Next Article in Journal
Turbomachinery Noise Predictions: Present and Future
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards Italian Opera Houses: A Review of Acoustic Design in Pre-Sabine Scholars
Previous Article in Journal
Applicability of Acoustic Concentration Measurements in Suspensions of Artificial and Natural Sediments Using an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Acoustics of the Choir in Spanish Cathedrals
Article Menu

Export Article

Acoustics 2019, 1(1), 78-91; https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics1010007

Article
Performance Space, Political Theater, and Audibility in Downtown Chaco
1
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14261-0026, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 6 November 2018 / Accepted: 21 December 2018 / Published: 27 December 2018

Abstract

:
Chaco Canyon, NM, USA, was the center of an Ancestral Puebloan polity from approximately 850–1140 CE, and home to a dozen palatial structures known as “great houses” and scores of ritual structures called “great kivas”. It is hypothesized that the 2.5 km2 centered on the largest great house, Pueblo Bonito (i.e., “Downtown Chaco”), served as an open-air performance space for both political theater and sacred ritual. The authors used soundshed modeling tools within the Archaeoacoustics Toolbox to illustrate the extent of this performance space and the interaudibility between various locations within Downtown Chaco. Architecture placed at liminal locations may have inscribed sound in the landscape, physically marking the boundary of the open-air performance space. Finally, the implications of considering sound within political theater will be discussed.
Keywords:
archaeoacoustics; soundscapes; open-air performance space; political theater; Ancestral Puebloan; Chaco Canyon

1. Introduction

Chaco Canyon, San Juan County, NM, USA, was the center of an Ancestral Puebloan (also known as “Anasazi”) polity from approximately 850–1140 CE. This location was home to a dozen palatial structures known as “great houses” and scores of ritual structures called “great kivas”. Most of these were located in a 2.5 square kilometer region referred to as “Downtown Chaco”, centered on the largest great house, Pueblo Bonito (Figure 1). We hypothesize that this downtown area served as an open-air performance space for both political theater and sacred ritual. Indeed, it is believed that ritual and politics were tightly bound together in Chaco, much like other early states, and similar to the nature of leadership within modern Pueblo communities.
Our purpose for this paper is to further explore the relationship between the built environment of Chaco and its soundscapes, a situation that we approached in various conference papers [1,2,3], and in a previous article, “Soundscapes in the past: Investigating sound at the landscape level” [4]. In our article, we reported that the physical relationship between modeled soundscapes and the locations of shrines throughout the wider landscape may be evidence of ritual performance space, where the shrines themselves marked the bounds of that space.
Our goals for this article are threefold. First, we briefly provide a literature review for those unfamiliar with the study of archaeoacoustics, particularly how it relates to the landscape scale. Secondly, we review the results of the initial study and then interpret those results with two linked bodies of anthropological theory: performance theory and political theater. Performance theory describes how activities gain their meaning in the context of group involvement [5], and political theater describes how elites utilize performances to present themselves as they want to be seen in order to legitimize their status [6]. These two interrelated theories can help researchers develop a stronger understanding of the nature of landscape experience at Chaco, illustrating how Chacoan elites may have guided the construction of specific landscape features to both anchor and bound socio-cultural performance space, and to serve as a stage for political theater for the legitimation of their roles. Finally, we show how both of these functions interacted simultaneously to construct and reify political power in the 10th and 11th century CE.

