Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Resonators and Receptacles: a summary of an acoustic enquiry into Late Neolithic pottery goblet drums from Europe
Lynda Aiano

Abstract

This paper summarises replication investigations into pottery gobletshaped drums from the late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Central Europe. The research explores the commonly held view that pottery drums developed from domestic storage pots and postulates an origin for them from the pedestal bowls of Northern Europe. The practical replication investigates the acoustic awareness of the drum makers, reflected in the diverse shapes and features of the 400 or so drums discovered to date. As a summary of the investigation, a checklist of features can be used to help identify vessel remains as drums.

Excapades

Early sounds The modern world is filled with a huge range of sounds. The earliest people lived in a world where the sounds around them were limited to those of nature, their own bodies and the noises made by the materials they knew and used. When the sounds made by innovations such as fired clay and smelted metal were added to their experience, it is reasonable to assume that they explored the sound-making potential of these materials too, as they used them to produce new artefacts. Writing in 1981, Casja Lund describes artefacts which appear to have been designed primarily for their sound production qualities as sound producing devices (Lund, 1981:246). The use of this term, rather than that of musical instruments, reminds us that we must not assume that early people would have had a sense of music in the way that we understand it today. Drum descriptions and evidence sources This investigation explores the widely-held view that the first membrane-covered drums

may have evolved from the adaptation of domestic pottery containers. It focuses on a type of hollow goblet shaped drum with a single skin which is found in Central Europe during the late Neolithic and early Bronze Age. In terms of modern drums, this type of drum most closely resembles the darrabuka or Egyptian tabla, a goblet drum played with the hands, which is common across a large area of North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and the Balkans under a variety of names. The Neolithic drums have so far been found over an area which extends from Southern Denmark through Germany (where they are most common), to the Czech Republic and Poland. Between 300-400 have been identified so far, but many more may lie unidentified amongst pottery sherds from excavations. They all share the characteristic of a roughly goblet-shaped hollow body made of clay, although they vary considerably in their body profile and overall height (ranging from 14 cm to 46 cm high). Many, although not all of the drums, have a either lugs or brackets around the upper edge where a drum head could be attached.

96

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Fig. 1. The original Brozny drum Some have an additional bracket on the lower section where a carrying strap could be attached, and a few more are decorated around the inside edge of the hollow base suggesting that this area may have been visible when the drum was played. Information on these drums is described by Masek (1954:640-658), Schutz (1983), Lustig (1989:171-186) and Midgley (1992). Background to the replication study This study follows on from an initial experiment in 2003 in which a surviving drum from Brozny in the Czech Republic, dated at around 2800 BC, was replicated and fitted with a goatskin drumhead (Fig. 1). This drum had twelve protruding lugs spaced around the upper rim of the vessel. The efficiency of these lugs as a tensioning system for the goatskin drumhead, and the resulting high quality of the sounds produced

97

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Fig. 2. The Walternienburg drum by this replica vessel, confirmed that it was likely to have been designed and made to be a drum. Again, using only materials and methods known to be available during the late Neolithic, this subsequent study centred around the double replication of a hollow drum example from the Walternienburg culture in Germany (Fig. 2). About 32 cm tall, this example had a rounded upper body section with eight pierced brackets distributed approximately 4 cm below the upper edge. This example was chosen because as well as having the characteristics of a drum, its upper, bowlshaped part was sufficiently large for the vessel to have been useful as a domestic vessel if it had a base. The two replicated vessels were identical apart from the fact that one was hollow, like the original, and the other had a base to the upper part. This study focussed exclusively on the relationship between vessel shape and acoustic quality. Aspects related to the nature of the clay used, the presence or absence of temper within the clay, and details of firing technique were not

98

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

investigated on this occasion, although it is acknowledged that all of these aspects are potentially highly relevant. The replication process Using a U type coiling technique to build up the clay bodies, every effort was made to produce the two vessels under identical circumstances, ensuring that they were exactly the same shape and size. By ensuring that the weights and dimensions of both drums were kept identical throughout the pot building process, it was reasoned that the thickness of the walls of both drums would be as similar as possible in the different parts of the shapes (Fig. 3). When both were completed, the base of the intended hollow drum was scooped out, with the result that its final un-dried, unfired weight was just over 130 g lighter than the other one. After drying for two weeks in the same location, the drums were fired at the same time in an electric kiln at 950 oC. For the purposes of this dual replication, the drum heads were made from goatskin, the reason being that a single goatskin was large enough to supply both drumheads, thus eliminating any variables associated with drum head source when comparing the sounds produced by the two vessels. A subsidiary investigation researched the best medium for fixing the drumhead to the body for these and other drums where the simple but effective protruding lugs of the Brozny example were not present. Three possible fixing media were assessed: cordage made from nettle (Urticaria dioica), hide strips (goat), and animal sinew (deer). After assessment, goat hide was judged to be the most suitable of the three media for use in the current context and it was used to lace the drum head to the vessel via the eight pierced brackets. Direct lacing between holes in the edge of the skin and the eight brackets proved to be unsatisfactory because the resulting eight points of tension were too few to produce sufficient tension in the drum head. A second method was used in which a circling band of hide was threaded through the brackets. This now enabled

