4. Breaking the Sound Barrier – New Directions for Complexity, Transformation and Reconstructive Practice in Experimental Neolithic Archaeoacoustics
Claire Marshall
Abstract
When considering recent interpretive developments in the Archaeology of the Neolithic, it is apparent that visual cues in disseminating the archaeological ‘record’ are dominant over the primary sensory experiences we as human beings rely upon every day. In constructing a view of our prehistory we are confronted with fragments of a culture seemingly alien to our own and are left to erect biographies based upon inference. In considering the importance of radical experimental archaeology as emergent novelty we are able to include the notion of ‘approximation’ as a valid path to understanding our ancestral prehistory.
This paper will consider research in sound archaeology and its implications for how we view the British Neolithic through the controversial paradigm of emergent novelty. Through the implementation of a pilot project combining Neolithic archaeoacoustics and reconstructive organology (sounding devices from animal remains), we are able to gain an understanding of social dynamics and complexity where transformation, and the skills to achieve such transformation, play a central role, thus addressing in new ways our problematic dependency upon traditional culture/nature dichotomies.
Situating Theory with Practice
Few areas of research have been more central to what previously has been considered as parting of the ways of new and post-processual archaeologies. Many of the presuppositions mentioned in the previous chapter have impeded strongly on the adoption of fresh approaches to our data. The situation is changing, not least of all through the increasing attention that is being given to the relevance for new directions of research on the Neolithic of insights drawn from Tim Ingold’s work (for instance, Thomas eds 2000) into the novel and unpredictable ways in which experience is constructed at the contingent level. As Koerner (2008, 2009) has iterated, the ethical implications for Latours quote for the common world as ‘not something we can come to recognise’ (Latour 1993) have far reaching implications for the ways in which experimental archaeology can be conducted. We are bound by notions of the experiment proving a predetermined hypothesis (Binford 1968), rather than opening up new ways in which we can view both our past archaeology and our present reliance on the deterministic nature of hypothesis testing. My purpose in this discussion is to problematize some of the theoretical arguments relating to predetermination by considering methods by which anthropology and molecular science can be touched upon as analogy to skills that are manifest in the archaeological record. This in turn brings to bear the importance of ecological engagements in the past and provides an optimistic alternative for the inclusion of creative techniques in the way experimental archaeology is conducted. This discussion will consider both the theoretical underpinnings of spontaneous creativity in nature (or Emergent Novelty as used by biological anthropologists) and situating that creativity into case studies of experimental archaeology from existing archaeological data. My case studies will look at current research into material and organic remains at Neolithic contexts in Britain and my own research into sound/acoustic and sensory archaeology at sites of a contemporary nature.
The Theory of Ingold and Prigogine: Indeterminancy in Nature and Skills
The work of anthropologist Tim Ingold is particularly pertinent for our understanding of how the culture/nature dichotomies are in fact hindering the advancement of our knowledge of the archaeological past. Ingold’s approach has challenged some of the presuppositions of science as laid bare by Koerners critique of determinism in science (Koerner 2009). Particular attention is given here to Tim Ingold’s work in addressing major objections to experimental archaeology raised by post-processualists (Binford 1969), and addressing problems with the nature/culture dichotomy in general by challenging the presuppositions upon which these deterministic visions of the world hinge. Ingold’s work can be drawn from parallels in other disciplines such as that of molecular physics. Physicist and Nobel Laureate in Physical Thermodynamics Ilya Prigogine challenged the assumptions of these dichotomies by exposing the importance of creativity and improvisation at the molecular level in the seemingly random ways atomic structures came into being thus situating the phenomena of emergent novelty (Prigogine 1997). He advocated that irreversibility in nature (or the phenomena by which self organisation in molecular and cellular formation cannot be undone) was normal, contingent and essential for the ways in which these structures interact with their environment (ibid.). Prigogine understood that to overcome determinism in nature, the very basic atoms themselves form complex social relationships so that they may cooperate in building something new, emergent and creative, and that conditions in nature are not subject to all factors moving towards an equilibrium as is suggested by the foundational laws of Newtonian Mechanics (ibid.). Prigogine’s work formed a potent critique of the neo-Darwinian biology associated with linear forms of development centred on complicated descriptions of physical and chemical processes of the organism (Koerner 2007). It suggested that instead of us considering the split of social and biological life (or the organism and the social person), we consider emergent novelty, or the ideas of irreversible change as normal to everyday development (Barber 2008) (rather than a ‘copying error’ or anomaly) of physical, biological and social life (ibid.). This point frames the intelligibility of nature, integrating a coherent, logical necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted (Whitehead 1978). This potent rhetoric asks us to consider a framework in which we should consider all aspects of both the physical and social to be connected and reflexive beyond notions of determinism.