Background

Archaeoacoustics is the study of the evidence of sound in the archaeological record. This can be achieved by studying the acoustical properties of artifacts, sites, or landscapes. An important method for understanding past people and cultures, archaeoacoustics provides an integral, albeit often ignored, component of the human experience. Most of the previous work on sound in the archaeological record has focused on the artifactual or site level [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24], yet recent research has expanded to the landscape level [4,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32].
Most recognized amongst landscape theories is phenomenology, an interpretive framework which explains that landscapes are places where memory, meaning, and identity interweave as integral parts of the lived experience [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Phenomenology, however, has been critiqued as methodologically weak, as it has traditionally relied upon qualitative, personal observations [34,35,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Our tools, described below, are being developed to answer this critique. Simultaneously, the tools also respond to claims that Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other “abstracted experiences” are positivistic [39,50,51], by combining the strengths of both GIS and phenomenology to answer Tim Ingold’s call that anthropologists adopt a greater awareness of the lived experience [52].
Our tools model the extent to which sounds, including those originating from the human voice and musical instruments, can be heard throughout the wider landscape. We hypothesize Chacoan elites to be practiced orators, able to speak for extended periods with a raised voice. For example, the historic Zuni (a Puebloan group) maintained a Priest of the Sun: “whose title, Pekwin, means, literally, Speaking Place… It is at the solstices that the sun is celebrated with great public ceremonies… In winter the public ceremonies are opened by the Pekwin’s announcement made from the housetop at dawn. At this time he orders the people to make prayer sticks for their sun father and their moon mother” [53] (p. 512).
Within the American Southwest, musical instruments have been recovered from the pre-Hispanic period. These include bone flutes and whistles, wooden planks (i.e., “foot drums”), copper bells, and conch shell trumpets [54,55,56,57,58]. These instruments are linked to ritual and public performances, as illustrated by the ethnohistoric and archaeological records [57,59,60,61,62], as well as shown by use in modern contexts [63]. These performances take place within ritually charged locations such as enclosed kivas and open-air plazas. The recovery of conch shell trumpets and other instruments from similar ritual contexts in the archaeological record may illustrate similar use in the pre-Hispanic period [59,64].
The importance of sound in the past has recently been recognized by archaeologists working in the American Southwest, borrowing from researchers working in Europe and South America [15,30]. This recognition has primarily resulted from the work of Richard Loose, who has studied the acoustic properties of artifacts (such as conch shell trumpets), structures (such as the great kiva at the Aztec Ruins National Monument, San Juan County, NM, USA), and landscapes (such as Chaco Canyon and Casamero Pueblo, McKinley County, NM, USA) [65,66,67,68,69], but the topic is now receiving wider attention [4,25]. Within Chaco, the importance of sound is most clearly illustrated by Tse Biinaholtsa’a Yałti, Navajo for “Concavity in the Bedrock that Speaks”. This feature is an alcove located on the north wall between Pueblo Bonito and Chetro Ketl, near the stone circle 29SJ1565. The alcove, which was modified by the removal of approximately 360 m3 of bedrock, is associated with an altar and rock art panel, and is considered a portal to the dimension of Navajo deities [65,70]. The projected circle of the alcove’s amphitheater, some 340 m in diameter, is “clearly a delineated space that is level, and conspicuously devoid of features and material culture” [70] (p. 206). Acoustical studies have been conducted by Richard Loose and colleagues, illustrating that this site creates a “virtual sound image” [68,69], resulting in a phenomenon that is described as filling the canyon floor with sound, and “a sensation of being ‘bathed’ in sound as standing waves of sound formed along the axis of the amphitheater” at certain frequencies [70] (p. 208). Other tests indicate the existence of other auditory phenomena, including echoes, reverberations, and the cancelling out of sound at various locations [65]. From this feature, it seems obvious that sound was intentionally manipulated as an aspect of landscape within Chaco Canyon and it likely played an important role in Chacoan rituals.

2. Modeling Methods

In 2016, we developed Soundshed Analysis Tool, beta version 0.9.2, part of an Archaeoacoustics Toolbox which models the spread of sound throughout a landscape [1,2,3,4]. Written in the Python programming language for ArcGIS 10.3, it is based upon SPreAD-GIS, a toolbox developed to model the propagation of engine noise within wildland settings [71,72]. The following year the acoustical modeling tool was updated [73,74], and the Archaeoacoustics Toolbox now includes preset versions of the Soundshed Analysis Tool which utilize elevation datasets with 1, 1.5, and 30 m resolutions. In addition, modeling at alternative resolutions is possible with minor adjustments to the Python script. For this analysis, our soundsheds feature a 1.5 m resolution based on LiDAR data.
Modeling the spread of sound in a GIS environment places an emphasis on the spatial location and extent of the soundshed, rather than a detailed acoustical reconstruction. This allows archaeologists to incorporate acoustics into their analyses of relationships between sites and features within the landscape, and study the cultural implications of those relationships. While noise analysis software can be cost-prohibitive or otherwise inaccessible to archaeologists, GIS is a prevalently used tool that most archaeologists can access and operate; we hope that, when complete, the Archaeoacoustics Toolbox will introduce many archaeologists to acoustical modeling as an open-source addition to readily available GIS software.

2.1. Model Inputs

Input variables for the model include environmental data and archaeologically derived cultural data, as illustrated in Table 1. Environmental inputs include an elevation dataset and information used to determine the physical characteristics of the spread of sound in air. These are typically gathered from the literature and include the percentage of relative humidity [75], the air temperature in degrees Fahrenheit [75], and the ambient sound pressure level (dB(A)) of the study location [76]. Cultural data describe the sound source. These consist of the location of the sound source, the output height (ft) of the person or instrument creating the sound (which can be derived from osteological data and/or the artifact assemblage), the sound pressure level of the source (dB(A)), the distance (ft) at which the sound pressure level of the source was measured, and the frequency (Hz) representing the fundamental tone or peak long-term average frequency at which the sound source was measured [66,77,78]. Specific modeling inputs used for this paper are provided in Table 2.

2.2. Modeling Steps

The Soundshed Analysis Tool is a geometric-type model which assumes sound is travelling through the air along straight-line paths. Currently, the model does not incorporate wave effects such as reverberation which require more processing power than a 32-bit GIS environment presently provides. The tool uses formulae of outdoor sound propagation, calculating free-field sound attenuation following ISO 9613-2 [79], atmospheric absorption loss following ANSI 1.26 [80], topographic loss following ISO 9613-2 [79], and barrier effects based on Maekawa’s optical diffraction theory [81,82]. The results are output in soundshed rasters that indicate audibility over background noise levels, and provide a viewshed analysis for that site. Within this paper, “audibility” refers to the perception of sounds and does not necessarily implicate the intelligibility of speech. Rasters can be created for any frequency, however the examples presented herein match the fundamental tone or peak long-term average frequency of the sound source. Each study location is modeled independently, although a second tool being developed for inclusion in the Archaeoacoustics Toolbox can create cumulative soundsheds for sound sources propagating from multiple landscape locations simultaneously. Due to the environmental nature of the Chacoan landscape, vegetation attenuation and ground effects are not modeled in v0.9.2, however the script is currently under revision to include these calculations following ISO 9613-2 [79,83]. Absorption due to structural surfaces is also not modeled in the current tool.

