[Aztlan] Plaster and Echoes

[David Lubman]

Clark:

I like the spirit of your reply. You're hoping I can convince you because 
the implications seem so exciting. So you throw out really tough challenges.

D. Clark Wernecke wrote:

"They (modern reconstructors of the temple of Kukulkan) also used some 
portland cement which has to be quite diffrent acoustically than the lime 
mortar used by the Maya."

(David Lubman's response) Nope. These plasters are fairly similar 
acoustically. Keep in mind that we're talking about plaster around 3/4 inch 
thick or less.

The sole acoustical property sought is high reflection or scattering 
coefficient. High plaster density is one of two requirements for high 
reflection coefficient. The other is low porosity.

Stone staircases scatter sound well if they are polished and dressed with 
dense and non-porous plaster. The density of typical modern portland cements 
and lime mortars range over a factor of 2 or so. Such modest differences of 
density have only modest acoustical significance for the echoing and 
scattering of sound.

Why use dense plaster? The same reasons that motivate the practice today. 
Staircases finished with high density plaster resist erosion from footsteps. 
Low density plaster is more likely to crush under load.

Why use nonporous plaster? Their great resistance to water erosion.

Confirming these statements as facts is a job for academic archaeologists 
who believe that the sound properties of ancient Maya staircases are 
pertinent to Maya studies. Do you know any? Maybe you soon will.

Absent that proof, and on the strength of my admittedly modest credentials 
as an acoustical engineer, I suggest that all suitably plastered long 
outdoor stone staircases will chirp. And chirp so loudly that they will be 
heard clearly above reasonably low background ambient noise. An 
archaeologist who believed that might ask how the Maya would understand that 
sound. That could be called cognitive archaeology.

In their paper "An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception and Cultural 
Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica" (Camb. Arch. Journal, 10:2 [2000], pp 
261-294), Steven Houston and Karl Taube wrote:

"The ancient Maya and other Mesoamerican people showed an intense interest 
in invoking the senses, especially hearing, sight, and smell."

I guess we're just slaves to fashion.

Best regards,

David Lubman
-------------------------

D. Clark Wernecke wrote:
Yes, the Lacandon do use that method. How do you know that ancient Maya 
hunters did?

(David Lubman responds) Clark, I do not know that statement to be factual. 
Though I believe it probably is. But if you think otherwise, I invite you to 
tell me why you think it may be wrong. Support your belief by citing the 
existing literature. If there is no literature perhaps there should be. Tell 
me why archaeologists have not studied that question. Or why they should not 
study it. Unless you can do that, I think we're both speculating.

It's a reasonable conjecture that ancient Maya hunters learned to imitate 
the call of birds. That hunting technique is known to be very ancient and 
widespread. And while it's not an essential element of my hypothesis, I'd be 
happy to enlarge upon it.

The ancient Maya could be expected to be intimately familiar with their 
world of sound. Such familiarity promoted survival for humans just as it did 
for other animals. Most modern people including archaeologists invest less 
in listening to nature than the ancients. High background noise levels of 
modern times is a contributing reason. Modern urban people probably don't 
hear the world as the ancient Maya did. That draws a veil between 
archaeologists and their ancient subjects. Once that bias is recognized, I'm 
sure archaeologists will take corrective actions. That's what I hope to 
encourage.

-------------------
D. Clark Wernecke wrote:

I'm really not trying to be snotty here but as an archaeologist I can't say
in a paper or report that the Maya did this or that because I feel that they 
did - I have to back it up with proof.

(David Lubman responds) That's not necessary at this point in our 
discussion! Promising new ideas can be killed by imposing unreasonable 
demands on their expression. That comes later. That's the stuff of research, 
thesis defense, and peer reviewed publication.

Diverting this discussion to the periferal issue of Maya hunting practices 
seems less productive than asking whether acoustical evidence is ever 
admissible in discussions of Maya archaeology. And on what terms?

I suggest we consider the acoustics of two Maya monuments at Chichen Itza: 
the temple of Kukulkan and the Great Ball Court (GBC). The question is 
whether any of the unusual acoustics there were intentionally designed.

