; Fiore, D. La Arqueología Como Ciencia Social: Apuntes Para Un Enfoque Teóricoepistemológico. Boletín Antropol. Am. 1993, 27, 21–38. [Google Scholar]
  6. Subías, S.M.; Abejez, L.J. ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada Arqueología Histórica? Complutum 2015, 26, 11–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Menéndez, A.G. Arqueoacústica: El Estudio Acústico en Lugares Arqueológicos. 2020. Available online: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/humanidades/artes/arqueoacustica-el-estudio-acustico-en-lugares-arqueologicos/ (accessed on 5 October 2020).
  8. Hume, C.E.G.; Medina, A.; Padilla, P.; Amézquita, A.R.; Rock, F.Z. Arqueoacústica maya. La necesidad del estudio sistemático de efectos acústicos en sitios arqueológicos. Estud. Cult. Maya 2013, 32, 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ramos Amézquita, A. Metodologia de Analisis Acustico de Sitios Arqueologicos de Mesoamerica; Universidad Politécnica de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ramos-Amezquita, A.; Ibarra-Zarate, D.I. Acoustic characterization of three archeological sites in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico. Proc. Meet. Acoust. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 19, 040100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carrion, A. Diseño Acústico de Espacios Arquitectónicos, 1st ed.; Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya: Barcelona, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ballou, G. Handbook for Sound Engineers; Focal Press: Waltham, MA, USA, 2008; Volume 1999. [Google Scholar]
  13. Paterson, J.; Lee, H. 3D Audio; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  14. Demiris, G.; Oliver, D.P.; Washington, K.T. Defining and Analyzing the Problem. In Behavioral Intervention Research in Hospice and Palliative Care; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sampieri, H.; Hernández Sampieri, R.; Fernández Collado, C.; del Baptista Lucio, P. Metodología de la Investigación; McGraw-Hill: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kolar, M.A. Archaeoacoustics: Re-Sounding Material Culture. Acoust. Today 2018, 14, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lubman, D. Archaeological acoustic study of chirped echo from the Mayan pyramid at Chichén Itzá. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1998, 104, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kudoh, Y.; Aoki, Y.; Aoki, N. Investigation of Acoustical Ray-Tracing Method for Measurement Reflective Structure in Acoustical Archaeology. In Proceedings of the CSP ′98. 1998 Fourth International Conference on Signal Processing, Beijing, China, 2–16 October 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grazioli, G. ArcheoEchi–a virtual reconstruction of a medieval cathedral in Southern Italy. In Proceedings of the AES 149th Convention, Online, 27–30 October 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  20. Girón, S.; Galindo, M.; Romero-Odero, J.; Alayón, J.; Nieves, F. Acoustic ambience of two roman theatres in the Cartaginensis province of Hispania. Build. Environ. 2021, 193, 107653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fazenda, B.; Scarre, C.; Till, R.; Pasalodos, R.J.; Guerra, M.R.; Tejedor, C.; Peredo, R.O.; Watson, A.; Wyatt, S.; Benito, C.G.; et al. Cave acoustics in prehistory: Exploring the association of Palaeolithic visual motifs and acoustic response. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017, 142, 1332–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zalaquett, F.A.; Domínguez, M.D.R.; Ortiz, D.S.E.; Suárez, P.R.; Morales, Y.E. Propuesta de caracterización y origen de instrumentos sonoros excavados en las Estructuras II y III de Calakmul, Campeche. Estud. Cult. Maya 2019, 54, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cox, T.J.; Fazenda, B.M.; Greaney, S.E. Using scale modelling to assess the prehistoric acoustics of Stonehenge. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2020, 122, 105218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sheets, P.; Mahoney, R. The Soundscape in the replica of the cerén temazcal. Anc. Mesoam. 2021, 33, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. ISO 3382-1:2009; Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters—Part 1: Performance Spaces. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  26. Kolar, M.A.; Covey, R.A.; Coronel, J.L.C. The Huánuco Pampa acoustical field survey: An efficient, comparative archaeoacoustical method for studying sonic communication dynamics. Heritage Sci. 2018, 6, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Djordjevic, Z.; Penezic, K.; Dimitrijevic, S. Acoustic vessels as an expression of medieval music tradition in Serbian sacred architecture. Muzikologija 2017, 54, 105–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. D’Orazio, D.; Nannini, S. Towards Italian Opera Houses: A Review of Acoustic Design in Pre-Sabine Scholars. Acoustics 2019, 1, 252–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Debertolis, P.; Gullà, D.; Piovesana, F. Archaeoacoustic research in the ancient castle of Gropparello in Italy. Proc. Adv. Res. Sci. Areas 2016, 5, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Debertolis, P. Archaeoacoustic Exploration in Montebello Castle (Rimini, Italy). Arts Humanit. Open Access J. 2017, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Debertolis, P.; Ear, N.; Zivic, M. Archaeoacoustic Analysis of Tarxien Temples in Malta. J. Anthr. Archaeol. 2016, 4, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Debertolis, P.; Gullà, D. Preliminary Archaeoacoustic Analysis of a Temple in the Ancient Site of Sogmatar in South-East Turkey. In Archaeoacoustics II, The Archaeology of Sound, Publication of the 2015 Conference in Istanbul; The OTS Foundation: Myakka City, FL, USA, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 137–148. [Google Scholar]