3. Modeling Results

Using the above described tool and inputs, we modeled the spread of sound emanating from various sources at locations throughout Chaco Canyon [4]. Here, we continue the discussion by drawing attention to one specific location, the two platform mounds located immediately south of and in front of Pueblo Bonito, the largest great house in the Puebloan world, measuring approximately 90 by 150 m, or 1.2 ha in size (Figure 2 and Figure 3). At this location, we modeled two scenarios: a practiced orator addressing a crowd, and an individual playing a conch shell trumpet.
The platform mounds were important features of the landscape. The 3–4 m tall, rectangular mounds were constructed during the Classic Bonito Phase, from 1040–1100 CE, as indicated by ceramic dating [84,85]. The mounds were built up with adobe embankments, steps, and masonry retaining walls [84,86,87], as interpreted in Figure 3. The mounds contained artifacts that mostly reflect household refuse, with equivocal evidence for large scale feasting and specialized production [88,89]. However, the presence of relatively larger numbers of exotic goods such as turquoise, Narbona Pass chert, cacao residue, and macaw remains reinforce claims that Pueblo Bonito was a residence of Chacoan elites, and may indicate that ritual deposition occurred here [90].
Our scenarios were modeled at this location because the platform mounds were earthen architecture that were intentionally built. Researchers have hypothesized that the mounds are ritually charged due to their astronomical alignments, location, directionality, and ability to direct access to Pueblo Bonito [87,91,92,93,94]. While others have argued that the features, which were constructed of household refuse, resulted from the occupation of Pueblo Bonito, they are too large to be the result of only the relatively small population of the great house [95,96] and must have included imported materials. However, even if these mounds were merely domestic middens (or were meant to replicate domestic middens in some sense), they may still have been considered sacred places as middens were often the location of burials. Indeed, modern Puebloan people consider middens to be sacred for that reason [97,98]. Nevertheless, these mounds were important and may have served as performance stages, similar to Mesoamerican pyramids and Hohokam platforms [99]. Ruth Van Dyke states: “Standing atop them, with the great house and the north face of Chaco Canyon towering behind, ritual leaders would have been a very impressive sight. Ceremonies performed atop the mounds would have been highly visible to masses of people who, perhaps, did not have access into the great house itself” [97] (p. 130). For these reasons, we consider the mounds to be more than mere trash dumps (see also [100] for a discussion on the similar role of plazas in later Puebloan sites).
The modeling results are presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The figures illustrate the amount by which the two sounds rise over ambient noise levels; hence, they also indicate a positive signal-to-noise ratio. While our study does not approach speech intelligibility as a specific topic of investigation, work by Alvarsson and his colleagues has shown that the signal-to-noise ratio is highly correlated to the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and may be used as a proxy of the SII outdoors [101].
Figure 4 represents a person standing on the eastern mound (9), speaking loudly as if orating to a crowd. Studies have shown that male speakers accustomed to oration, such as actors or preachers, have reached a maximum vocal level of 90 dB(A) when addressing a crowd [102,103,104]. This individual, with a vocal level of 84 dB(A) and a peak long-term average frequency of 325 Hz, could be heard throughout Downtown Chaco. Using the signal-to-noise ratio as a proxy for SII, the 5 dB(A) contour, indicated by the abrupt shift between the orange and yellow shading, would equate to an approximate SII of 0.6 in a free field according to modeling conducted by Larm and Hongisto [105] (Figure 12 in the reference). Furthermore, Lazarus [106] (Figure 1 in the reference) and Jovičić [107] (Figure 5 in the reference) indicate that a signal-to-noise ratio of 5 dB(A) would equate to an approximate speech intelligibility (SI) score greater than 80 and 85 percent, respectively. Therefore, Figure 4 also indicates the extent to which an individual’s speech may have been understood over environmental background noise given an absence of intervening noise sources, illustrating an approximate degree of speech intelligibility at the Pueblo Bonito (7), Pueblo del Arroyo (6), and Chetro Ketl (8) great houses, as well as the Casa Rinconada great kiva (10). Additionally, people at Kin Kletso (5) may have been able to hear the individual if they listened carefully for the sound of his voice, but likely would not have been able to understand what he was saying, as Kin Kletso is located beyond the contour indicating the SII of 0.6.
Figure 5 shows the spread of sound from a conch shell trumpet, an instrument that has been recovered in association with elite burials in Pueblo Bonito [59,66,108], and which was used in historic Puebloan rituals [59]. As illustrated by these figures, the sound of a reproduction trumpet, with an output of 96 dB and a fundamental tone of 330 Hz, spreads an additional 435 m beyond the output indicated by Figure 4, and individuals at the 29SJ1207 shrine overlooking the canyon from the south would have been able to hear the instrument. Additionally, individuals at the 29SJ1565 and 29SJ1572 stone circles on the north canyon rim may have heard both events. These shrines, in effect, inscribe and demarcate sound within the Chacoan landscape.

