Soundscapes in the past: Investigating sound at the landscape level

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Soundscapes in the past: Investigating sound at the landscape level Kristy E. Primeaua,⁎, David E. Wittb a

Department of Anthropology, SUNY Albany. College of Arts and Sciences 237, 1400 Washington Avenue, University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222, United States Department of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo. 380 Millard Fillmore Academic Center, Ellicott Complex, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14261-0026, United States

b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soundscape Archaeoacoustics Sound Landscape Phenomenology Chaco canyon

During the past few decades, researchers have developed methodologies for understanding how past people experienced their wider world. The majority of these reconstructions focused upon viewsheds and movement, illustrating how individuals visually observed their environment and navigated through it. However, these reconstructions have tended to ignore another sense which played a major role in how people experienced the wider, physical world: that of sound. While the topic of sound has been discussed within phenomenology at the theoretical level, and has been approached at the site level through the growing study of “acoustic archaeology,” there has been limited practical application at the landscape level. This article illustrates how GIS technology can be utilized to model soundscapes, exploring how people heard their wider surroundings.

1. Introduction

2. Theory

During the past few decades, researchers have developed methodologies for understanding how past people have experienced their wider world. The majority of these reconstructions focused upon viewsheds and movement, illustrating how individuals visually observed their environment and navigated through it. However, these reconstructions have tended to ignore another sense which played a major role in how people experienced the wider, physical world: that of sound. While the topic of sound has been discussed within phenomenology at the theoretical level, and has been approached at the site level through the growing study of “acoustic archaeology” or “archaeoacoustics,” practical application at the landscape level has been limited. The place where sound is experienced at this larger level is named “soundscape,” a term borrowed from environmental science (e.g., Miller, 2008; Pijanowski et al., 2011; Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011). In this article, we illustrate how GIS technology can be utilized to investigate soundscapes, exploring how people heard their wider surroundings. Furthermore, this paper presents results of the first preliminary tests using an ArcGIS Soundshed Analysis tool, providing an example of its application to the landscape of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Specifically, we explore possible relationships between the location of features within the built environment and performance space within the canyon. Preliminary work indicates that certain features may have been placed at their locations so individuals may have heard events occurring elsewhere.

We approach archaeoacoustics as a contextual experience of spaces, and auditory perception as one of the ways in which people made sense of their world. Here, space is not a neutral universal container; it is intertwined with human agency and is therefore subject to social production and transmutation over time (Cummings and Whittle, 2004:9–10; Tilley, 1994:9–11; Van Dyke, 2014). As such, landscapes are meaningfully empowered and are a component of lived experience, memory, and identity negotiations (Brück, 2005:47; Johnson, 2012:273–275). The phenomenological approach to landscape archaeology seeks to “describe the character of human experience, specifically the ways in which we apprehend the material world through directed intervention in our surroundings” and to “break down the subject-object divide” (Brück, 2005:46). Tilley states that phenomenology can be described as the “relationship between Being and Being-in the world” (Tilley 1994:12, 2004:1). As people explore this relationship, they encounter both connection and separation among self and other, and this space between self and other is navigated via perception, decision making, beliefs, intention, and other channels (Tilley 1994:12-15, 2004:10-12). This experience of navigating space creates place. Tilley believes that observation and thick narrative description of an archaeologist's experience represent the best way to study the meaning attached to places, because even though our contemporary experience differs, it is still mediated through our “common biological humanity,” i.e. the body (Brück, 2005:47-48; Tilley 1994:74-75, 2008:39-41,

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.E. Primeau), dwitt@buffalo.edu (D.E. Witt).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.044 Received 9 February 2017; Received in revised form 5 May 2017; Accepted 23 May 2017 2352-409X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Primeau, K.E., Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.044

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

2010:25). This “kinesthetic” approach to perceptual experience centers on the relationship amongst the body, places, and the landscape: “…a rich and structured sensory domain…” (Tilley, 2008:39, 41). In contrast, Van Dyke and others champion a less ambiguous methodology as well as considerations of replicability taking into account researcher characteristics such as gender, group, or individual experiences. For example, some researchers have created observation forms as a way to standardize phenomenological methodology (e.g., Hamilton and Whitehouse, 2006). In our study, we utilize tools such as GIS to aid in this observation, while introducing a measure of “evidential base and critical rigor” (Johnson, 2012:279; see also Cummings and Whittle, 2004). We acknowledge that while the use of GIS or other methods of “abstracted experience” has been critiqued as positivistic (e.g., Hacigüzeller, 2012; Sui, 1994; Tilley, 2010:25-26), the physical laws that apply to the propagation of sound allows it to be modeled in GIS and applied to the archaeological landscape as approached through a phenomenological framework. The phenomenology of sound has been explored in various disciplines such as ecology, anthropology, musicology, psychoacoustics, and philosophy (e.g., Miller, 2008; Pijanowski et al., 2011; Plack, 2005; Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011). While most of the work involving sound in the archaeological record has focused primarily on the artifactual or site level (e.g., Cross et al., 2002; Cross and Watson, 2006; d'Errico and Lawson, 2006; Devereux and Richardson, 2001; Eneix, 2014; Jimenez et al., 2013; Watson and Keating, 1999), we continue the conversation at the landscape level. Phenomenologists have been implicitly aware of the relationship between sound and landscape. Tilley noted “surfaces, according to their direction in relation to one another, inclination, texture, and degree of absorption will structure, reduce, or amplify sound; and auditory perception derives its basis from the flow of sounds through the landscape from one place to another, producing different acoustic properties” (Tilley, 2008:41). Beyond such passing mention, prior discussion on this topic, including comprehensive review articles such as Matthew Johnson's, 2012 article, “Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology” appears limited. Two exceptions are Dimitrij Mlekuz's, 2004 article entitled “Listening to the Landscapes: Modelling Soundscapes in GIS” and Hamilton and Whitehouse's, 2006 article, “Phenomenology in Practice: Towards a Methodology for a ‘Subjective’ Approach.” However, these projects had their limitations. For example, Hamilton and Whitehouse approached the concept of soundscape, conducting experiments to determine effective distances for interaction, including speaking and shouting (Hamilton and Whitehouse, 2006). Yet their project is difficult to replicate with any consistency as their determinations were made based upon their personal experience. Additionally, Mlekuz stated “The modelling of sound propagation over a landscape is computationally extremely difficult, as it depends on a range of variables, which are, at best, ill defined…. A reconstruction of past sonic environments, a sequence of sound profiles in a space at a specific moment, is therefore impossible” (Mlekuz, 2004: Section 4.2). As such, he did not continue this work, but over the past 13 years, technology has advanced to the point where this is possible.

