bernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

" The Political Organization of
> Chichen Itza," Ancient Mesoamerica, 15 (2004),
> 167–218
>" The entire Great Ballcourt, I would argue, owed
> its monumentality precisely to the role it played in investiture
> rituals and possibly was less a functioning court than an immense
> effigy of one, as its impossibly high ballcourt rings might
> suggest. It was, in effect, a large arena for legitimating leaders who
> were not necessarily local. "

> If in fact, the Great Ball Court is a place for symbolic investiture-- this say
> nothing in favor of planned rattlesnake flutter echoes.

I am not arguing for rattlesnake sounds in GBC. The acoustic of the GBC does
*in fact* function as a passive Public address system allowing conversation
from temple to temple, temple to field. (and, perhaps, field to temple)
What sort cultural evidence is necessary "prove" the usefulness of this
phenomenon for investiture ritual?

> Further, your argument here militates against Lubman's argument that
>the ratttlesnake flutter echoes were produced by the ball bouncing off the
> walls and the garments of the ballplayers.

According to Lubman the high walls of the GBC form a waveguide that results
in the transmission of sound described above. A byproduct of the parallel walls
are potential flutter echo. But as a place for symbolic investiture then no ballgame
no bouncing ball, no flutter sound.

> As I pointed out y'all have not only provided no
> cultural evidence the "scientific" evidence is
> actually very weak-- no sonograms, no exact
> replication of what caused sounds etc.

I was thinking that the rattlesnake sound TotW) had cultural evidence.
Nevertheless I agree that more evidence is needed. That would require permission
(Permit?) from the authorities to gather field recording, something they
will not grant to Lubman. Perhaps you can help in that?

WVK