4. Discussion

We interpret these results through complementary aspects of performance theory and political theater. As mentioned previously, performance theory describes how activities gain their meaning in the context of group involvement [5]. Similarly, political theater describes how elites utilize performances to legitimize their status [6]. Thomas Luckman stated that “legitimation is making sense of power...to those who exercise power, to those who are subject to the exercise of power, or to both” [109] (p. 111). Inomata and Coben discuss the relationship between performance theory and political theater: “it is probably true that the development of large, centralized polities would have been impossible in any historical context without frequent public events, in which agents of political power presented themselves in front of a large number of spectators and the participants shared experiences through their bodily copresence” [5] (p. 11). Furthermore, “these events have profound implications for the understanding of any society, particularly in terms of the integration of communities and the establishment and maintenance of asymmetrical power relations, which are intricately intertwined with each other” [5] (p. 22). We believe that this is true for Chaco, and that the mounds in front of the largest great house served as a stage for these public events.
The involvement of the community (or, at least, various portions of the community) as audience within these events was a key requirement for the creation, reinforcement, and manipulation of power relations between elites and non-elites, as well as among different elites [110,111]. The mounds, as illustrated by our modeling, would have served as ideal locations for political theater. The audience would have included all within Downtown Chaco, not only the other leaders that occupied the various great houses in the vicinity, but also the commoners that lived within small sites throughout the area.
Yet Downtown Chaco was not merely the location of political theater. Whiteley stated that “ritual action, because of its intent to affect instrumentally the conditions of existence, is simultaneously political action” [112] (p. 68). We believe the converse may also be true at Chaco, especially considering how political power at the location has been so intimately tied up with ritual [113]. Therefore, the performance space of Downtown Chaco was also sacred space. Although the soundshed should be considered circumstantial evidence, the above illustrated locations of shrines and stone circles in relationship to the mounds’ soundshed provide additional evidence for this claim.
However, the concepts of political theater and elite legitimation only begin to explore the meaning behind these platforms, and for this we return to performance theory. As mentioned earlier, these mounds contained more material than could be contributed by the occupants of Pueblo Bonito alone [96]. This material included trade items from throughout the Chacoan sphere, as well as much farther afield: Narbona pass chert, Chuska Gray Ware pottery, macaw remains, and cacao residue within rare ceramic vessel forms have been recovered from the mounds [88]. Yet as the papers within Crown’s 2016 volume, “The Pueblo Bonito Mounds of Chaco Canyon”, illustrate, the majority of the artifacts recovered from the mounds reflect normal, non-elite residential patterns. It is likely that debris from throughout the canyon’s small house residences, as well as from visitors from throughout the American Southwest, was purposefully accumulated over the course of sixty years during occasional communal feasting and its accompanying performances of conspicuous consumption and ritual deposition.
As these platform mounds were constructed, the people of Chaco Canyon were in essence forming the stage for the political theater enacted by the elites of Pueblo Bonito. When seen in this light, instances of communal feasting take on a much more nuanced interpretation. Not only were these occasions organized by the elites (and thus served to formalize their role in comparison to others), but they physically shaped the political and sacred performance space utilized by those elites. As the mounds were created, not only did they become prominent features of the Chacoan landscape, but the extent of their soundscapes grew to encompass Downtown Chaco. If this soundscape is interpreted as an integral part of the legitimation of the Chacoan religious and political system, it was the performances of the Puebloan people themselves that reinforced the elite power structures.

5. Conclusions

As illustrated, specific features within a landscape can provide clues as to how people related to that place. While the platform mounds at Pueblo Bonito imply aspects of political theater and public performance, placing those features into a context of landscape archaeoacoustics highlights just how important a role they played within Chacoan society and culture. The mounds were constructed in an ideal location to serve as the stage for political theater that would have been observed by all within Downtown Chaco and perhaps farther afield. Their construction was an act of public performance, indicating that both elite and non-elite individuals participated in the creation of that stage and its resulting soundshed.
Sound is an integral part of the lived experience, and one that is becoming increasingly acknowledged by archaeologists. Chaco Canyon provides an example of just how important it may have been during the development of complex societies.