1954; Cowan, 1994; Cross and Watson, 2006:109–10). For a sound to be heard by people, its component frequencies must range from approximately 20 to 20,000 cycles per second (Hertz, or Hz). Most dominant frequencies of speech, however, range from 500 to 2000 Hz (Cowan, 1994:5; Lamancusa, 2001; Lord et al., 1980:5). The term “noise” is simply defined as “unwanted sound” (Cowan, 1994:274; Lamancusa, 2000; Scullin and Boyd, 2014). As observed by Beranek, people's reaction to various noises within the same study and under the same conditions can change as the listener's own attitudes change (Beranek, 1954:389). This same type of subjectivity within a group of listeners would constitute cultural and individual perceptions of specific noises, each with its own meaning and purpose. 2.2. Culturally relevant sounds Archaeoacoustics is an integral method for understanding the lived experience of past people (Scarre, 2006). However, archaeological evidence for culturally relevant sounds is limited, though this is likely result of a lack of interest in the topic, rather than a lack of evidence. The sounds produced by humans in the form of speech are of primary importance (Scarre, 2006:3). These can range from the soft murmur of a crowd to a loud voice calling for attention. The noise from domesticated animals or the creation of tools may also be considered to be the result of cultural activities. However, it is the sound from musical instruments that may have the most direct evidence, as instruments have been recovered from the archaeological record. Within the American Southwest, these instruments include bone flutes, whistles, foot drums, copper bells, and conch shell trumpets, among others (e.g., Brown, 1967, 1971; Brown, 2005, 2009, 2014). These instruments have been linked to ritual performance due to examples found within historic ethnography and their locations of recovery within civic-ceremonial architecture. For example, in the post-contact period, both the Hopi and Zuni utilized conch shell trumpets as the voice of the Feathered Serpent during Soyal ceremonies meant to convey social norms (Mills and Ferguson, 2008:341–343). The Hopi link flute-playing with emergence stories (Taube, 2010:113) and the Flower World are evoked through song (Brown, 2014; Hays-Gilpin et al., 2010; Weiner, 2015:234). Drums and rattles are used in modern Puebloan rituals (Van Dyke, 2015:90). Ceremonies take place within kivas and other ritually charged locations; the discovery of conch shell trumpets in ritual contexts at Pueblo Bonito, such as kivas, ritual storerooms, and the burial chamber in Room 33 have been interpreted to illustrate potentially similar use in the pre-contact period (Akins, 2003:97; Mills and Ferguson, 2008:346). The study and replication of these instruments, particularly conch shell trumpets, have provided insight into their acoustic properties that allow us to demonstrate how to incorporate their sounds into a phenomenological study at a landscape scale. Within the American Southwest, various researchers have incorporated considerations of sound within their studies, as noted above. Richard Loose has perhaps conducted the most methodologically rigorous studies of sound in the Southwest; he has investigated both the existence of a natural amphitheater at Chaco Canyon (Loose, 2008; see also Stein et al., 2007), as well as recreated a conch shell trumpet (Loose, 2012). Both of these studies required the modeling of sound at a level of precision that is rare within archaeology. Conversely, researchers such as Van Dyke (2008, 2013, 2015) and Weiner (2015) have approached sound as part of sensory engagement and lived experience, placing the experience of sound within its greater contexts. We blend both methods here in our examination of soundscapes.

2.1. Hearing - the perception of sound Sound “is essential to our lived-in world, for communication and allowing us to identify place” (Cummings and Whittle, 2004:8). A unique aspect of the definition of sound is its reliance on a receptor; without someone or something to experience the sound, it does not exist. Beranek and Mellow state: “A sound is said to exist if a disturbance propagated through an elastic material causes an alteration in pressure or a displacement of the particles of the material which can be detected by a person or by an instrument” (Beranek and Mellow, 2012:5, emphasis added). People's perception of sound includes both its loudness and pitch. These subjective responses are reactions to the sound's amplitude and dominant frequency respectively (Beranek,

3. Method Our initial exploration of sound physics consisted of the development of an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the propagation of sound. This spreadsheet could be used to investigate how sound was experienced by an individual at a set distance from the source of the sound, 2