Fig. 3. Partly finished pots, one of which is hollow (right)

99

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Fig. 4. Detail of second fixing method lacing between the skin and the band as well as at the brace points at the eight brackets (Fig. 4). Although the goatskin drum head and lacing strips shrank on drying to provide a high level of tension for the drum head, the drum head fixing process using brackets was not as straightforward as the direct method of stretching the pierced hide over the protruding lugs on the Brozny example, since the introduction of the offset lacing system resulted in lost tension, and the increasing length of hide strip needed involved more joining of wet hide strips which slip and become undone under tension. It is interesting to note that on the original replicated drum from Brozny, protruding lugs appear to have been the preferred fixing method over pierced brackets for fixing the skin, since the presence of a pierced bracket on the lower part of the vessel, as a fixing point for a carrying strap, shows that both methods were known at the time. The drum heads were fitted to the two clay vessels using the second method outlined above and left to dry before their acoustic qualities were assessed (Fig. 5). Results and interpretation The hollow drum was labelled drum A and the one with a base was labelled drum B. The sounds produced by these two drums were recorded and compared in two ways: (1) the timbre or quality of the sounds produced by each drum, and their amplitude

100

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Fig. 5. The finished drums or loudness (using a Bjorn and Kjael Real Time Frequency Analyser type 143); and (2) the pitch of the sounds produced by each drum, including the difference in pitch between notes produced at the centre and at the edge of the drum head (using a Seiko ST 727 digital pitch tuner). The results are summarised in Table 1. The recordings of the drums demonstrate that drum A produces the more appealing sounds. It is suggested here that there are two reasons for this. Firstly, drum A is capable of producing at least two distinctly pitched sounds and is therefore able to produce a large variety of sound patterns or music which is not merely dependent on changing same note lengths (which is all a one-note instrument can produce). Secondly, both of the sounds produced by drum A are clearer and more resonant than the sound produced by drum B. Furthermore, the bass note produced by striking the centre of the drum is both deep and rich in drum A. The superior sound production qualities of drum A represent technical improvements in the design of drum A, which it is suggested here are independent of matter of taste or cultural preference, and would have been recognised as such by listeners during the Neolithic. Acoustic theory relating to the length and number of sound waves produced inside a drum body confirms that a hollow vessel will produce clearer sounds overall, and a deeper note at the centre than at the edge. Images or descriptions were available for 38 of the original drums from the study. The practical investigations had provided a valuable opportunity to consider the physical characteristics of this type of drum from both an acoustic point of view and the practical issues of construction. Even within the available study group there were many differences in their physical features and many different combinations of the different feature types. The results of the replication work could now be used to assess the acoustic potential of individual drums, and it was now possible to formulate a set of criteria which could be applied to a vessel in order to establish whether it had been made specifically to be played as a drum (Table 2).

101

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

TABLE 1 Comparison of acoustic qualities of drums A and B
Aspect of sound production Timbre (quality of sound) Drum A (hollow) Makes a clear well defined sound with some qualities of brightness Drum B Duller and less well defined sounds, has a flat, thudding quality Interpretation This aspect of the evaluation is the most likely to be subjective: we do not know how Neolithic people would have evaluated these sounds, but of 10 people asked to state which drum sounds they preferred, all chose drum A Drum A can produce louder sounds than drum B. Graphic representation of these results available from the author

Amplitude (loudness); a decibel (dB) is the unit of measurement of sound intensity or loudness

Able to produce a maximum volume of 102 dB for 90% of test period when tested by sound measurement machine adjusted to the normal range of the human ear response. Tested over a 15 second period

Able to produce a maximum volume of 55 dB for 90% of test period when tested by sound measurement machine adjusted to the normal range of the human ear response. Tested over a 15 second period Could not get reading of a particular pitch for bass (centre) note. The rim note most nearly equated to D above middle C.