Ingold shares much of this sentiment with Prigogine, but Ingold, however, has taken the ideas of indeterminacy in nature and molecular science and has utilised the roles played by essentialism in the social sciences, which have profound implications for the archaeological study of prehistoric material culture (Ingold 2000). For example highlighting the divisions between the real and historical, moderns and pre-moderns, etc in generating problems that are now being subject to much critique of the dichotomies by new interdisciplinary projects that address the following issues:
a) | Approaches to cognition (the work of Donald) grounded in rigidly held assumptions of mind-body, individual-society and other dichotomies that are considered to hold states far from equilibrium of co-evolutionary forms of life (Ingold 2000, Kauffman 1995) |
b) | Versions of cultural theory that ‘attribute human behaviours to designs that are passed from one generation to the next as the content of traditions’ and in this point, appreciation that no one ever will be ‘modern’ or ‘pre-modern’ in the ways that standard accounts of science and modernity claim (Gamble 2007, Ingold 2000, Descola and Palssen 1996, Latour 1993). |
The temporal nature of Ingold’s research highlighted above also makes possible some of the hypotheses that he has previously developed about human beings as ‘loci of creative growth relationships’ (2000), which are powerful critiques of the nature/culture dichotomies. He has suggested that much of what post-processual archaeologists call cultural variation may consist of variations in skill – not just techniques of the body, but capabilities of action and perception of the whole organic being (Ingold 2000). He provides a potent alternative for our closely held oppositions between the two paradigms in considering aspects of enskillment. These being particular forms of experience and states that, “becoming skilled in the practice of a particular form of life is not a matter of furnishing a set of generalised capacities (as was considered for memory by Donald), given from the start as compartments of universal human nature, with specific cultural content” (Ingold 2000, 23). Rather than being transmitted from one generation to the next by tradition, they are ‘regrown, incorporated into the modus operandi’ of the developing human organism/person through training and experience in the performance of particular tasks. This latter point will be particularly important for our consideration of the Neolithic case study on reconstructed sound as it suggests the work relating to sound-sense relations are contingent upon the experiences that are first brought to bear on the environmental setting. Ingold also considers the temporality of the work at hand in recognising that factors such as perception, skill and embodiment are intrinsically linked with notions of an all encompassing ‘task’ environment. Here both present and past peoples have found themselves in a constant state of reciprocated experience and reflexivity in situating the practitioner from the start in the context of active engagement with his or her surroundings (Ingold 2000, 5). Ingold’s work itself can be drawn analogies with the ways in which the sense of hearing and pulses of rhythm are experienced by the body. Ingold, in earlier work likened the rhythms of human activity resonating with aspects of other rhythmic phenomena, the cycles of day and night. What is important for this is that the world and the experience of it, is not separated from individual organisms, but rather is generative within which organic forms are located and held in place (Ingold 1990, 215), which means that to dwell within the world, we do not act upon it, or do things to it; we move along with it. Rather like the ways in which a musician works with the space in creating something which sounds desirable to his or her ears.
Situating Creativity
This work, like some of the problematizing of creativity and experience that Ingold suggests, forms a critique of the presuppositions held by the new and post-processual paradigms in archaeology. It has shown that there are in fact no issues or problems that can be solved from a context independant perspective and that the organism is bound up in all aspects of environmental and social implications for their actions (Ingold 2000). Probably the most important factor this is the use of creativity in nature. The indeterminate ways in which the organism is generated through the course of its development is vital for our understanding that traditional modes of interpreting material culture and evidence in the archaeological record are flawed at best. Creativity is now evident as a powerful critique of determinacy in nature and as essential for the way humans engage with their environment not based upon laws which seek to prove natural states as repetitive, stable and seeking a mode of equilibrium (Barder 2007, Bergson 1911) but rather as in a constant state of flux, movement and full of indeterminate outcomes (ibid.). Improvisation and creativity are, as we have considered earlier in this volume, vital and normal for the development of both cultural and organic life as processes are compelled to improvise, not because they are operating on the inside of an established body of convention, but because no system of codes, rules and norms can anticipate every possible circumstance (Hallam and Ingold 2007). There are gaps that exist between non-specific guidelines and specific conditions in the world and these are never the same from one moment to the next, and as such, the space for improvisation between the two becomes and imperative that requires that people respond accordingly (ibid.). This is potential and dynamic for spontaneity and improvised cultural and organic creativity.