Best regards,

David Lubman
-----------------

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D. Clark Wernecke" <CWernecke at compuserve.com>
To: "David Lubman" <dlubman at verizon.net>
Cc: "Aztlan" <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>; "D. Clark Wernecke" 
<102402.2332 at compuserve.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Plaster and Echoes


Message text written by "David Lubman"
>D. Clarke Werneke wrote:

David, please its just Clark - no "e"

>Clarke is mistaken that extensive rebuilding of the staircase has
corrupted
>the acoustical finding. As I previously pointed out, the chirp is present
>and identical - though weaker - at the two unrestored staircases.

I have never seen a report from the Mexican reconstruction of the Castillo
but I have seen before and after pictures.
Theres a pretty good shot of it in Morris' "Temple of the Warriors" (1931)
as well which shows a lot of reconstruction
on at least three sides (that you can see). They also used some portland
cement which has to be quite diffrent
acoustically than the lime mortar used by the Maya. If you have seen more
detailed information on the reconstruction please
tell me where as I would love to read through it.


>Even if only one or two recognized the sound their affirmation would
confirm
>that belief for others.

Sure it would - but enough to make it worth designing a pyramid around it?

>Maya hunters imitated bird calls. I imagine the bird call vocabulary of
Maya
>hunters was extensive. I was told that the quetzal is among the bird
species
>that respond to the sound of their own call. The Laconda sp?) indians use
>that technique to the present day.

Yes, the Lacandon do use that method. How do you know that ancient Maya
hunters did?
I'm really not trying to be snotty here but as an archaeologist I can't say
in a paper or report that
the Maya did this or that because I feel that they did - I have to back it
up with proof.

>Many Maya traveled extensively in connection with the feather trade. The
>Maya were preeminent because their ancestral homelands included the cloud
>forest habitat. Their travel included trips to the cloud forest for
quetzal
>captures, feather harvesting, and customer visits throughout much of
>Mesoamerica. The itinerant vendors known as  pochtecas (merchants who
lead)
>were among them. Below is a quote from my online essay
>http://forecastpublicart.org/anthology-downloads/kiser.pdf
>They carried the feathers from the Guatemalan highlands to
>lowland religious centers, including Chichén Itzá. In fact, quetzal
feathers
>have been found as far north as New Mexico and as far south as the Andes.
The
>pochtecas were more than traveling salesmen. They were members of a guild
sworn to act with
>humility and modesty.

A pochtecatl (pl. pochteca) was a long-distance trader BUT an Aztec one.
People often conflate the Aztec and Maya -
different people and (when talking about the ancient Maya centers)
different times. We know that the Maya traded but
we do not know about the organization of the trade.
        There are six species of quetzal living over a large area
(including Arizona and New Mexico). What we are all talking
about here (I hope) is the Resplendent Quetzal. I often see the information
on the internet that they were found from N. Mexico to the
Andes but I have not been able to track down where these feathers were
found (feathers rarely exist on the archaeological record).
I am aware of the evidence for military macaws in New Mexico. I'm curious
about this - does anyone have an answer out there for the evidence?

> may have given rise to the image of the flying serpent that
>rose to the heavens and then plunged to the earth. The Mayan inhabitants
of the cloud
>forests must have known these vernal sights and sounds well.

David - here's my problem illustrated. "May have given rise to..."  Is it
possible? Sure, it could very well be.
Do we have any evidence for this theory? No.  I know and you know that they
thought a lot of the Resplendent
Quetzal but going beyond that without evidence requires the use of language
such as "of course" and "it is self-evident" and
(I shudder) "everyone knows" that I am not supposed to use in my
professional capacity.

I have worked with a lot of Maya buildings and pyramids and many of them
have a pretty good echo of one sort or another when you make a noise in
front of them. My guess is that most of that is simply because they are
very large masses of stone masonry reflecting sound and I can get the same
thing
on many modern buildings - heck, there's an echo from my garage door. I'm
really not trying to be a jerk or just bust your chops about this. I'd
WOULD LOVE it to be true - wouldn't that just make the ancient Maya
builders that much more interesting? But you have to proove it. I've been
working with Maya architecture for quite a chunkl of my life and I just
don't see that kind of attention in the field.

Keep trying!

Clark Wernecke


_______________________________________________
Aztlan mailing list
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php