Pitch, measured using a Seiko ST 727 digital pitch tuner The machine cannot record a sound when it is comprised of too many frequencies together

Able to produce two well differentiated sounds: (1) a bass (centre) note registering as D above middle C, and (2) a rim note registering as G or A above middle C

While the central note of Drum A is relatively deep and rich, its rim note has a higher pitch than drum B and with its ability to produce these two clearly defined notes at centre and rim, drum A offers more musical possibilities (For non-musicians, the interval between D and A can be represented by the notes of Baa Baa, and Black Sheep respectively)

Exploring a possible origin for the drums The application of this drum identification checklist to a group of pedestal bowls from Denmark and Sweden highlighted a high correlation for some of them. Having shallow dish-shaped upper sections on hollow bases, some of the bowls had two handles, often ornately decorated at the vessels waist, but some had none. Their characteristics suggested that they were of limited use in a practical way. The distribution of their find

sites overlapped those of the drums. Some were also hollow and others were not. The later ones only differed from the drums in their angular body profile. Some had pierced holes in appropriate positions for fixing a skin. It was possible to order these pedestal bowls to propose a developmental sequence from vessel to drum, thus postulating that the drums may have evolved from a type of vessel which looked more likely to have a ceremonial purpose than a functional one.

102

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

TABLE 2 Sources used for information the pedestal List of criteria used to help identify vessels

103

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Sources used for information on the pedestal bowls were Alebo (1986: 41-51), Lindahl (1986:12-27), Lustig (1989:171-186), Koch (1998) and Malmer (2002). Drums as a way of assessing acoustic awareness This investigation applied the results of replication work to the study of archaeological evidence in the context of acoustic science. The findings suggest that the wide variety of drum shapes in the archaeological record reflects early drummakers attempts to improve the quality of sound that could be produced by drumheads stretched across pottery shells. The results suggest that some vessels with enclosed bases could have been used as drums but that the quality of sound that they produced would have been indifferent. However, perhaps the sound produced was of sufficient quality to stimulate further exploration, both of the vessel shape and the method of fixing the drumhead. The innovation of the hollow-shelled drum meant that it became possible to produce different sounds between the centre and the rim, the central note having power and resonance, while the rim produced higher-pitched, sharper sounds. The amplitude levels would also have increased. In turn, these References
Alebo, L. 1986. Manufacturing of drumskins and tendon strings for Prehistoric Musical Instruments. In: Lund, C. (ed) Second Conference of the ICTM Study group on Music Archaeology, Volume 1, Stockholm. Koch, E. 1998. Neolithic Bog Pots. Rosendahls Bogkykkeri, Denmark. Lindahl, A. 1986. Simulated manufacture of Prehistoric Ceramic Drums. In: Lund, C. (ed) 1986

developments would have increased the musical possibilities of the instrument, whatever the context in which it was played. Further questions The question of how and where hollow drums emerged is intriguing, as is the question of what happened to them when they cease to appear in the archaeological record from the Early Bronze age onwards. The similarity between the drums studied here and the darrabuka, mentioned above, still so prominent over a large area of North Africa and the Middle East, suggests a survival of the type rather than an independent origin. The evidence for a similar shaped drum in the mound graves of Paszurik in the Altai region of Russia at around 500 BC raises many more questions, as does the complete absence in Britain of evidence of any type of drum whatsoever in prehistory. The original acoustic study, from which this is a summary, contains appendices on the evidence for drums in prehistory and the acoustic theory relating to drum shape and drumhead tension. The author welcomes contact with anyone interested in these or any other aspects of this topic.

Second Conference of the ICTM Study group on Music Archaeology, Volume 1. Stockholm.
Lund, C. 1981. The Archaeo-musicology of Scandinavia. World Archaeology, 12, 246-261. Lustig, M. 1989. Die neolithischen Tontrommeln im mittel-und nord-deutschen Raum. In: Hickman, E., Kilmer, A. and Eichmann, R. (eds) Studies in Music Archaeology; Second Symposium on the

International Study Group on Music Archaeology, 2000, 171-186.

104

Excapades 1 (2) 2006 96-105

Malmer, P. 2002. The Neolithic of South Sweden, TRB, GRK and STR. Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, Stockholm. Masek, N. 1954. Neoliticke Bubnyv Cechach a na Morave. Archeologicke rozhledy, 6, 640-658. Midgley, M. 1992. TRB Culture. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Schutz, H. 1983. The Prehistory of Germanic Europe. Butler and Tanner, Frome and London.

Lynda Aiano graduated in 2005 with a MA degree in Experimental Archaeology from the Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter (lyndaaiano@hotmail.com)
Copyright for this article lies with the author 2006. No material may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

105