My purpose in this chapter is to illustrate with two case studies the relevance of the approaches of Ingold, Prigogine and Koerner’s approach to skills, creativity, improvisation and perceptions for research on human and animal interactions in the Neolithic Southern Britain (non cal 4000–2200 bc). By exploring the available archaeological materials relating to themes of perception and contingency in the ways in which people in the past constructed their identities through their material things, we may be able to strengthen arguments for including creativity and improvisation amongst the normal and essential ways in which life develops. I will focus on the complex and varied depositional practices reflected in the archaeological record from a number of sites relating to bone and artefact assemblages. Much of the relevance of these case studies relates to their documenting a wide variety of practices reflecting distinctly regional identities (Bruck 2005; Edmonds 1999) which are being explored by Neolithic studies alert to the importance of regional creative variations in both settlement and depositional practices. My research has been particularly concerned with the cultural and ecological contingency of sound and sound-sense, as it emerges and ensures beyond the visual realm at states far from equilibrium. The overestimation of the importance of vision for perception and social relations in society can be called into question, since eyes require light to enable visual engagement (Ingold 2000). Hearing and the sound-sense however, do not depend upon the qualities of vision. Sonic illumination can be activated in darkness, indeed, darkness is sometimes considered to heighten our perceptions to sounds and sound sources (Blesser and Salter 2007; Ingold 2000). It is this enduring and contingent nature of hearing and sound-sense which situates it amongst emergent modes of being and mutual engagement within the natural and cultural environments of both the archaeological and social sciences.
The Neolithic: A Model of Indeterminacy?
Until recently, notions and discussions of Neolithic habitation in southern Britain were centred around the need to locate and define the nature and extent of the domestication of animals and plants (Hodder 2003). It hinged upon the conclusion that a revolution in the ways in which people organised themselves was inevitable and all encompassing (Johnson 1999) and that a grand narrative as to the interactions of these peoples was in fact part of the revolutionary process towards the domestication and control of nature (Bradley 1984; Thomas 1999). This paradigm concluded that an inevitable homogeneity of culture was essential to the advancement of civilisation and that its trajectory could be followed and predicted just as was the case with foundational laws relating to rational modes of enquiry (Koerner 2007; Jones 2007). The truth, however, is rather more complex as we have seen with the difficulties in accepting a separation of culture and nature. We are aware that nothing exists as context independent, and that novel and unpredictable alliances are the natural and essential ways of the world. The struggle between the laws of nature and the dialogues of culture are plain to see in light of the presuppositions imposed upon the discussions of the separating theoretical frameworks of the ‘new’ and post processual archaeology. In light of this, I propose that the evidence pertaining to the Neolithic past must be subject to the same scrutiny about the supposed predictability of cultural trajectories surrounding material practices. As the following case studies will show, they yield up archaeological evidence which does not reflect uniformity in the way of things relating to Neolithic depositional practices, but rather they are contingent upon the creativity and rich variability to which these communities must have held dear. They reflect what Ingold suggests as perception and dwelling in their cultural practices which bring to bear their relationships with the animal world.