Author Contributions

Individual author contributions are as follows: conceptualization, D.E.W.; methodology, D.E.W., K.E.P.; software, K.E.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.E.W., K.E.P.; writing—review and editing, D.E.W., K.E.P.; visualization, K.E.P.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Ruth Van Dyke and Kyle Bocinsky for providing GPS data, Rich Friedman for permission to use Figure 3, and Tommaso Mattioli for an invitation to present at a 2018 EAA session on Archaeoacoustics, which provided the impetus for this paper. David would like to thank his parents for a relatively undisturbed place in which he wrote the initial draft of this article during a vacation to visit family. Likewise, Kristy thanks Thomas Dyson for the same. David would also like to thank Ed Kandl for serving as a scale bar in Figure 2. Finally, the authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback, which has resulted in a stronger paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. As there is no outside funding, no additional person or organization had a role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Primeau, K.E.; Witt, D.E. Soundscapes in the Past: Towards a Phenomenology of Sound at the Landscape Level. Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Orlando, FL, USA, 6–10 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Primeau, K.E.; Witt, D.E. Soundscapes in the Past: A GIS Approach to Landscape Scale Archaeoacoustics. Presented at the Frontiers in Archaeological Sciences Symposium, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 23–25 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Witt, D.E.; Primeau, K.E. Soundscapes in the Past: Interaudibility in the Chacoan Built Landscape. Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 29 March–2 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  4. Primeau, K.E.; Witt, D.E. Soundscapes in the Past: Investigating Sound at the Landscape Level. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2018, 19, 875–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Inomata, T.; Coben, L.S. Overture: An Invitation to the Archaeological Theater. In Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics; Inomata, T., Coben, L.S., Eds.; Altamira Press: Lanham, MD, USA, 2006; pp. 11–44. [Google Scholar]
  6. Scott, J.C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cross, I.; Zubrow, E.B.W.; Cowan, F. Musical behaviours and the archaeological record: A preliminary study. In Experimental Archaeology; Mathieu, J., Ed.; British Archaeological Reports: Oxford, UK, 2002; pp. 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cross, I.; Watson, A. Acoustics and the human experience of socially-organized sound. In Archaeoacoustics; Scarre, C., Lawson, G., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Errico, F.; Lawson, G. The sound paradox: How to assess the acoustic significance of archaeological evidence? In Archaeoacoustics; Scarre, C., Lawson, G., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
  10. Devereux, P. Stone Age Soundtracks: The Acoustic Archaeology of Ancient Sites; Vega: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Eneix, L.C. (Ed.) Archaeoacoustics: The Archaeology of Sound; The OTS Foundation: Myakka City, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jimenez, R.; Till, R.; Howell, M. (Eds.) Music & Ritual: Bridging Material & Living Cultures; Ekho Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  13. Scarre, C. Sound, place and space: Towards an archaeology of acoustics. In Archaeoacoustics; Scarre, C., Lawson, G., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  14. Watson, A.; Keating, D. Architecture and sound: An acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 1999, 73, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kolar, M.A. Sensing sonically at Andean Formative Chavín de Huántar, Perú. Time Mind 2017, 10, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azevedo, M.; Markham, B.; Wall, J.N. Acoustical archaeology—Recreating the soundscape of John Donne’s 1622 gunpowder plot sermon at Paul’s Cross. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 2013, 19, 015133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Markham, B.; Azevedo, M.; Wall, J.N. Recreating the soundscape of John Donne’s 1622 gunpowder plot sermon at Paul’s Cross. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 133, 3581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wall, J.N. Transforming the Object of our Study: The Early Modern Sermon and the Virtual Paul’s Cross Project. Available online: http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/3-1/transforming-the-object-of-our-study-by-john-n-wall/ (accessed on 24 December 2018).
  19. Reznikoff, I. Sound resonance in prehistoric times: A study of Paleolithic painted caves and rocks. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008, 123, 3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jahn, R.G.; Devereux, P.; Ibison, M. Acoustical resonances of assorted ancient structures. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996, 99, 649–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Iannace, G.; Trematerra, A.; Qandil, A. The Acoustics of the Catacombs. Arch. Acoust. 2014, 39, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iannace, G.; Berardi, U. The Acoustic of Cumaean Sibyl. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 2017, 30, 015010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Iannace, G.; Marletta, L.; Sicurella, F.; Ianniello, E. Acoustic measurements in the Ear of Dionysius at Syracuse (Italy). In Proceedings of the 39th International Congress on Noise Control Engineering 2010, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–16 June 2010. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kolar, M.A. Archaeological Psychoacoustics at Chavín de Huántar, Perú. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Dyke, R.M.; de Smet, T. Chacoan Soundscapes. Archaeol. Southwest Mag. 2018, 32, 38–39. [Google Scholar]
  26. Díaz-Andreu, M.; García Benito, C. Acoustics and Levantine rock art: Auditory perceptions in La Valltorta Gorge (Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39, 3591–3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. 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]
