ISSN: 2074-8132
ISSN: 2074-8132
En Ru
Archaeoacoustic Evidence and the Anthropological Interpretation of Ritual Space in Ancient Societies

Archaeoacoustic Evidence and the Anthropological Interpretation of Ritual Space in Ancient Societies

Recieved: 04/13/2026

Accepted: 04/30/2026

Published: 08/26/2026

Keywords: archaeoacoustics; ritual space; sacred practices; sound; acoustic effects; ancient societies

Available online: 26.08.2026

To cite this article

Movsesian Alla A. Archaeoacoustic Evidence and the Anthropological Interpretation of Ritual Space in Ancient Societies. // Lomonosov Journal of Anthropology 2026. 111-122 https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2074-8132-26-3-08.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). (CC BY 4.0). (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)

Abstract

Introduction. This article examines archaeoacoustic evidence as a source for the anthropological interpretation of ritual space in ancient societies. It explores how the acoustic properties of caves, megalithic structures, hypogea, and other sites may have contributed to the sacralization of space, the organization of ritual action, and the formation of collective experience.

Materials and methods. The study is based on published works in archaeoacoustics, the anthropology of ritual, psychoacoustics, and sensory archaeology dealing with ancient ritual spaces characterized by echo, reverberation, and resonance. Methodologically, the article is a comparative analytical review. The analysis considers the acoustic characteristics of the sites, their archaeological and spatial context, and their potential for anthropological interpretation.

Results and discussion. A review of published studies shows that in Palaeolithic caves, megaliths, hypogea, and some open sacred landscapes, acoustic properties often coincide with zones of ritual activity, imagery, inner chambers, and areas of collective presence. This suggests that sound was significant not as a random background effect, but as part of a sensorially and spatially organized ritual experience. The acoustic environment may have reinforced the distinctiveness of ritual space and shaped perception, bodily involvement, and collective action. More cautiously, ritual sound practices may also have contributed to cultural cohesion through recurring forms of shared experience. At the same time, archaeoacoustic evidence does not justify direct inferences about ethnogenesis or the content of religious beliefs outside a broader context.

Conclusion. Archaeoacoustics expands the anthropological understanding of ritual space by allowing its sonic organization to be considered alongside visual and architectural features. It helps analyze how the acoustic environment was incorporated into sacred experience, the spatial organization of ritual, and collective action. In this sense, archaeoacoustics forms an important element of a broader anthropological reconstruction of ancient rituals.

Acknowledgements. The study was conducted under the state assignment of Lomonosov Moscow State University.