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Appendix, Eq. (1)). The results of these calculations are then subtracted from a raster dataset of sound levels at the frequencies specified by the user. Then, air temperature and humidity variables are used to calculate the atmospheric absorption coefficient as described in ANSI S1.26 (ANSI, 1995). These calculations are essentially unchanged from those presented by the SPreAD-GIS toolbox, albeit updated for the new syntax of ArcGIS 10.3. Next, the Soundshed Analysis tool models barrier attenuation. Unlike the effects of barriers in viewshed analysis, which results in a binary output of visible and non-visible areas, a sound barrier partially reflects sound back at the source, partially transmits sound through the barrier, and partially diffracts sound around it (Ver and Beranek, 2006:126). The Soundshed Analysis tool uses the Fresnel number (see Appendix, Eq. (2)), a dimensionless figure that quantifies “how far below the line of sight (relative to wavelength) the receiver lies,” to calculate barrier attenuation loss for each location on the landscape (see Appendix, Eq. (3)), essentially modeling how sound would be experienced by an individual in any three dimensional location from the sound source (Lamancusa, 2009:10.15). The model uses these interim calculations to determine where acoustic attenuation is primarily due to distance, atmospheric absorption or barrier losses. The resulting output includes layers describing the propagation patterns of sound throughout the landscape and the rise over ambient sound pressure level. These outputs may be symbolized using isolines, contours, or as graduated colors. While the propagation pattern output shows where and how the sound spreads, it does not take into account the ambient sounds occurring naturally within the landscape; therefore the output data describing the rise over ambient sound pressure levels more accurately reflects how audible sounds would have been experienced. Each run of the model takes, on average, 8 to 10 min for each iteration at a 1.5 m raster cell size and 3.2 km (2.0 mile) study area designed to accommodate 1.5 m LiDAR data. An earlier version, designed for the more widely available Digital Elevation Models with a 30 m raster cell size took on average 4 min to complete.

creating a linear sound profile similar to the output of a line-of-sight analysis. Formulae within the spreadsheet calculate total sound level and rise over ambient at a target location by first calculating the cumulative noise levels originating from a noise source, next calculating any distance and barrier attenuation, and then combining the two to determine sound level as experienced at the receiver's location, and calculating the difference between the new sound level and previously measured ambient levels. Formulae within the spreadsheet ignore any potential effects of atmospheric absorption, vegetation attenuation, et cetera, that would play a minimal role in sound physics at the small scale at which it is intended to be used. In seeking a three-dimensional tool that looked at sound throughout a much larger landscape, rather than merely along a linear path, we combined the utility of the spreadsheet with a program called “SPreADGIS.” SPreAD-GIS is a GIS tool developed by Reed et al. (2010) to measure the impact of noise on natural environments, such as national forests. SPreAD-GIS was itself adapted from SPreAD, or “the System for the Prediction of Acoustic Detectability,” which is a “method of predicting the impact of noise on outdoor recreation” published by the US Forest Service in 1980 (Harrison et al., 1980:ii). SPreAD uses handwritten worksheets to progress through modeling steps and included lookup tables containing model parameters such as the atmospheric absorption coefficients and spherical spreading loss inputs. SPreAD-GIS converted these worksheets into a Python script, calculating these variables based on the model input parameters as part of an automated process in ArcGIS 9.3. Migrating functionality from SPreAD-GIS to our Soundshed Analysis tool meant rewriting SPreAD-GIS’ code to account not only for the change in geoprocessing syntax between ArcGIS 9.3 and 10.3, but also to update the formulae and remove some of the more subjective aspects of SPreAD-GIS that are difficult to model for past environments. As a result, the Soundshed Analysis beta version 0.9.2 script consists of six sections: 1) collection of user input variables; 2) the definition of the study area; 3) calculating distance attenuation; 4) calculating atmospheric absorption loss; 5) calculating barrier effects and topographic loss; and 6) creating cumulative model outputs describing sound propagation patterns and rise over ambient sound levels in A-weighted decibels. Each of these sections represents a calculation step in the modeling process. Data from intermediate steps in the process is typically discarded, however if the user prefers this information can be retained; for example, the user may opt to save a layer representing distance attenuation. To run the Soundshed Analysis tool in GIS, the user must input nine model parameters consisting of seven variables, a point feature class of the study location, and an elevation raster dataset as either DEM or LiDAR data. Variables required by the model include the sound source height (feet), frequency of the sound source (Hertz), sound pressure level of the source (decibels), the measurement distance from the source (feet), air temperature (degrees Fahrenheit), relative humidity (percentage), and the ambient sound pressure level (A-weighted decibels, or dB(A)) of the study location. First the model clips the elevation dataset to a 3.2 km (2.0 mile) radius. It has been shown that sound is not likely to travel beyond a distance of 4.0 km (2.5 miles) (Reed et al., 2009:14) and clipping the data by an additional 0.8 km (0.5 miles) greatly improves geoprocessing speeds when using high resolution elevation data. After defining the study area, the model calculates distance attenuation, which is the decline in sound pressure levels due to spherical spreading of a sound away from its originating source. According to the Inverse Square Law, sound pressure falls “as the reciprocal of the square of the distance from the source” or at an approximate rate of 6 dB as the distance from the source doubles (Cowan, 1994:274). The model adds the height of the sound source to the base elevation, calculates the Euclidean distance and direction from the sound source, divides the Euclidean distance by the measurement distance of the sound source and applies the distance attenuation formula (see