  28. Díaz-Andreu, M.; Atiénzar, G.G.; Benito, C.G.; Mattioli, T. Do You Hear What I See? Analyzing Visibility and Audibility in the Rock Art Landscape of the Alicante Mountains of Spain. J. Anthropol. Res. 2017, 73, 181–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Mileson, S. Sound and Landscape. In The Oxford Handbook of Later Medieval Archaeology in Britain; Christopher, G., Alejandra, G., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 713–727. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mlekuz, D. Listening to landscapes: Modelling past soundscapes in GIS. Internet Archaeol. 2004, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liwosz, C.R. Benchmarks: Ontological Considerations at Two Mojave Desert Petroglyph Labyrinths. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Brück, J. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeol. Dialogues 2005, 12, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cummings, V.; Whittle, A. Places of Special Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscape of Wales; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. Johnson, M.H. Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012, 41, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tilley, C. A Phenomenology of Landscape; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tilley, C. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tilley, C. Body and Image: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 2; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tilley, C. Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities; Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 3; Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Dyke, R.M. Phenomenology in archaeology. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology; Smith, C., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 5909–5917. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hamilakis, Y. Archaeology and the Senses: Human Experience, Memory, and Affect; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception; Routledge: London, UK, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hamilton, S.; Whitehouse, R.; Brown, K.; Combes, P.; Herring, E.; Thomas, M.S. Phenomenology in practice: Towards a methodology for a ‘subjective’ approach. Eur. J. Archaeol. 2006, 9, 31–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Eve, S. Augmenting Phenomenology: Using Augmented Reality to Aid Archaeological Phenomenology in the Landscape. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2012, 19, 582–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gillings, M. Landscape Phenomenology, GIS and the Role of Affordance. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2012, 19, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Llobera, M. Life on a Pixel: Challenges in the Development of Digital Methods Within an “Interpretive” Landscape Archaeology Framework. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2012, 19, 495–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rennell, R. Experience and GIS: Exploring the Potential for Methodological Dialogue. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2012, 19, 510–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Trigg, D. Place and Non-place: A Phenomenological Perspective. In Place, Space, and Hermeneutics; Janz, B.B., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 127–139. [Google Scholar]
  49. Trigger, B.G. A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hacigüzeller, P. GIS, critique, representation and beyond. J. Soc. Archaeol. 2012, 12, 245–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sui, D.Z. GIS and Urban Studies: Positivism, Post-Positivism, and Beyond. Urban Geogr. 1994, 15, 258–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ingold, T. The Perception of the Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bunzel, R.L. Zuni Ceremonialism; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  54. Brown, D.N. The Distribution of Sound Instruments in the Prehistoric Southwestern United States. Ethnomusicology 1967, 11, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, E. Instruments of Power: Musical Performance in Rituals of the Ancestral Puebloans of the American Southwest. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  56. Brown, E. Musical instruments in the pre-hispanic southwest. Park Sci. 2009, 26, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  57. Brown, E. Music of the center place: The instruments of Chaco Canyon. In Flower World: Music Archaeology of the Americas; Stöckli, M., Howell, M., Eds.; Ekho Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 45–66. [Google Scholar]
  58. Brown, D.N. Ethnomusicology and the prehistoric southwest. Ethnomusicology 1971, 15, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mills, B.J.; Ferguson, T.J. Animate objects: Shell trumpets and ritual networks in the greater southwest. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2008, 15, 338–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Taube, K. Gateways to Another World: The Symbolism of Supernatural Passageways in the Art and Ritual of Mesoamerican and the American Southwest. In Painting the Cosmos: Metaphor and Worldview in Images from the Southwest Pueblos and Mexico; Hays-Gilpin, K., Schaafsma, P., Eds.; Museum of Northern Arizona: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 2010; pp. 73–120. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hays-Gilpin, K.; Sekaquaptewa, E.; Newsome, E.A. Sìitalpuva, “through the land brightened with flowers”: Ecology and cosmology in mural and pottery painting, Hopi and beyond. In Painting the Cosmos: Metaphor and Worldview in Images From the Southwest Pueblos and Mexico; Hays-Gilpin, K., Schaafsma, P., Eds.; Museum of Northern Arizona: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 2010; pp. 121–138. [Google Scholar]
  62. Weiner, R.S. A Sensory Approach to Exotica, Ritual Practice, and Cosmology at Chaco Canyon. Kiva 2015, 81, 220–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Van Dyke, R.M. The Chacoan past: Creative representations and sensory engagements. In Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology; Dyke, R.M.V., Bernbeck, R., Eds.; University Press of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2015; pp. 83–99. [Google Scholar]