  33. Till, R. An archaeoacoustic study of the Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum on Malta. Antiquity 2017, 91, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gerstel, S.E.J.; Kyriakakis, C.; Raptis, K.T.; Antonopoulos, S.; Donahue, J. Soundscapes of Byzantium: The Acheiropoietos Basilica and the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki. Hesperia 2018, 87, 177–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Till, R. Sound Archaeology: A Study of the Acoustics of Three World Heritage Sites, Spanish Prehistoric Painted Caves, Stonehenge, and Paphos Theatre. Acoustics 2019, 1, 661–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Astolfi, A.; Bo, E.; Aletta, F.; Shtrepi, L. Measurements of Acoustical Parameters in the Ancient Open-Air Theatre of Tyndaris (Sicily, Italy). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boren, B.; Caro, G.; Calixto, D.; González, J. Mexico City’s Cathedral: An Archaeoacoustical and Musicological Analysis. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on Acoustics, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Galindo, M.; Girón, S.; Cebrián, R. Acoustics of performance buildings in Hispania: The Roman theatre and amphitheatre of Segobriga, Spain. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 166, 107373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sert, F.; Karaman, Ö.Y. An Investigation on the Effects of Architectural Features on Acoustical Environment of Historical Mosques. Acoustics 2021, 3, 559–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bevilacqua, A.; Tronchin, L. Evaluation of Acoustic Features after Refurbishment Works Inside Two Historical Opera Theatres Located in Italy. Acoustics 2021, 3, 316–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kanev, N. Resonant Vessels in Russian Churches and Their Study in a Concert Hall. Acoustics 2020, 2, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Almagro-Pastor, J.A.; García-Quesada, R.; Vida-Manzano, J.; Martínez-Irureta, F.J.; Ramos-Ridao, F. The Acoustics of the Palace of Charles V as a Cultural Heritage Concert Hall. Acoustics 2022, 4, 800–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Katz, B.; Weber, A. An Acoustic Survey of the Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris before and after the Fire of 2019. Acoustics 2020, 2, 791–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martellotta, F.; Álvarez-Morales, L.; Girón, S.; Zamarreño, T. An investigation of multi-rate sound decay under strongly non-diffuse conditions: The crypt of the Cathedral of Cadiz. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 421, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. D’Orazio, D.; Fratoni, G.; Garai, M. Acoustics of a chamber music hall inside a former church by means of sound energy distribution. Can. Acoust. Acoust. Can. 2017, 45, 7–17. [Google Scholar]
  46. Umbarkar, A.S.; Nandanwar, D.V.; Chimankar, O.P. Preliminary Archaeoacoustic Study of Kanheri Caves in Mumbai (Maharashtra, India). Sound Vibration 2022, 56, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tronchin, L.; Merli, F.; Manfren, M. On the acoustics of the Teatro 1763 in Bologna. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 172, 107598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elkhateeb, A.; Eldakdoky, S. The acoustics of Mamluk masjids: A case study of Iwan-type masjids in Cairo. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 178, 107988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ciaburro, G.; Berardi, U.; Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A.; Puyana-Romero, V. The acoustics of ancient catacombs in Southern Italy. Build. Acoust. 2020, 28, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tronchin, L.; Merli, F.; Manfren, M.; Nastasi, B. The sound diffusion in Italian Opera Houses: Some examples. Build. Acoust. 2020, 27, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Díaz-Andreu, M.; Farina, A.; Armelloni, E.; Coltofean, L.; Picas, M.; Mattioli, T. Acoustic effects at prehistoric landscapes: An archaeoacoustics analysis of rock art sites from the Western Mediterranean. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics, Aachen, Germany, 9–13 September 2019; pp. 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Waller, S.J. Hear Here: Prehistoric Artists Preferentially Selected Reverberant Spaces and Choice of Subject Matter Underscores Ritualistic Use of Sound. In Between Worlds: Understanding Ritual Cave Use in Later Prehistory; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mattioli, T.; Farina, A.; Armelloni, E.; Hameau, P.; Díaz-Andreu, M. Echoing landscapes: Echolocation and the placement of rock art in the Central Mediterranean. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2017, 83, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rainio, R.; Lahelma, A.; Äikäs, T.; Lassfolk, K.; Okkonen, J. Acoustic Measurements and Digital Image Processing Suggest a Link Between Sound Rituals and Sacred Sites in Northern Finland. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2017, 25, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Commins, D.E.; Coppens, Y.; Hidaka, T. Acoustics of the Lascaux cave and its facsimile Lascaux IV. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2020, 148, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Díaz-Andreu, M.; Martínez, M.D.L.L.G.; Mattioli, T.; Picas, M.; Villalobos, C.; Zubieta, L.F. The soundscapes of Baja California Sur: Preliminary results from the Cañón de Santa Teresa rock art landscape. Quat. Int. 2021, 572, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mattioli, T.; Díaz-Andreu, M. Hearing rock art landscapes: A survey of the acoustical perception in the Sierra de San Serván area in Extremadura (Spain). Time Mind 2017, 10, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Díaz-Andreu, M.; Pasalodos, R.J.; Rozwadowski, A.; Morales, L.; Miklashevich, E.; da Rosa, N.S. The Soundscapes of the Lower Chuya River Area, Russian Altai: Ethnographic Sources, Indigenous Ontologies and the Archaeoacoustics of Rock Art Sites. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2022, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Debertolis, P.; Earl, N.; Tarabella, N. Archaeoacoustic Analysis of Xaghra Hypogeum, Gozo, Malta. J. Anthr. Archaeol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Llorca-Bofí, J.; Heck, J.; Vorlaender, M. 3D Photogrammetry for Auralization-An Approach to Geometry Simplification and Material Categorization. In Proceedings of the 9th BauSim Conference IBPSA-Germany Austria, Weimar, Germany, 20–22 September 2022. [Google Scholar]
  61. Boren, B. Acoustic Simulation of Julius Caesar’s Battlefield Speeches. Acoustics 2018, 1, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Domenighini, P. On best acoustical parameters’ values for ‘Liederistic’ music performance: A preliminary study. Build. Acoust. 2021, 28, 361–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alonso, A.; Suárez, R.; Sendra, J.J. Virtual reconstruction of indoor acoustics in cathedrals: The case of the Cathedral of Granada. Build. Simul. 2016, 10, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A. The Acoustics of the Double Elliptical Vault of the Royal Palace of Caserta (Italy). Buildings 2017, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A. The Audience Effect on the Acoustics of Ancient Theatres in Modern Use. In Proceedings of the 142nd Audio Engineering Society International Convention 2017, AES 2017, Berlin, Germany, 20–23 May 2017; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bo, E.; Shtrepi, L.; Garcia, D.P.; Barbato, G.; Aletta, F.; Astolfi, A. The Accuracy of Predicted Acoustical Parameters in Ancient Open-Air Theatres: A Case Study in Syracusae. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Izaguirre, J.I.; Ferrari, A.A. Aproximación preliminar a la simulación de la dispersión sonora en asentamientos arqueológicos. Arqueología 2018, 24, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Suárez, R.; Alonso, A.; Sendra, J.J. Virtual acoustic environment reconstruction of the hypostyle mosque of Cordoba. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kopij, K.; Pilch, A. The Acoustics of Contiones, or How Many Romans Could Have Heard Speakers. Open Archaeol. 2019, 5, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. D’Orazio, D.; Fratoni, G.; Rossi, E.; Garai, M. Understanding the acoustics of St. John’s Baptistery in Pisa through a virtual approach. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2020, 13, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Autio, H.; Barbagallo, M.; Ask, C.; Hagberg, D.B.; Sandgren, E.L.; Lagergren, K.S. Historically Based Room Acoustic Analysis and Auralization of a Church in the 1470s. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alberdi, E.; Galindo, M.; León-Rodríguez, Á.L. Evolutionary Analysis of the Acoustics of the Baroque Church of San Luis de los Franceses (Seville). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rumsey, F. Are you there? Presence and practice in immersive audio. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 2021, 69, 120–124. [Google Scholar]