3.1. Tool validation Before applying the Soundshed Analysis Tool to the Chacoan landscape it was important to evaluate the model's functionality as it was being developed using testable data. The principles of acoustics and formulae applied in our modeling are established scientific methods; we are validating that the GIS tool correctly performs the mathematical operations. Potential test datasets required available LiDAR data, as well as existing noise studies. LiDAR data with a 1.5 m cell size was available for portions of Upstate New York. Information regarding noise studies was requested from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) which can be obtained pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law Section 87 et seq.). DEC provided application documentation, including noise analyses, for three Mined Land Reclamation Permits which are located within LiDAR coverage areas. Noise analysis maps from the mining applications were georeferenced, and input values were determined from the noise analysis narratives. During the initial phase of model testing, two studies were used to evaluate the functionality of distance attenuation calculations in the Soundshed Analysis tool: the Brickyard Facility and the Weir Sand and Gravel Mine. The Brickyard Facility (DEC ID #4-3842-00025) completed a noise analysis in 1995 as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (LA Group P.C., 1995; Long, 1995). Two sound source locations were modeled within the mine, and concentric circles representing distance attenuation were provided on a sound assessment map. Modeling for the Brickyard site was completed using the Soundshed Analysis tool input values shown in Table 1; corresponding results are displayed in Fig. 1. The sound pressure level (dB(A)) measurements at 152 m (500 foot) intervals from the sound source 3

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Table 1 provides model input data for each of the six scenarios described in this paper. Row headings correspond to Soundshed Analysis Tool inputs. Model inputs

Weir mine

Brickyard mine

West wind farms

Chaco 1

Chaco 2

Chaco 3

Model time Sound source Sound source height (ft) Frequency (Hz) Sound level of source (dB) Measurement distance (ft) Temperature (F) Relative humidity (%) Ambient dBA

Humid July day Haul road/mine interior 10 500 79.3 75 72 80 41.2

Humid July day Processing equipment 8 500 89.4 50 72 80 55

Humid July day Processing equipment 8 500 82.5 50 72 80 52

Afternoon June Crowd 5 325 48 3 89.6 30 20.7

Afternoon June Individual (raised voice) 5 325 84 3 89.6 30 20.7

Dawn June Conch trumpet 6 330 96 1 55.4 30 20.7

barrier attenuation at the site. Our modeling results corroborate the noise analysis provided by the applicant, indicating that artificial berms and natural ridges effectively diminished the spread of noise from the mine to neighboring residences (Fig. 2). By investigating these sites and comparing our model's results with the results of currently accepted noise analysis methodology, we were able to validate our model. This provides a level of confidence in the model's calculations that would otherwise be absent.

locations substantially conform to those defined in the georeferenced sound assessment plan map, illustrating that distance attenuation calculated by our model conforms to previously established noise analysis methodology. The Weir Sand and Gravel Mine (DEC ID #4-3842-00089) was also the subject of an EIS in 2004 and additional noise analyses in 2005 (Griggs Lang Consulting Geologists, Inc., 2004; Milliman, 2005). The projected increase in sound pressure levels at five receptor locations (residences) were each evaluated based on two sound scenarios. Modeling for the Weir site was completed using the Soundshed Analysis tool input values in Table 1, which were obtained from the mine's Draft EIS (Griggs Lang Consulting Geologists, Inc., 2004: Section 7.3.1.2, Table 5). Again, the results of distance attenuation analysis substantially conformed with expected results, as shown in Table 2. A third site, West Wind Farms, Inc. (DEC ID #4-3842-00110), was chosen to test the barrier attenuation aspect of the Soundshed Analysis tool; this site underwent two noise analyses (Advanced Environmental Geology, LLC., 2014; Spectra Environmental Group, Inc., 2005a, 2005b; Sovas, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). The initial noise analysis published in 2005 determined that the existing topography and proposed berms would limit noise impacts to any neighboring residences. The constructed berms appear in our 2010 LiDAR data set, allowing us to model

4. Results Using this Soundshed Analysis tool, we analyzed potential sound propagation in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. As above, sound source locations and LiDAR data were required. Ruth Van Dyke of Binghamton University and Kyle Bocinsky of Crow Canyon Archaeological Center provided locational data for Chacoan sites. LiDAR data for Chaco Canyon was obtained from Open Topography (2016). Using this data, we modeled the propagation of sound at 33 sites within the Chacoan landscape consisting of 13 great house locations, 1 great kiva, 5 shrines, and 14 stone circles (Fig. 3). Great houses and great kivas are the embodiment of ideology (Van Dyke, 2008) and the location of power (Lekson, 1999, 2008). Shrines and circles, on the other hand, often

Fig. 1. Modeling results for distance attenuation at the Brickyard Facility (colored rings) substantially conform to the expected sound pressure levels indicated on the georeferenced sound assessment map (line drawing).

4

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Table 2 provides a comparison of distance attenuation outputs for two scenarios, A) the Haul Road, and B) the Mine Interior. Expected decibel levels are derived from Griggs Lang Consulting Geologists, Inc., 2004: Section 7.3.1.2, Table 4.2. Soundshed Analysis tool results are listed beneath the expected sound levels. Scenario A: haul road

Receptor 1

Receptor 2

Receptor 3

Receptor 4

Receptor 5

Expected sound level (dBA) Model results (dBA)

45.9 45.9

53.4 53.37

48.8 48.79

49.3 49.3

54.5 54.42

Scenario B: mine interior

Receptor 1

Receptor 2

Receptor 3

Receptor 4

Receptor 5

Expected sound level (dBA) Model results (dBA)

49.3 49.29

57.3 57.32

55.9 55.98

50.9 50.84

49.6 49.67

Fig. 2. The modeling result for rise above ambient sound pressure level at West Wind Farms is displayed over a georeferenced sound assessment map (line drawing). Labels within the sound assessment map (located approximately in the center of the figure) indicate the location of a natural ridge, which contributes to barrier attenuation. A berm located approximately 75 m east of the sound source location is also observed providing barrier attenuation.