  64. Akins, N.J. The burials of Pueblo Bonito. In Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World; Neitzel, J.E., Ed.; Smithsonian Books: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 94–106. [Google Scholar]
  65. Loose, R.W. Tse’Biinaholts’a Yalti (Curved Rock That Speaks). Time Mind 2008, 1, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Loose, R.W. That old music: Reproduction of a shell trumpet from Pueblo Bonito. Pap. Archaeol. Soc. N. M. 2012, 38, 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  67. Loose, R.W. Archaeoacoustics: Adding a Sound Track to Site Descriptions. Pap. Archaeol. Soc. N. M. 2010, 36, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
  68. Loose, R.W. A Report on Tse Biinaholtsa’a Yałti (Curved Rock that Speaks): An Open-Air Public Performance Theater at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; Manuscript on File; Chaco Culture National Historical Park: New Mexico, NM, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  69. Loose, R.W. Computer Analysis of Sound Recordings from Two Anasazi Sites in Northwestern New Mexico. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002, 112, 2285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Stein, J.R.; Friedman, R.; Blackhorse, T.; Loose, R. Revisiting Downtown Chaco. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; Lekson, S.H., Ed.; The University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2007; pp. 199–223. [Google Scholar]
  71. Reed, S.E.; Mann, J.P.; Boggs, J.L. SPreAD-GIS: An ArcGIS Toolbox for Modeling the Propagation of Engine Noise in a Wildland Setting, version 1.2; The Wilderness Society: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  72. Reed, S.E.; Boggs, J.L.; Mann, J.P. SPreAD-GIS: An ArcGIS Toolbox for Modeling the Propagation of Engine Noise in a Wildland Setting, version 2.0; The Wilderness Society: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  73. Goodwin, G.; Richards-Rissetto, H.; Primeau, K.E.; Witt, D.E. Bringing Sound into the Picture: Experiencing Ancient Maya Landscapes with GIS and 3D Modeling. Presented at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) International Conference, Tübingen, Germany, 19–23 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  74. Goodwin, G.; Richards-Rissetto, H.; Primeau, K.E.; Witt, D.E. Soundscapes and Visionscapes: Investigating Ancient Maya Cities with GIS and 3D Modeling. Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, USA, 11–15 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  75. Western Regional Climate Center. Chaco Canyon National Monument [sic], New Mexico, Monthly Climate Summary. Available online: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1647 (accessed on 7 December 2018).
  76. Ambrose, S. Sound Levels in the Primary Vegetation Types in Grand Canyon National Park, July 2005; NPS Report No. GRCA-05-02; Sandhill Company: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hayne, M.J.; Rumble, R.H.; Mee, D.J. Prediction of crowd noise. In Proceedings of the Acoustics 2006, Christchurch, New Zealand, 20–22 November 2006; pp. 235–240. [Google Scholar]
  78. Van Heusden, E.; Plomp, R.; Pols, L.C.W. Effect of ambient noise on the vocal output and the preferred listening level of conversational speech. Appl. Acoust. 1979, 12, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Organización Internacional de Normalización. ISO 9613-2:1996, Acoustics: Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdors. General Method of Calculation; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  80. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). ANSI S1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere; Acoustical Society of America: New York City, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  81. Maekawa, Z. Noise reduction by screens. Appl. Acoust. 1968, 1, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lamancusa, J.S. Outdoor sound propagation. In Noise Control, ME 458 Engineering Noise Control; Pennsylvania State University: University Park, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  83. Primeau, K.E. Methodological Improvements in Landscape Archaeoacoustics: Exploring the Effects of Vegetation and Ground Cover. Presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 10–14 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  84. Judd, N.M. The Architecture of Pueblo Bonito; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1964; Volume 147. [Google Scholar]
  85. Windes, T.C. Investigations at the Pueblo Alto Complex, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, 1975–1979; National Park Service: Sante Fe, NM, USA, 1987; Volume II, Pt. 2: Architecture and Stratigraphy. [Google Scholar]
  86. Lekson, S.H. Great House Form. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; Lekson, S.H., Ed.; The University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2007; pp. 7–44. [Google Scholar]
  87. Stein, J.R.; Lekson, S.H. Anasazi Ritual Landscapes. In Anasazi Regional Organization and the Chaco System; Doyel, D.E., Ed.; University of New Mexico: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1992; pp. 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  88. Crown, P.L. (Ed.) The Pueblo Bonito Mounds of Chaco Canyon; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  89. Toll, H.W. Making and Breaking Pots in the Chaco World. Am. Antiq. 2001, 66, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Cameron, C.M. Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the Chacoan Regional System. Am. Antiq. 2001, 66, 79–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ashmore, W. Building Social History at Pueblo Bonito: Footnotes to a Biography of Place. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; Lekson, S.H., Ed.; The University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2007; pp. 179–198. [Google Scholar]
  92. Marshall, M.P. The Chacoan Roads: A Cosmological Interpretation. In Anasazi Architecture and American Design; Morrow, B.H., Price, V.B., Eds.; University of New Mexico: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1997; pp. 62–74. [Google Scholar]
  93. Sofaer, A. The Primary Architecture of the Chacoan Culture: A Cosmological Expression. In Anasazi Architecture and American Design; Morrow, B.H., Price, V.B., Eds.; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1997; pp. 88–132. [Google Scholar]