  74. Selfridge, R.; Cook, J.; McAlpine, K.; Newton, M. Creating historic spaces in virtual reality using off-the-shelf audio plugins. In Proceedings of the 2019 AES International Conference on Immersive and Interactive Audio, York, UK, 27–29 March 2019; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sender, M.; Planells, A.; Perelló, R.; Segura, J.; Giménez, A. Virtual acoustic reconstruction of a lost church: Application to an Order of Saint Jerome monastery in Alzira, Spain. J. Build. Perform. Simul. 2017, 11, 369–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Đorđević, Z.; Novković, D.; Andrić, U. Archaeoacoustic Examination of Lazarica Church. Acoustics 2019, 1, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Boren, B.B. Acoustic simulation of J.S. Bach’s Thomaskirche in 1723 and 1539. Acta Acust. 2021, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. D’Orazio, D.; Rovigatti, A.; Garai, M. The Proscenium of Opera Houses as a Disappeared Intangible Heritage: A Virtual Reconstruction of the 1840s Original Design of the Alighieri Theatre in Ravenna. Acoustics 2019, 1, 694–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Postma, B.N.J.; Dubouilh, S.; Katz, B.F.G. An archeoacoustic study of the history of the Palais du Trocadero (1878–1937). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2019, 145, 2810–2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Duran, S.; Chambers, M.; Kanellopoulos, I. An Archaeoacoustics Analysis of Cistercian Architecture: The Case of the Beaulieu Abbey. Acoustics 2021, 3, 252–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Adeeb, A.H.; Gül, Z.S. Investigation of a Tuff Stone Church in Cappadocia via Acoustical Reconstruction. Acoustics 2022, 4, 419–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bevilacqua, A.; Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. Acoustic design of a new shell to be placed in the Roman amphitheater located in Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 187, 108524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tronchin, L.; Bevilacqua, A. Historically informed digital reconstruction of the Roman theatre of Verona. Unveiling the acoustics of the original shape. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 185, 108409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Álvarez-Morales, L.; Lopez, M.; Álvarez-Corbacho, Á. The Acoustic Environment of York Minster’s Chapter House. Acoustics 2020, 2, 13–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Alayón, J.; Girón, S.; Romero-Odero, J.; Nieves, F. Virtual Sound Field of the Roman Theatre of Malaca. Acoustics 2021, 3, 78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gül, Z.S.S. Acoustical Impact of Architectonics and Material Features in the Lifespan of Two Monumental Sacred Structures. Acoustics 2019, 1, 493–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Weber, A.; Katz, B.F.G. Sound Scattering by Gothic Piers and Columns of the Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. Acoustics 2022, 4, 679–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alonso, A.; Suárez, R.; Sendra, J.J. The Acoustics of the Choir in Spanish Cathedrals. Acoustics 2018, 1, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Iannace, G.; Berardi, U. Acoustic virtual reconstruction of the Roman theater of Posillipo, Naples. Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 2017, 30, 015011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A. The acoustic effects of the audience in the modern use the of ancient theatres. J. Teknol. 2018, 80, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G. The acoustic of Roman theatres in Southern Italy and some reflections for their modern uses. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 170, 107530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bo, E.; Shtrepi, L.; Aletta, F.; Puglisi, G.E.; Astolfi, A. Geometrical Acoustic Simulation of Open-air Ancient Theatres: Investigation on the Appropriate Objective Parameters for Improved Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 16th IBPSA Conference, Rome, Italy, 2–4 September 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Alonso, A.; Suárez, R.; Sendra, J.J. On the assessment of the multiplicity of spaces in the acoustic environment of cathedrals: The case of the cathedral of Seville. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 141, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Álvarez-Morales, L.; Molina-Rozalem, J.; Girón, S.; Alonso, A.; Bustamante, P.; Álvarez-Corbacho, Á. Virtual reality in church acoustics: Visual and acoustic experience in the Cathedral of Seville, Spain. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress on Sound and Vibration ICSV, London, UK, 23–27 July 2017; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  95. D’Orazio, D.; De Cesaris, S.; Morandi, F.; Garai, M. The aesthetics of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus explained by means of acoustic measurements and simulations. J. Cult. Heritage 2018, 34, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mullins, S.; Canfield-Dafilou, E.K.; Katz, B.F. The Development of the Early Acoustics of the Chancel in Notre-Dame de Paris: 1160–1230 To cite this version: HAL Id: Hal-03724923. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium: The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres 2022, Verona, Italy, 6–8 July 2022. [Google Scholar]
  97. Canfield-Dafilou, E.K.; Mullins, S.; Katz, B.F. Opening the Lateral Chapels and the Acoustics of Notre-Dame de Paris: 1225–1320. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium: The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres 2022, Verona, Italy, 6–8 July 2022. [Google Scholar]