generally stable within the past 10,000 years (Dean, 1988; Hall, 1988; Larson et al., 1996; Larson and Michaelson, 1990), allowing us to utilize historic data as a proxy. As such, air temperature and relative humidity were obtained from historical averages for the scenario being modeled; that is, if we modeled the spreading of sound from a conch shell trumpet during sunrise on the summer solstice, we utilized the average low temperature (13 °C, or 55.4 °F) and relative humidity (30%) for the month of June for the location. An average June high temperature of 32 °C (89.6 °F) was utilized for afternoon scenarios (Western Regional Climate Center, 2011). Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the sound propagation of an individual shouting from Pueblo Alto and New Alto respectively, two great houses (large, oftentimes multistoried structures) located approximately 150 m (494 feet) from each other on the mesa top north of Chaco Canyon. The figures show the spread of sound levels from the two sites over the assumed ambient (background) noise level of 20.7 dB(A). The darker the shade, the louder the individual's voice, to a maximum of approximately 57.5 dB(A) above background noise levels nearest the source of the sound. Not surprisingly, these figures illustrate that the two neighboring great houses are able to hear loud vocalizations originating from each other, such as shouts or an individual addressing

marked sacred locations and high points on the landscape (Van Dyke, 2008:58, 142). Among the hypothetical scenarios we modeled were several auditory phenomena that are likely to have been part of the Chacoan experience, including the sound of a conch shell trumpet, the sound of an individual with their voice raised above that of the crowd, as well as the typical day-to-day murmur of groups. Table 1 presents modeling assumptions. All iterations of the model were run assuming that ambient noise levels within the valley measured 20.7 dB(A), the background noise levels measured for pinyon-juniper shrubland (Ambrose, 2006). The height of the sound source was assumed to be five or six feet (1.5 or 1.8 m) above ground level, depending on the scenario. Source sound levels, frequencies, and measurement distances were obtained by searching the relevant literature, though these could be measured in the field using sound monitoring tools. For example, the sound emanating from a reproduction conch shell trumpet was previously measured to have a fundamental tone of 330 Hz and to be at 96 dB, and these numbers were entered into our tool (Loose, 2012, however see Taylor et al., 1994 for different measurements). Figures were also obtained for average crowd noise and for an individual shouting (Hayne et al., 2006). Paleoclimatological records indicate that the project area's climate has been 5

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Fig. 3. Sound propagation was modeled at 33 sites within the Chacoan landscape; consisting of great houses, shrines, and stone circles. A portion of downtown Chaco appears in the inset map.

a group. We call this phenomenon “interaudibility.” However, the figures also illustrate that the architecture of the great houses themselves provided barriers to the propagation of sound. In other words, a person standing immediately outside the western walls of Pueblo Alto would be able to hear someone shouting from New Alto, but an individual inside Pueblo Alto or an individual standing to the east of

Pueblo Alto would not be able to hear their call. Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate a different scenario: that of someone blowing a conch shell trumpet at dawn of the summer solstice, from either immediately north of Casa Rinconada, a large kiva (a circular, semisubterranean civic-ceremonial structure) (Fig. 6), or from the eastern platform mound immediately south of Pueblo Bonito (Fig. 7). These

Fig. 4. This figure indicates the rise over ambient sound pressure level made by an individual with their voice raised at Pueblo Alto.

6

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Fig. 5. This figure indicates the rise over ambient sound pressure level made by an individual with their voice raised at New Alto.

Fig. 6. This figure indicates the rise over ambient sound pressure level made by an individual playing a conch shell trumpet at dawn near Casa Rinconada.

that a number of mesa top stone circles (particularly 29SJ1565, 29SJ1572, 29SJ1976A_F, and 29SJ2240) may have been positioned to hear ritual events occurring immediately outside Casa Rinconada. Though difficult to prove, this potential intentionality may be similar to that displayed by the creators of Paleolithic rock art, whose images were determined to have been placed in locations of high resonance, albeit at a much larger scale (Reznikoff and Dauvois, 1988; Scarre,

particular scenarios were modeled because ethnographic records illustrate the use of shell trumpets for various Puebloan ceremonies, and the two locations are hypothesized to have been ritually charged, as illustrated by solstitial alignments (Sofaer, 1997). These figures show the modeled sound propagation, illustrating that a trumpet would have produced a sound approximately 60 dB(A) above background noise levels. Interestingly, the image for Casa Rinconada (Fig. 6), indicates 7

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Fig. 7. This figure indicates the rise over ambient sound pressure level made by an individual playing a conch shell trumpet at dawn south of Pueblo Bonito.

5. Discussion

1989, see also Watson, 2006; d'Errico and Lawson, 2006:53–55 for a discussion of intentionality).