Etton Causewayed Enclosure, Cambridgeshire
The earlier Neolithic enclosure at Etton, Cambridgeshire (fourth millennium BC onwards) is an intriguing example of how perception of ecological engagement is reflected in the varied and rich depositional practices of Neolithic peoples. During the 1980’s the site was excavated ahead of quarrying extension near Peterborough and revealed a large enclosure of multi phased use (Edmonds 1999, 110; Pryor 1999). Their ditches were recut on a number of occasions and the habitation of the site was thought to be contingent upon the cyclical nature of the seasons (ibid.). It is a site which must have held a rich tradition of creative interaction with the environment as was located on the Cambridgeshire fens, a waterlogged ecology for part of the year (Pryor 1999). Depositional and habitation practices at the site led the archaeologist, Francis Pryor to conclude that there must have been two symbolic zones, one associated with the living and the other with the dead (Edmonds 1999, 110). The ditches to the enclosure had been recut on a number of occasions and were home to a rich array of deposited items both discarded and deliberately and carefully placed (ibid.). This latter point is important as it suggests the habitants of the enclosure are not just discarding their material items, but rather are engaging in practices which are both symbolic and culturally profound. The importance of this to our discussion is self evident, it suggests that peoples at this site were fully aware of their place in the cosmology of their locale and they were engaging in creative ways with their surroundings by placing a variety of artefacts, animal and even human bones in the waterlogged ditches surrounding the enclosure (Pryor 1999). The nature of the depositional practices were varied, with what are considered to be rather more exotic items being placed with what we would consider more everyday items. Smashed stone axes of Cumbrian origin, flint tools and pottery intermingled with bundles of fresh cattle bones places on birch bark mats and disarticulated human bones mixed with broken cattle bones were yielded from multiple layers of occupation (Pryor 1999). It can be difficult to ascertain the motives for depositing items in this way, but what is self evident for me here, is that such a package of cultural practices did not flourish devoid of their environmental contexts. The people would have been more than aware of the changing nature of their environment and they would have almost certainly have created and recreated ways in which the past could be remembered through the renewal of the land, seasons, and their interactions with their animals. The evidence suggests that human animal interactions were of the utmost importance to these early communities with the artefactual remains pointing towards a culture based upon the contingency of blurred and intertwined identities (Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005). It seems that distinctions were not made between the natural resources utilised as part of domestic and symbolic events and the cultural identity placed upon the material from the point of view of cosmology. This results in an understanding of the evidence as emergent and creative, far removed from our long held beliefs in the nature/culture agrios/domus paradigms.
The role of the animal human interaction is potent for the case of Etton. It allows us to gain somewhat of an understanding of the ways in which the communities may have used animal remains. Their perceptions of their environment led them to weave creative, transformative concepts associated with material culture that goes beyond our previously held assumptions about the arbitrary nature of the Neolithic in Britain. What are laid bare with this case study are our previously held assumptions about the normative and the particular in interpreting the evidence based on the processual or post processual paradigm. The evidence does not conform to either of the dichotomies as it is:
a) | contingent upon the unification of both the Neolithic inhabitants engagement with their animals on a daily and seasonal basis |
b) | dependant upon the creative nature by which human/animal interactions and identities are subject to innovative and unpredictable change. |
Etton is a potent example of mapping social geographies relating to ecological enlightenment in Neolithic communities. It suggests that previously held assumptions about the presuppositions of a Neolithic ‘package’ are false and that cultural diversity is not made up of equally small parts which are subject to a single trajectory towards a balanced equilibrium as is suggested by foundational natural laws. They are rather subject to the creativity that is essential for the development of both organic and cultural life (Koerner 2008). We come back to Ingold’s work on the creativity inherent in all aspects of life to explain some of the movements and developments within the scrutiny of human/animal interactions of the Neolithic. Ingold places a precedence on the spontaneous nature of creative interactions by suggesting that within anthropological (and indeed archaeological) study, creativity can best contribute by challenging, rather than reproducing – the polarity between novelty and convention (Hallam and Ingold 2007). This is pertinent for our discussion on creativity in Neolithic depositional practices as it also challenges our assumptions regarding the separation of novelty and convention in archaeology. It gives us new ground from which to engage with the evidence that places our interpretations firmly in the framework of response to lifes contingencies (ibid.). If such contingencies were therefore the case, can we not also consider the concepts of adaptive reuse (Bradley 1993). Some of the material remains recovered from such Neolithic contexts as enclosure ditches, post holes and other sites such as the Coneybury ‘anomaly’ or later Neolithic sites such as Durrington Walls (Thomas forthcoming, Thomas 1999, Bradley 1998) where seemingly unusual assemblages of both domesticated and wild animals were brought together with fragments of pots and stone tools, could be reinterpreted utilising creative explanations as to the use and reuse of some of the organic remains.