  98. Bertocci, S.; Lumini, A.; Cioli, F. Digital survey and 3D modeling to support the auralization and virtualization processes of three European theater halls: Berlin Konzerthaus, Lviv Opera House, and Teatro del Maggio Musicale in Florence. A Methodological Framework. In Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium: The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres 2022, Verona, Italy, 6–8 July 2022; pp. 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  99. Tronchin, L.; Merli, F.; Dolci, M. Virtual acoustic reconstruction of the Miners’ Theatre in Idrija (Slovenia). Appl. Acoust. 2020, 172, 107595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sukaj, S.; Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. The Acoustics of the Benevento Roman Theatre. Buildings 2021, 11, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tronchin, L.; Bevilacqua, A. Evaluation of Acoustic Similarities in Two Italian Churches Honored to S. Dominic. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Katz, B.F.G.; Murphy, D.; Farina, A. The Past Has Ears (PHE): XR Explorations of Acoustic Spaces as Cultural Heritage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 12243, pp. 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Manzetti, M.C. The Performances at the Theatre of the Pythion in Gortyna, Crete. Virtual Acoustics Analysis as a Support for Interpretation. Open Archaeol. 2020, 5, 434–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Barkas, N. The Contribution of the Stage Design to the Acoustics of Ancient Greek Theatres. Acoustics 2019, 1, 337–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Álvarez-Corbacho, P.; Bustamente, Á.; Zamarreño, T.; Galindo, M.; Girón, S. Acoustic Reconstruction of the Roman Theatre of Cadiz. Proc. FIA 2018, 2018, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar]
  106. Berardi, U.; Iannace, G.; Maffei, L. Virtual reconstruction of the historical acoustics of the Odeon of Pompeii. J. Cult. Heritage 2016, 19, 555–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Álvarez-Morales, L.; Girón, S.; Galindo, M.; Zamarreño, T. Acoustic environment of Andalusian cathedrals. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kavraz, M. The acoustic characteristics of the Çarşı Mosque in Trabzon, Turkey. Indoor Built Environ. 2016, 25, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Merli, F.; Bevilacqua, A. Using a Church as a Temporary Auditorium. Acoustical Design of S. Domenico of Imola. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1655, 012146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. Acoustic Design of Ancient Buildings: The Odea of Pompeii and Posillipo. Buildings 2020, 10, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Iannace, G. Acoustic correction of monumental churches with ceramic material: The case of the Cathedral of Benevento (Italy). J. Low Freq. Noise Vib. Act. Control. 2016, 35, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Witt, D.E.; Primeau, K.E. Performance Space, Political Theater, and Audibility in Downtown Chaco. Acoustics 2018, 1, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tronchin, L.; Merli, F.; Dolci, M. Acoustic Reconstruction of Eszterháza Opera House Following New Archival Research. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Gillreath-Brown, A.; Peres, T.M. An experimental study of turtle shell rattle production and the implications for archaeofaunal assemblages. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rusch, B.N.; Wurz, S. The Doring River bullroarers rock painting: Continuities in sound and rainmaking. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2020, 33, 102511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kumbani, J.; Bradfield, J.; Rusch, N.; Wurz, S. A functional investigation of southern Cape Later Stone Age artefacts resembling aerophones. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2019, 24, 693–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Katz, J. Digitized Maya music: The creation of a 3D database of Maya musical artifacts. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Heritage 2017, 6, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Rock, F.A.Z.; Ortiz, D.S.E. Flautas Triples de Jaina y Copán. un Estudio Arqueoacústico. Anc. Mesoam. 2018, 30, 419–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rock, F.Z.; Martínez, J.B.; Ruíz, A.V.; Bellomia, V.; Espino, D.S. An interdisciplinary study of notched idiophones (Omichicahuaztli) from the excavations of Teotenango, State of Mexico. Indiana 2020, 37, 33–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Both, A.A. Sonic Artefacts of Teotihuacan, Mexico (Horns, Trumpets and Pipes). Acoustics 2021, 3, 507–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Both, A.A. Understanding the Quadruple Flutes of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Heritage 2022, 5, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Waltham, C.; Coaldrake, K.; Koster, E.; Lan, Y. Acoustics of the Qin. In Studies in Musical Acoustics and Psychoacoustics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 49–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Till, R. Archeology and acoustics of rock gongs in the ASU BONE concession above the Fourth Nile Cataract, Sudan: A. preliminary report. Sudan Nubia 2015, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  124. Attenborough, K.; Van Renterghem, T. Predicting Outdoor Sound, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.