Rather than a “retreat from geographic knowledge to geographic facts” (Taylor and Overton, 1991), this model, when coupled with a phenomenological approach, allows researchers to more fully understand how past landscapes were experienced by those who lived there, answering Tim Ingold's call that anthropologists adopt a greater awareness of the lived experience (Ingold, 2000). We believe our Soundshed Analysis tool offers an opportunity to respond to critiques of positivistic uses of GIS. In addition, it further integrates phenomenological methodology within landscape studies, and allows researchers to begin exploring audible spaces as heard places. As we develop this tool further, we expect this technology will be able to provide researchers with methods to develop and test their hypotheses. Like visibility, audibility can be an actively managed aspect of the built environment, and one can question the relationship between sound and site in the landscape. For example, Fig. 7 illustrates that individuals at Kin Kletso, Pueblo del Arroyo, Casa Rinconada, and Chetro Ketl, would have heard a conch shell trumpet blown on the platform mound at Pueblo Bonito. We interpret this to illustrate that events at the mound were not just meant to be experienced in front of Pueblo Bonito, but throughout Downtown Chaco. Fig. 6 indicates that the shrine 29SJ1207 may have been placed at its location, not only to mark a high point on the landscape, but also because it marks a location where an individual could hear certain ceremonies taking place at Casa Rinconada. As such, it may denote a liminal location on the edge of a ritually charged performance space. Likewise, stone circles 29SJ2240 and 20SJ1976A_F may indicate similar spots on the northern canyon walls (Witt and Primeau, 2017). If one considers Chaco Canyon as sacred performance space, then these features may have been closely linked with events occurring in Downtown Chaco, possibly even acting as physical representations of sacred bounds. Archaeologists tend to perceive ancient landscapes as dead silent, a result of our own experience of walking through empty ruins. However, this was obviously not how past landscapes were encountered. Rather, people experienced “a cacophony of drumming and singing, barking

4.1. Model assumptions We emphasize that the above examples were created using assumed numbers, and ideally model variables would utilize sound properties measured by a researcher. However, even by using assumed values obtained from the literature, we illustrate the utility of our tool in investigating past soundscapes, particularly as a preliminary exploration in the development of audibility hypotheses that can be experienced and recorded in the field. We also caution that researchers must be careful in applying this tool, and cognizant of the many assumptions that are present. For example, LiDAR datasets present topographic data from a specific point in time, and therefore without manually adjusting or correcting the terrain before modeling, the Soundshed Analysis tool can only create output based on that contemporary LiDAR data. Our modeling of sound at Chacoan sites (Figs. 3–7) present the propagation of sound across the modern landscape. Past landscapes obviously did not include modern features such as the road present in Fig. 7 as a curvilinear feature wrapping around the south of Pueblo Bonito, but anachronisms within the LiDAR data may be more subtle. For example, the image depicts modern geography, such as the path and depth of Chaco Wash, a river that has experienced several cycles of erosion and deposition for the past 1000 years (Mathien, 2005:45–46). Great houses were constructed in phases over decades, and shrines may not have been socially significant at the same time great houses were occupied. As Van Dyke states, “past landscapes no longer exist—contemporary landscapes can provide researchers with only partial, distorted experiences” (Van Dyke, 2008:39). Researchers must work to identify and mitigate such limitations, and bear in mind that these are models: representations of reality that help inform our understanding of past experience.

8

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Funding

dogs, and babbling voices” (Van Dyke, 2013:391). Our tool is being developed with the goal of putting sound back into the landscape. We encourage researchers to approach the experience of sound as an archaeological phenomenon and an integral aspect of the lived experience.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Acknowledgements

Conflicts of interest

NYSDEC staff including Nancy Baker, Bill Clarke, Chuck Vandrei, and Jim Eldred; Ruth Van Dyke and Kyle Bocinsky for providing data; and Jennifer Lapp, Cory Hauke, Jodi Lee Carpenter, Ashley Primeau, and two anonymous reviewers for reviewing the manuscript and providing comments.

Both authors are current employees of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Appendix A. Acoustical formulae Equation 1: Inverse Square Law (Distance Attenuation)

dL = L p2 − L p1 = 10 log(R2 R1)2 = 20 log(R2 R1)

(1)

Where: dL = difference in sound pressure level (dB) Lp1 = sound pressure level at location 1 (dB) Lp2 = sound pressure level at location 2 (dB) R1 = distance from source to location 1 R2 = distance from source to location 2 Equation 2: Fresnel Number

N= ±

2 (A + B − d) λ

(2)

Where: N = Fresnel Number λ = Wavelength of Sound A = Distance between the Source and the top of the Barrier B = Distance between the top of the Barrier and Receiver d = Straight line distance between Source and Receiver Equation 3: Barrier Attenuation

Abarrier = 20 log Abarrier = 0

2π N tanh 2π N

+ 5(dB) for N ≥ −0.2

otherwise

(3)

Where: Abarrier = Barrier Attenuation N = Fresnel Number

southwestern United States. Ethnomusicology 11, 71–90. Brown, Donald Nelson, 1971. Ethnomusicology and the prehistoric southwest. Ethnomusicology 15 (3), 363–378. Brown, Emily, 2005. Instruments of Power: Musical Performance in Rituals of the Ancestral Puebloans of the American Southwest. (Ph.D. dissertation) Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Brown, Emily, 2009. Musical instruments in the pre-hispanic southwest. Park. Sci. 26 (1), 46–49. Brown, Emily, 2014. Music of the center place: the instruments of Chaco Canyon. In: Stöckli, Matthias, Howell, Mark (Eds.), Flower World: Music Archaeology of the Americas, Vol 3. Ekho Verlag, Berlin, pp. 45–66. Brück, Joanna, 2005. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeol. Dialogues 12, 45–72. Cowan, J.P., 1994. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Cross, Ian, Watson, Aaron, 2006. Acoustics and the human experience of sociallyorganized sound. In: Scarre, Chris, Lawson, Graeme (Eds.), Archaeoacoustics. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 107–115. Cross, I., Zubrow, E., Cowan, F., 2002. Musical behaviours and the archaeological record: a preliminary study. In: Mathieu, J. (Ed.), Experimental Archaeology. BAR International Series 1035 British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 25–34.