New Alliances of Experimental Archaeology – Research Case Study: Acoustic archaeology and the contingency of transformative sound
In considering some of the alternative and adaptive reuses of material and organic remains – I would like to turn the attention of the discussion to some of my own research into possible uses of animal remains relating to sound and sound transformations. My work has been involved with how our Neolithic ancestors may have interpreted their worlds through the use of sensory contingent things. In this instance sound, as we have discussed, is essential to our own modes of communication (Marshall 2009). Experimental forms of archaeology today are subject to the theoretical modes of enquiry that have been discussed when considering some of the historiography of the separation of culture and nature through the paradigms of the new and post-processual archaeology (Koerner 2008). I will outline here, some of the motivations in setting the case for the integrated view of sound and acoustics in their Neolithic setting along with the theoretical frameworks relating to our understanding of the experiential aspects of acoustic engagement with sound environments and their effects on the body and mind. This latter part is important if we are to understand how past communities may have found the qualitative differences of sound as transformatory.
Figure 4.1. Deposits from Durrington Walls, Wiltshire (Permission J. Thomas).
Acoustics and Space
In realising an experimental form of archaeology in terms of our freedom of expression in undertaking the task, we must first understand some of the concepts which allow for our perception to be expressed both creatively and innovatory with spaces and surrounding acoustic events. The relationship between the auditory system and the cultural spaces we inhabit is vital to mention if we are to recognise a sensory experience that is classed as ‘whole’ (D’errico and Lawson 2006). By this I refer to the effects of sound in space when the organism is present (the human actor) with these spaces identified through sound and so called ‘Sound Horizons’ (Blesser and Salter 2007), that is, sound parameters being the catalysts by which social space is negotiated and demarcated (Watson and Keating 1999; Watson 2001). These horizons are themselves novel as they are interactive and indeterminate as the actor engages with the space. They are, in effect both inclusive and exclusive as acoustical responses interact in creating an auditory dialogue (Blesser and Salter 2007; Cross et al. 2002), becoming part of both the instrument and the participant during the course of engagement.
The human experience of sound is, as with other aspects of the sensory realm, context dependant (Blesser and Salter 2007) with the interplay of both ecological creativity and cultural perception working together in choosing the individual reactions to sound horizons (ibid.). These implications are somewhat integral to the understanding of the use of spaces aurally in the prehistoric past and for the purpose of this discussion, the Neolithic past. I will mention a broad outline of some of the acoustical phenomena associated with the experience of sound that are likely to be present when conducting some of the experiments. To understand how our Neolithic ancestors may have engaged with monuments such as passage graves, chambered tombs and stone circles, we must first consider the types of acoustical phenomena that such structures could have produced when sound was generated within them. Pilot studies at Neolithic monuments in the British Isles (3800–2000 bc) have suggested that these places were conducive to the creation of dynamic multi-sensory experiences, affording acoustic effects such as echoes, resonance, and Standing Waves (Watson and Keating 1999, 326). These effects may not have been intentional in the design of the structure, it is highly unlikely that they would have been ignored by the communities that used them in prehistory (Watson 2001; Tuzin 1984). Understanding of acoustical effects within an enclosed space today is far removed from the interpretation that peoples in the Neolithic may have attributed to monuments (Waller 2004; Tuzin 1984). But what such an engagement represents for ideas of emergent novelty and complexity, given the reciprocal relationship that exists between the organism and the given effect is a potent reminder of the creative and indeterminate nature of interaction. Studies of the tangible effects of auditory phenomena over the last 100 years has seen the development of a range of methods for the quantification of the acoustics of different physical environments (Waller 2004; Watson and Keating 1999) and as such is entrenched in the Western scientific tradition where the consensus has been to reduce the effects of undesirable acoustical features such as standing waves, flutter echoes and resonances (Parncutt 2001; Needham 1967). When current approaches to acoustics are quantified using calibrated measurements in the modern sense, the quantification tends to be carried out with a view to minimising resonances and flutter echoes rather than exploring ways in which they could have been used positively in prehistory (Cross and Watson 2005; Watson and Keating 1999). With this in mind, I would suggest that the experiential aspect of a space that exhibits auditory phenomena and the analysis of the resulting phenomena psychologically could be employed in conjunction with quantifiable methods of sound measurement to interpret acoustical qualities that may have been noticed and utilised in the Neolithic.
