Songs from the caves

[Disir]

Significant evidence now exists for the importance of sound in prehistory and research in this area has progressed over the past 30 years, with a number of archaeological finds that are thought to be musical instruments found in caves associated with palaeolithic occupation. Particularly well known are bone flutes of Aurignation date some 35-40,ooo years old and fairly advanced examples of an aerophones (bull roarers) from the same period. This shows the complex nature of instruments, yet surviving artefacts are not the sole method of examining prehistoric sounds.Establishing a baseline dataset

The project “Songs from the Caves” explores the acoustics of prehistoric painted caves in Northern Spain, to establish whether a secure relationship can be found internally between the positioning of motifs and sonic effects. Sound has the potential to provide information that is not available by only studying visual or material properties.

The project seeks to document the relationship of rock art and the acoustic characteristics of the spaces in which the paintings were made, providing two sets of complimentary quantifiable datasets that can be compared and analysed.

Reznikoff and Dauvois (1988) suggested a link between the positioning of cave paintings in southwest France and the patterning of acoustic resonances, reverberation and echoes. However the methodology used was not based on rigorous acoustical analysis, and was critiqued for being somewhat subjective with researchers using their own voices to search for vocal effects. The new research tests their original theory using a rigorous scientific methodology.

Songs from the caves : Archaeology News from Past Horizons

Publications | Songs of the Caves

This is so cool.

 

[whitehall]

I wonder if archaeologists ever considered the life span of the average prehistoric human or humanoid cave dwellers. If it was twenty years or so it means the cave art was drawn by hormone driven teenagers and as such should not be given the profound weight of artistic renderings as pompous "scientists" often tend to do but rather be treated a child's fantasy or graffiti.

 

[freedombecki]

Some naïve art is most beautiful, Whitewall. You know it when you see it.

 

[SayMyName]

I love reading of prehistoric times. It is my favorite era, and I look forward to any new information to be learned from this time period. This is a great discovery.

 

[oldfart]

I wonder if archaeologists ever considered the life span of the average prehistoric human or humanoid cave dwellers. If it was twenty years or so it means the cave art was drawn by hormone driven teenagers and as such should not be given the profound weight of artistic renderings as pompous "scientists" often tend to do but rather be treated a child's fantasy or graffiti.

Population dynamics were a bit more complicated than that. The evidence suggests that infant & child mortality to age 6 or so was horrific, as was maternal mortality, especially for first pregnancies, but then death rates eased off. Child bearing started at 14 or so. People would have been considered middle-aged adults at 25 and wise elders at 35. Median attained age for those who survived to age 10 or so would have been perhaps 45. Since in prehistoric societies both parents would have needed to be engaged in food gathering and simple manufacture, a sufficient supply of grandparents and elders were necessary for raising children. This also allowed for efficient transmission of knowledge (how to manufacture arrow points, sew clothing, find medicinal plants, hunting patterns, etc). Culture and survival really depended on a three generation or more tribal structure spanning at least 40 years for a sizable minority of adults.

 

[namvet]

 

[whitehall]

I wonder if archaeologists ever considered the life span of the average prehistoric human or humanoid cave dwellers. If it was twenty years or so it means the cave art was drawn by hormone driven teenagers and as such should not be given the profound weight of artistic renderings as pompous "scientists" often tend to do but rather be treated a child's fantasy or graffiti.

Population dynamics were a bit more complicated than that. The evidence suggests that infant & child mortality to age 6 or so was horrific, as was maternal mortality, especially for first pregnancies, but then death rates eased off. Child bearing started at 14 or so. People would have been considered middle-aged adults at 25 and wise elders at 35. Median attained age for those who survived to age 10 or so would have been perhaps 45. Since in prehistoric societies both parents would have needed to be engaged in food gathering and simple manufacture, a sufficient supply of grandparents and elders were necessary for raising children. This also allowed for efficient transmission of knowledge (how to manufacture arrow points, sew clothing, find medicinal plants, hunting patterns, etc). Culture and survival really depended on a three generation or more tribal structure spanning at least 40 years for a sizable minority of adults.

It seems that today's archaeology is more about theories and sensitivity to cultures than the "hard evidence science"of the past. I expect that politics and grant money are big proponents of modern archaeological concepts and dumb asses work in the field just like every other reality show available to the modern public.

 

[oldfart]

I wonder if archaeologists ever considered the life span of the average prehistoric human or humanoid cave dwellers. If it was twenty years or so it means the cave art was drawn by hormone driven teenagers and as such should not be given the profound weight of artistic renderings as pompous "scientists" often tend to do but rather be treated a child's fantasy or graffiti.

Population dynamics were a bit more complicated than that. The evidence suggests that infant & child mortality to age 6 or so was horrific, as was maternal mortality, especially for first pregnancies, but then death rates eased off. Child bearing started at 14 or so. People would have been considered middle-aged adults at 25 and wise elders at 35. Median attained age for those who survived to age 10 or so would have been perhaps 45. Since in prehistoric societies both parents would have needed to be engaged in food gathering and simple manufacture, a sufficient supply of grandparents and elders were necessary for raising children. This also allowed for efficient transmission of knowledge (how to manufacture arrow points, sew clothing, find medicinal plants, hunting patterns, etc). Culture and survival really depended on a three generation or more tribal structure spanning at least 40 years for a sizable minority of adults.

It seems that today's archaeology is more about theories and sensitivity to cultures than the "hard evidence science"of the past. I expect that politics and grant money are big proponents of modern archaeological concepts and dumb asses work in the field just like every other reality show available to the modern public.

Is there a point to your comment?