References Advanced Environmental Geology, LLC, 2014. Czub Sand & Gravel, West Wind Farms, Town of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York, Mined Land Use Plan for New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYS DEC MLF #40836 - DEC #4-3842-00110. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies Available From New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY. Akins, Nancy J., 2003. The burials of Pueblo Bonito. In: Neitzel, Jill E. (Ed.), Pueblo Bonito: Center of the Chacoan World. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C., pp. 94–106. Ambrose, S., 2006. Sound Levels in the Primary Vegetation Types in Grand Canyon National Park, July 2005. NPS Report No. GRCA-05-02. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1995. ANSI S1.26-1995 Method for Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the Atmosphere. Acoustical Society of America, New York. Beranek, L.L., 1954. Acoustics. Mc-Graw Hill, New York. Beranek, L.L., Mellow, T.J., 2012. Acoustics: Sound Fields and Transducers. Academic Press, Waltham, MA. Brown, Donald Nelson, 1967. The distribution of sound instruments in the prehistoric

9

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

2017). Open Topography, 2016. GIS data. Electronic document. http://opentopo.sdsc.edu/ lidarOutput?jobId=pc1458044527131 (accessed March 15, 2016). Pijanowski, B.C., Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Dumyahn, S.L., Farina, A., Krause, B.L., Napoletano, B.M., Gage, S.H., Pieretti, N., 2011. Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape. Bioscience 61 (3), 213–216. Plack, C.J., 2005. The Sense of Hearing, first ed. Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis, New York. Reed, S.E., Mann, J.P., Boggs, J.L., 2009. 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. Reed, S.E., Boggs, J.L., Mann, J.P., 2010. 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. Reznikoff, I., Dauvois, M., 1988. La Dimension Sonore des Grottes Ornées. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 85, 238–246. Scarre, Chris, 1989. Painting by resonance. Nature 338, 382. Scarre, Chris, 2006. Sound, place and space: towards an archaeology of acoustics. In: Scarre, Chris, Lawson, Graeme (Eds.), Archaeoacoustics. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1–10. Scullin, Dianne, Boyd, Brian, 2014. Whistles in the wind: the noisy Moche City. World Archaeol. 46 (3), 362–379. Sofaer, Anna, 1997. The primary architecture of the Chacoan culture: a cosmological expression. In: Morrow, B.H., Price, V.B. (Eds.), Anasazi Architecture and American Design. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 88–132. Sovas, Gregory H., 2005a. Notice of Incomplete Application Response, dated April 13, 2005. Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY. Sovas, Gregory H., 2005b. Notice of Incomplete Application Response, Dated December 14, 2005. Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies Available From New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY. Sovas, Gregory H., 2005c. Notice of Incomplete Application Response, Dated September 9, 2005. Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies Available From New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY. Spectra Environmental Group, Inc, 2005a. Mined Land Use Plan, West Wind Farms. (Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY). Spectra Environmental Group, Inc, 2005b. Response to Notice of Incomplete Application of February 18. 2005, West Wind Farms, DEC Mined Land File #40-3-30-0836. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00110. Copies Available From New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY. Stein, John R., Friedman, Richard, Blackhorse, Taft, Loose, Richard, 2007. Revisiting Downtown Chaco. In: Lekson, Stephen H. (Ed.), The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 199–224. Sui, Daniel, 1994. GIS and urban studies: positivism, post-positivism, and beyond. Urban Geogr. 15 (3), 258–278. Taube, Karl, 2010. Gateways to Another World: The Symbolism of Supernatural Passageways in the Art and Ritual of Mesoamerican and the American Southwest. In: Kelley, Hays-Gilpin, Polly, Schaafsma (Eds.), Painting the Cosmos: Metaphor and Worldview in Images from the Southwest Pueblos and Mexico. Mus. North. Ariz. Bull. 67 Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, pp. 73–120. Taylor, R.W., Overton, M., 1991. Further thoughts on geography and GIS. Environ. Plan. A 23, 1087–1090. Taylor, L.R., Prasad, M.G., Bhat, R.B., 1994. Geometrical Modeling and Spectral Analysis of a Conch Shell Trumpet. (Paper presented at Third International Congress on Airand Structure-Borne Sound and Vibration, Montreal, Canada). Tilley, Christopher, 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Routledge, London. Tilley, Christopher, 2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Berg, Oxford. Tilley, Christopher, 2008. Body and Image: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 2. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Tilley, Christopher, 2010. Interpreting Landscapes: Geologies, Topographies, Identities; Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 3. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. Van Dyke, Ruth M., 2008. The Chaco Experience: Landscape and Ideology at the Center Place. School of Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Van Dyke, Ruth M., 2013. Imagined narratives: sensory lives in the Chacoan Southwest. In: Day, Jo (Ed.), Making Senses of the Past: Toward a Sensory Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 40 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp. 390–408. Van Dyke, Ruth M., 2014. Phenomenology in archaeology. In: Smith, Claire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 5909–5917. Van Dyke, Ruth M., 2015. The Chacoan past: creative representations and sensory engagements. In: Van Dyke, Ruth M., Bernbeck, Reinhard (Eds.), Subjects and Narratives in Archaeology. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 83–99. Ver, I.L., Beranek, L.L., 2006. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering: Principles and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (editors). Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Pijanowski, B.C., Doucette, J., Pekin, B., 2011. A primer of