The Experiments
For the purpose of our sound experiments, a number of instruments from organic materials originating from cows were constructed. They consisted of a number of blast horns from various breeds of traceable ancient cattle, drums made by stretch calfskin over a wooden base, flutes made from the long bones of cattle and whistles from cattle toe bones. These were then analysed using spectrum analysis software to ascertain fundamental and frequency tonal harmonics so that we could benchmark the qualitative differences before recording these within monumental settings. The instruments themselves were also analysed to consider the fundamental frequency tones and residual harmonics in both open and closed spaces. There were a number of intriguing results which were not expected which shows consistency with our approach to the indeterminate nature of acoustical responses in specific spaces.
The fundamental frequencies were located and could be predicted for each of the instruments, but when played in some of the spaces chosen for our experiment – in this case, Bryn Cellu Ddu on Anglesey and a number of Neolithic and early Bronze Age sites of the Kilmartin Valley complex, Kilmartin, South Western Argyle – the sound responses yielded from the experiments displayed unusual residual effects. These consisted of standing waves in the case of Bryn Cellu Ddu which resulted in a distorted assumption of the location of the sound source. The Kilmartin context also exhibited a number of strange phenomena outcomes, for example the player would sound inside the stone circle of Temple Wood monument and the resulting acoustical effect gave the impression of more than one instrument responding, the sound waves bouncing off certain stones and promoting a qualitatively different effect. Another site of the Kilmartin complex, the Nether Largie Cairn South also exhibited more acoustic phenomena than was expected in such a small space. Prominent Infrasonic phenomena (which is the production of sub harmonic frequencies below the threshold of human hearing) and flutter echoes (flutter echoes are caused by echoes bouncing back and forth from parallel surfaces following a percussive sound such as a clap or beat of a drum) were yielded from the small chambered space inside the cairn that could again be considered to sound like more than one instrument was being played. This happened with both the percussion and low frequency timbred horns. Such effects were not accounted for in our predictions of how the sound would perform in spaces, we could not account accurately for these based on the foundational laws of architectural acoustics (Sabine 1964). This led us to conclude that we also altered the ways in which the instruments were played to compensate for the indeterminate effects, our own auditory systems were engaging in a novel interaction with the space to produce effects that could neither be accounted for, nor predicted given the size and orientation of the space. We could only conclude through the use of the sounding devices in the space that we were experiencing powerful example of complex emergent improvisation and creativity in sound reciprocity.
Figure 4.2. Reconstructed instruments for on site tests (Copyright, the author).
Figure 4.3. Reconstructed instruments for on site tests (Copyright, the author).
Psychoacoustic Phenomena and Transformation
These tests were vital in bringing to bear the effects on aspects of the transformative qualities of sound in given environmental settings.
I would like to mention also how some of these specific auditory phenomena affect the human physical body which can result in experiences that give the impression of the unfamiliar, powerful and transformatory In reality this is the body language of sound, its personality if you like in the ability of sound to interact according to spatial dimension. While the detailed and subtle effects of sound in general on consciousness are still subject to investigation, some broader effects, both psychological and physical have been recorded (Blesser and Salter 2007). Most of the human body resonates at low frequencies and what is intriguing from the point of view of spatial movement, is that the body resonates at various frequencies depending on what position it is in (Deveraux 2001) for example whether an individual is lying down, sitting or kneeling. This could therefore have implications for those peoples who may have used enclosed chambered spaces to conduct their ritualised transformative activities (ibid.). Physical sound itself is a pressure wave that transports both sonic events and the attributes of a acoustic space to the listener (Watson 2007), thereby connecting the external world to the listeners ears (Blesser and Salter 2007, 12) as this notion suggests, it is this activation of space which is essential in understanding the transformation of sound through the human/space interaction and creative interpretation. Here the biology and cultural filtering works together to create responses to aural space that cannot be accounted for if we were to invoke laws relating to either normative or particular science.