  94. Van Dyke, R.M. Sacred Landscapes: The Chaco-Totah Connection. In Chaco’s Northern Prodigies: Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 1100; Reed, P.F., Ed.; The University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2008; pp. 334–348. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wills, W.H. Ritual and Mound Formation during the Bonito Phase in Chaco Canyon. Am. Antiq. 2001, 66, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Windes, T.C. Gearing Up and Piling On: Early Great Houses in the Interior San Juan Basin. In The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; Lekson, S.H., Ed.; The University of Utah Press: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2007; pp. 45–92. [Google Scholar]
  97. Van Dyke, R.M. The Chaco Experience: Landscape and Ideology at the Center Place; School for Advanced Research Press: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  98. Cameron, C.M. Sacred Earthen Architecture in the Northern Southwest: The Bluff Great House Berm. Am. Antiq. 2002, 67, 677–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lekson, S.H. A History of the Ancient Southwest; School for Advanced Research Press: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  100. Chamberlin, M.A. Plazas, Performance, and Symbolic Power in Ancestral Pueblo Religion. In Religious Transformation in the Late Pre-Hispanic Pueblo World; Glowacki, D.M., Keuren, S.V., Eds.; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, ZA, USA, 2012; pp. 130–152. [Google Scholar]
  101. Alvarsson, J.J.; Nordström, H.; Lundén, P.; Nilsson, M.E. Aircraft noise and speech intelligibility in an outdoor living space. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2014, 135, 3455–3462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Boren, B. Whitefield’s Voice. In George Whitefield; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 167–189. [Google Scholar]
  103. Boren, B. The Maximum Intelligible Range of the Human Voice. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University, New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  104. Boren, B.; Roginska, A.; Gill, B. Maximum Averaged and Peak Levels of Vocal Sound Pressure. In Proceedings of the 135th Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, NY, USA, 17–20 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
  105. Larm, P.; Hongisto, V. Experimental comparison between speech transmission index, rapid speech transmission index, and speech intelligibility index. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006, 119, 1106–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Lazarus, H. Prediction of Verbal Communication is Noise—A review: Part 1. Appl. Acoust. 1986, 19, 439–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jovičić, S.T. A relation between speech intelligibility and distribution of speech pressure about the head. Appl. Acoust. 1991, 34, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Judd, N.M. The Material Culture of Pueblo Bonito; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1954; Volume 124. [Google Scholar]
  109. Luckman, T. Comments on Legitimation. Curr. Sociol. 1987, 35, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Barker, R. Legitimating Identities: The Self-Presentations of Rulers and Subjects; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  111. Brown, J.; Elliot, J.H. A Palace for a King: The Buen Retiro and the Court of Philip IV; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  112. Whiteley, P.M. Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture through the Oraibi Split; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  113. Yoffee, N. The Chaco “Rituality” Revisited. In Chaco Society and Polity: Papers from the 1999 Conference; Cordell, L.S., Judge, W.J., Piper, J.-E., Eds.; New Mexico Archaeological Council: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2001; pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Map of “Downtown Chaco”, Chaco Canyon, NM, USA.
Figure 1. Map of “Downtown Chaco”, Chaco Canyon, NM, USA.
Acoustics 01 00007 g001
Figure 2. Eastern platform mound at Pueblo Bonito (covered by vegetation). Man provided for scale.
Figure 2. Eastern platform mound at Pueblo Bonito (covered by vegetation). Man provided for scale.
Acoustics 01 00007 g002
Figure 3. Reconstruction of the Pueblo Bonito architecture. Reproduced with permission from Richard Friedman, in The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; published by University of Utah Press, 2007.
Figure 3. Reconstruction of the Pueblo Bonito architecture. Reproduced with permission from Richard Friedman, in The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; published by University of Utah Press, 2007.
Acoustics 01 00007 g003
Figure 4. Soundshed of an elite orator speaking at 84 dB(A) with a peak long-term average frequency of 325 Hz.
Figure 4. Soundshed of an elite orator speaking at 84 dB(A) with a peak long-term average frequency of 325 Hz.
Acoustics 01 00007 g004
Figure 5. Soundshed of reconstructed conch shell trumpet at 96 dB and a fundamental tone of 330 Hz.
Figure 5. Soundshed of reconstructed conch shell trumpet at 96 dB and a fundamental tone of 330 Hz.
Acoustics 01 00007 g005
Table 1. Soundshed Analysis Tool v0.9.2 Input Variables.
Table 1. Soundshed Analysis Tool v0.9.2 Input Variables.
Environmental InputsCultural Inputs
Percentage of Relative HumidityLocation of Sound Source
Air Temperature (°F)Height of Sound Source (ft)
Ambient Sound Pressure Level (dB(A))Sound Pressure Level of Source (dB(A))
LiDAR-based DEMMeasurement Distance of Source (ft)
Frequency of Source (Hz)
Table 2. Soundshed Analysis Tool v0.9.2 Modeling Inputs.
Table 2. Soundshed Analysis Tool v0.9.2 Modeling Inputs.
Modeling InputsElite Orator with a Raised Voice: Afternoon in JuneConch Shell Trumpet: Dawn in June
Environmental InputsPercentage of Relative Humidity30%30%
Air Temperature89.6 °F (32 °C)55.4 °F (13 °C)
Ambient Sound Pressure Level20.7 dB(A)20.7 dB(A)
Cultural InputsHeight of Sound Source5 ft (1.5 m)6 ft (1.8 m)
Sound Pressure Level of Source84 dB(A)96 dB(A)
Measurement Distance of Source3 ft (0.9 m)4 ft (1.2 m)
Frequency of Source325 Hz330 Hz

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Acoustics EISSN 2624-599X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top