Cummings, Vicki, Whittle, Alasdair, 2004. Places of Special Virtue: Megaliths in the Neolithic Landscape of Wales. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Dean, Jeffrey S., 1988. Dendrochronology and paleoenvironmental reconstruction on the Colorado plateaus. In: Gumerman, G.J. (Ed.), The Anasazi in a Changing Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 119–167. Devereux, Paul, Richardson, Tony, 2001. Stone Age Soundtracks: The Acoustic Archaeology of Ancient Sites. Vega, London. Eneix, Linda C. (Ed.), 2014. Archaeoacoustics: The Archaeology of Sound. Publication of the 2014 Conference in Malta. The OTS Foundation, Myakka City, FL. d'Errico, Francesco, Lawson, Graeme, 2006. The sound paradox: how to assess the acoustic significance of archaeological evidence? In: Scarre, Chris, Lawson, Graeme (Eds.), Archaeoacoustics. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 41–57. Griggs Lang Consulting Geologists, Inc, 2004. John and Mary Weir, Weir Farm Sand and Gravel Mine Town of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, New York, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00089. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY). Hacigüzeller, Piyare, 2012. GIS, critique, representation and beyond. J. Soc. Archaeol. 12 (2), 245–263. Hall, Stephen A., 1988. Prehistoric vegetation and environment at Chaco Canyon. Am. Antiq. 53, 582–592. Hamilton, S., Whitehouse, R., 2006. Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a “subjective” approach. Eur. J. Archaeol. 9 (1), 31–71. Harrison, R.T., Clark, R.N., Stankey, G.H., 1980. Predicting impact of noise on recreationists. In: ED & T Project No. 2688: Noise Pollution Prediction Method. USDA Forest Service, Equipment Development Center, San Dimas, CA. Hayne, M.J., Rumble, R.H., Mee, D.J., 2006. Prediction of crowd noise. In: Proceedings of Acoustics 2006. 1. pp. 235–240. Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, Sekaquaptewa, Emory, Newsome, Elizabeta A., 2010. Sìitalpuva, “through the land brightened with flowers”: ecology and cosmology in mural and pottery painting, hopi and beyond. In: Hays-Gilpin, Kelley, Schaafsma, Polly (Eds.), Painting the Cosmos: Metaphor and Worldview in Images From the Southwest Pueblos and Mexico. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 67 Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, pp. 121–138. Ingold, Tim, 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Routledge, London. Jimenez, Raquel, Till, Rupert, Howell, Mark, 2013. Music & Ritual: Bridging Material & Living Cultures. Publications of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology, Volume 1 Ekho Verlag, Berlin (editors). Johnson, Matthew H., 2012. Phenomenological approaches in landscape archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41, 269–284. LA Group, P.C, 1995. Sound Assessment: The Brickyard Asphaltic Concrete Plant. (Prepared For: Brickyard Associates, Ltd. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00025. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY). Lamancusa, John S., 2000. What is noise and Why do we care about it? In: Noise Control. ME 458 Engineering Noise Control Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Lamancusa, John S., 2001. Fundamentals of hearing. In: Noise Control. ME 458 Engineering Noise Control Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Originally published 2000. Lamancusa, John S., 2009. Outdoor sound propagation. In: Noise Control. ME 458 Engineering Noise Control Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Originally published 2000. Larson, Daniel O., Michaelson, Joel, 1990. Impacts of climatic variability and population growth on virgin branch Anasazi cultural developments. Am. Antiq. 55, 227–249. Larson, Daniel O., Neff, Hector, Graybill, Donald A., Michaelson, Joel, Ambos, Elizabeth, 1996. Risk, climatic variability, and the study of southwestern prehistory: an evolutionary perspective. Am. Antiq. 61, 217–241. Lekson, Stephen H., 1999. The Chaco Meridian: Centers of Political Power in the Ancient Southwest. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Lekson, Stephen H., 2008. A History of the Ancient Southwest. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Long, Dean R., 1995. Field Sound Measurements at the Brickyard. (The LA Group, P.C. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00025. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY). Loose, Richard W., 2008. Tse'Biinaholts'a Yałti (curved rock that speaks). Time and Mind 1 (1), 31–50. Loose, Richard W., 2012. That old music: reproduction of a shell trumpet from Pueblo Bonito. In: Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 38, pp. 127–133. Lord, H.W., Gatley, W.S., Evensen, H.A., 1980. Noise Control for Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York. Mathien, Frances Joan, 2005. Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin. Publications in Archeology 18H Chaco Canyon Studies National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Santa Fe. Miller, N.P., 2008. US national parks and management of park soundscapes: a review. Appl. Acoust. 69, 77–92. Milliman, Brian, 2005. Barrier Attenuation Calculations. (Griggs Lang Consulting Geologists, Inc. Submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Facility No. 4-3842-00089. Copies available from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region 4, Schenectady, NY). Mills, Barbara J., Ferguson, T.J., 2008. Animate objects: shell trumpets and ritual networks in the greater southwest. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 15 (4), 338–361. Mlekuz, Dimitrij, 2004. Listening to landscapes: modelling past soundscapes in GIS. Internet Archaeology 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.16.6 (accessed February 3,

10

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

K.E. Primeau, D.E. Witt

Chaco Canyon. Kiva 81 (3–4), 220–246. Western Regional Climate Center, 2011. Chaco Canyon national monument [sic], New Mexico, monthly climate summary. Electronic document. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1647 (accessed March 1, 2011). Witt, David E., Primeau, Kristy E., 2017. Soundscapes in the Past: Interaudibility in the Chacoan Built Landscape. (Poster delivered at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver).

acoustic analysis for landscape ecologists. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 1233–1246. Watson, Aaron, 2006. (Un)intentional sound? acoustics and Neolithic monuments. In: Scarre, Chris, Lawson, Graeme (Eds.), Archaeoacoustics. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 11–22. Watson, A., Keating, D., 1999. Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity 73, 325–336. Weiner, Robert S., 2015. A sensory approach to exotica, ritual practice, and cosmology at

11