Probably one of the most powerful results of the use of sounding devices in enclosed, low ceiling spaces is infrasound. It has recorded some of the most psychologically distinct effects on human participants in a complete chambered space (Deveraux 2001, Watson and Keating 1999). It occurs at the low end of the frequency spectrum, below the threshold of human auditory system (which terminates at approx 15–20 Hz depending on the individual). Sub frequencies and infrasound can occur simultaneously, but infrasound can also be present on its own. It is usually felt as a low chugging effect and can affect the inner ear by creating lower harmonic distortions (Watson 2007; Cross and Watson 2001). Certain specific effects of moderate intensity infrasound have been recorded, one is the sensation of dizziness and motion (Reznikoff 2007). The result is a feeling of nausea, a vertigo like sensation that could well have been interpreted in the past as engagement with other worlds, the space literally as a gateway to transformation from the physical world to that of the ancestral domain with the sounding devices as the key (Blake and Cross 2008). At between 2–5Hz, the physical effects of infrasound on the human subject include a pressure build up in the middle ear difficulty in swallowing and speaking, chest wall vibration and post-exposure headaches, gagging sensations and watering of the eyes (Cross et al. 2002; Deveraux 2001). Whilst we are aware of these as physical effects that have taken place in a modern control environment, it is entirely feasible that a similar set of auditory phenomena could have been attributed to the symbolic or magical ways in which these symptoms could have been generated using such sounding devices (Deveraux and Jahn 1996). Is it then, any wonder that the Neolithic peoples may have coveted their cattle in special ways as their purpose was not just a physical show of conspicuous wealth. But of a framework of interrelated social bonds through the reuse of the remains in the construction of devices of transformation? It is pertinent to suggest that the people involved in such rites of identity would have had their own explanations for why such effects occurred during their most intimate of events. These effects on the body are indicative of the transformatory nature of sound and sound-senses from the point of view that creativity is interacting with the space itself, the space becomes part of the instrument and is therefore alive with the experience of sound. In effect, the environment becomes part of the organism of sound and is given life as an active part of the creative process.
This latter point takes us back to Ingold’s directions in calling for the barriers to be broken down to separate notions of what it is to inhabit and ‘dwell’ within a space or environment. These examples of the use of sound environments call into question the long held presuppositions over the belief in a Neolithic that was populated by peoples wishing to remove themselves from their natural world and engage in a systematic control of the ecology around them. Rather it asks us to call into question our own interpretation of that world which increasingly seems as if their contemporary communities were in fact working with aspects of nature that are quite clearly reflected in the visible archaeological record. The use of animal remains and its variation by region allow us to reinterpret some of the Neolithic evidence from the point of view of emergent creativity. These actions seem to be happening in working with a cosmology that does not upset the processes of interaction between the natural world and the cultural inhabitations of that world on the part of the community, but rather their actions are contingent upon ways in which that world is manifest through ecology and vice versa. Their interactions with that world were subject to subsequent factors as: ecological engagement, mnemonic triggers of past experiences, skills of everyday manifestations of material culture and sensory perception of sound, taste, vision and touch.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Stephanie Koerner, Prof. Julian Thomas, Dr Aaron Watson, John Crewdson, Prof. Tim Ingold, Simon Wyatt and Shane Mottershead (for the conference visual presentation).
Bibliography
Barber, K. (2007) Improvisation and the art of making things stick. In E. Hallam and T. Ingold (eds) Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Basingstoke, Berg Publishers.
Blake, E. and Cross, I. (2008) Sound and Music in Prehistoric Context. Unpublished Paper Presented at Workshop: Virtual Audio and Past Environments. 17th March 2008 – National Centre for Early Music, York.
Blesser, B. and Salter, L. R (2007) Spaces Speak Are you Listening? Experiencing Aural Architecture. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
Bergson, H. (1911) The Philosophy of Bergson. New York, Kessinger Publishing.
Binford, L. (1968) New Perspectives in Archaeology. New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press.
Bradley, R. (1984) The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain. Bristol, Longman.
Bradley, R. (1993) Archaeology: The Loss of Nerve. In N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt (eds) Archaeology: Who sets the Agenda? Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, R. (1998) The Significance of Monuments: On the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. London, Routledge.
Bruck, J. (2005) Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues Vol 12, Issue 1: 45–72. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Cross, I., Zubrow, E. and Cowan, F. (2002) Musical behaviours and the archaeological record: a preliminary study. In J. Mathieu (eds) Experimental Archaeology. BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1035: 25–34.
