Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Chance
Stonehenge

The lost sounds of Stonehenge ​…

close
more_vert
spencer S
spencer Jan 7, 2017 14:03:35
Replying to tjj

Irresppective of whether Stonehenge was a case in point, and with reference to the comment below about hearing the sound of drumming coming from WKLB, the hypothesis that our forebears created, on occasion, places with a deliberate auditory element to them, or utilised caves and other geological features with that facility remains valid. They were very probably greater sensualists than we are, to our detriment, appreciating what the natural world had to offer, be it sound or visual, for example auroras or the sun and moons reflections in water filled cup or bullaun stones. We should recognise, appreciate and respect that, and not deride.

T tiompan
tiompan Jan 7, 2017 14:16:55
Replying to spencer

Who was deriding the possibility that anyone may have been more of a sensualist ?

I was deriding Rupe for the blatant nonsense in his earlier paper , and to a lesser extent , now attempting to flog an app that is based on a concrete monument in the US with an architecture based on an imaginary complete Stonehenge .

Why assume that Stonehenge or WKLB or other prehistoric monuments were "created ....with a deliberate auditory element to them " ?

T tjj
tjj Jan 8, 2017 10:39:46
Replying to spencer

spencer wrote:
Irresppective of whether Stonehenge was a case in point, and with reference to the comment below about hearing the sound of drumming coming from WKLB, the hypothesis that our forebears created, on occasion, places with a deliberate auditory element to them, or utilised caves and other geological features with that facility remains valid. They were very probably greater sensualists than we are, to our detriment, appreciating what the natural world had to offer, be it sound or visual, for example auroras or the sun and moons reflections in water filled cup or bullaun stones. We should recognise, appreciate and respect that, and not deride.
Nice comment Spencer but don't think anyone here was deriding the use of sound, perhaps just the use of Stonehenge, yet again, to promote personal theories and agendas. To quote the BBC piece "There are many questions surrounding the ancient stone circle of Stonehenge but might sound help in the search for answers?" The answer is clearly no because Stonehenge is a ruin and no one really knows what it originally looked like or what it was used for. The closest I get in drawing comparisons with what we know today are the great cathedrals and certain churches. Built to worship the God of the time but also amazing acoustic places for sound, song and certain music (such as choral performances). Amazing architecture and human achievement too.

G GLADMAN
GLADMAN Jan 8, 2017 12:10:34
Replying to spencer

spencer wrote:
Irresppective of whether Stonehenge was a case in point, and with reference to the comment below about hearing the sound of drumming coming from WKLB, the hypothesis that our forebears created, on occasion, places with a deliberate auditory element to them, or utilised caves and other geological features with that facility remains valid. They were very probably greater sensualists than we are, to our detriment, appreciating what the natural world had to offer, be it sound or visual, for example auroras or the sun and moons reflections in water filled cup or bullaun stones. We should recognise, appreciate and respect that, and not deride.
By definition prehistory is all about personal interpretation in the absence of absolutes. In lieu of time travelling architects/priests from the past explaining their visions I reckon the prime tool we have to try and visualise why monuments were given the form they possess, why they were placed in the landscape as they are... is to go and visit them and report back. Perhaps experiences at certain sites with certain properties will correlate allowing tentative theories to be constructed.

If the basic assumption that prehistoric monuments were erected as focal points for human interaction beyond the normal is accepted, it may also be accepted that they were intended to imbue certain behavioural characteristics in visitors through manipulating/exploiting the way folks think... to control them, if you like. An obvious example from my experience is erecting a funerary cairn on a mountain top ensuring intense sensory perceptions are a given. The impact of light, or lack of it, forcing visitors to crawl along passageways... to experience an electrical storm upon a mountain top is guaranteed to have a massive impact. Yeah, sound. Sound is a major facet of our sensory perception so it would surely be pedantic and churlish to dismiss the possibility of it being taken into account by the original designers of some monuments, where the peculiar landscape or architectural circumstances allowed, merely because we can't be 100% sure what the monument originally looked like?

In my experience it is a fact that some sites possess a far more intense vibe than others... for me. There are many contributing factors such as personal well being on the day, the weather, light, time of year. I've been to a number of sites where to move but a few feet one way or the other has invalidated quite specific views, where quite intense and distinctive echoes are no longer present. It can not be proven that these aspects were intentional; but then again by what authority can it be stated that they were not intentional? As with all theories we need a body of accumulating evidence to support the notion that auditory elements played a contributing role to human experiences at prehistoric sites. To my mind the best way of getting that is to get out there and put them to the test.