Cross, I. and Watson, A. (2001) Acoustics and the Human Experience of Socially Organised Sound. In Scarre, C. and Lawson, G. (eds) (2006) Archaeoacoustics. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs.
Descola, P. and G. Pálssen (eds) (1996) Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspectives. London, Routledge.
Deveraux, P. (2001) Stone Age Soundtracks: The Acoustic Archaeology of Ancient Sites. London, Vega Publishing.
Donald, M. (1991) Origins of the Modern Mind: Three stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
Edmonds, M. (1999) Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. London, Routledge.
Gadamer, H. G. (1975) Truth and Method. London, Sheed and Ward.
Gamble, C. (2008) Hidden Landscapes of the Body., In B. David and J. Thomas (eds) A Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, 256–262. Walnut Creek, New Left Coast Press.
Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (2007) Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Basingstoke, Berg Publishers.
Hodder, I. (2003) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (3rd Edition) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ingold, T. (1993) Tool use, Sociality and Intelligence. In K. Gibson and T. Ingold (eds) Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2007) Introduction. In E. Hallam and T. Ingold (eds) Creativity and Cultural Improvisation. Basingstoke, Berg Publishers.
Ingold, T. and Koerner, S. (2009) After Simplicity. Forthcoming. Berg Publishers.
Johnson, M. (1999) Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. London, Blackwell.
Jones, A. (2007) Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Koerner, S. (2007) Habitus Unbound. Archaeologies of plurality of public grounds of truth. In J. Thomas and V. Oliveira Jorge, Overcoming the Modern Invention of Culture. Porto: ADECAP.
Koerner, S. (2008) Alternatives to Dualist Paradigms for agency, knowledge, History. Unpublished Works in progress.
Koerner, S. (2009) Iconoclash, Plurality of Public Grounds of Truth, and Appreciating that No One Ever Has or Will Be Pre-modern. In V. O. Jorge (ed.) Politics of Vision. Archaeology in Post-modern Contexts. Cambridge, Cambridge Academic Publishers.
Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press.
Lawson, G. and D’Errico, F. (2006) The Sound Paradox: How to Assessthe Acoustic Significance of Archaeological Evidence? In Scarre, C. and Lawson, G. (eds) (2006) Archaeoacoustics. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs.
Lewis-Williams, D. and Pearce. (2005) Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods. London, Thames and Hudson.
Needham, R. (1967) Percussion and Transition. Man Vol. 2 Issue 4: 606–14. Royal Anthroplogical Institute of Great Britain.
Pálssen, G. (2007) Anthropology and the New Genetics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Parncutt, R. (2001) Critical comparison of acoustical and perceptual theories of the origin of musical scales. Presentation at International Symposium of Musical Acoustics. 12th September 2001.
Prigogene, I. 1997. The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature. London, Free Press.
Pryor, F. (1999) Etton, Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure Near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. London, English Heritage.
Reznikoff, I. (2007) The Evidence of the Use of Sound Resonance from Paleolithic to Medieval Times. In Scarre, C. and Lawson, G. (eds) (2006) Archaeoacoustics. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs.
Sabine, W. (1921) Collected Papers on Acoustics. New York, Dover (1964 Reprint).
Thomas, J. (1999) Understanding the Neolithic. Abingdon, Routledge.
Thomas, J. (2004) Archaeology’s Place in Modernity. In Modernity/Moernism Vol 11, Issue 1: 17–37. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.
Thomas, J. (2004) Archaeology and Modernity. London, Routledge.
Tuzin, D et al. (1984) Miraculous Voices: The Auditory Experience of Numinous Objects [and Comments and Replies]. Current Anthropology Vol. 25, Issue 5: 579–96. University of Chicago Press.
Waller, S. J. (2004) Morphologic Similarities between Rock Art Motifs and the Spirit Beings Described in Echo Myths. Unpublished Research Essay.
Watson, A. A. (2001) Composing Avebury. World Archaeology Vol. 33 Issue 2: 296–314. London, Routledge
Watson, A. A. (2007) The Sounds of Transformation: Acoustics, Monuments and Ritual in the British Neolithic. In N. Price (eds) The Archaeology of Shamanism. Abingdon, Routledge.
Watson, A. A. and Keating, D. (1999) Architecture and sound: an acoustic analysis of megalithic monuments in prehistoric Britain. Antiquity Vol 73: 325–36.