Songs of the Stones: An Investigation into the Acoustic Culture of Stonehenge
Dr. Rupert Till - University of Huddersfield, UK. Journal of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music doi:10.5429/2079-3871(2010)v1i2.10en
"concludes that the sonic features of Stonehenge were noticeable and significant, and that it is likely that they were a part of the ritual culture of the site."
Now acoustic expert D.N.Thomas has hit back -
Pseudo science in British archaeoacoustics: Rupert Till's interpretation of the perception of sound.
which "suggests that Till's approach is pseudo scientific approach and likely to
lead to erroneous conclusions and misinterpretation".
Pseudo science in British archaeoacoustics: Rupert Till's interpretation of the perception of sound.
D.N.Thomas
'
This essay addresses Rupert Till's interpretation of the human perception of sound in the
paper 'Songs of the Stones: An Investigation into the acoustic culture of Stonehenge' (Till
2010). The author suggests that Till's approach is pseudo scientific and likely to lead to
erroneous conclusions and misinterpretation. Set within the context of an acoustical
analysis of Stonehenge, Till presents his interpretation of the way human beings perceive
audible and inaudible sound in a section titled 'Perception of sound at different
frequencies'. He divides sound into 4 types and outlines the idea as follows,
' From 1-14 hz one perceives frequencies as rhythms, whether a drum pattern or the
rhythmic sound of a train. These frequencies are normally described as a number of beats
per minute or b.p.m. For example 2 Hz equates to two beats per second, or 120 beats per
minute, 3Hz is three oscillations per second, or 180 bpm. Above 3 Hz one typically
subdivides the rhythm, perceiving 4Hz as the same tempo as 2 Hz; as the same speed,
but with a doubled pulse, as 120 bpm with a quaver (eighth note) pulse ... ' (Till 2010, pg
8 ).
Till's ideas are based on his understanding that
' Terms like frequency (Hz) and period (seconds) are useful in different situations, and are
perceived differently, even though they are essentially the same thing' (Till 2010, pg 9).
unfortunately there are serious problems with this interpretation of the term frequency. If
sound is a perception created by vibratory motion of the hearing mechanism and
Sources of sound can be described by displacement time curves ' (Campbell and Greated
1994),
sound analysis indicates that rhythmic frequency (repetition and pulse) measured in hertz
is not comparable to the frequency of a sound wave (wave length and amplitude) also
measured in hertz. A repeated sonic event occurring twice per second creates a periodic
rhythm with a frequency of 2 (hz) but each sonic event results in the creation of a distinct
set of sound waves ranging in frequency from 20-20,000 hz (depending on the nature of
the sound source). It follows that Till's interpretation of the term 'frequency' conflates and
confuses the meaning of that term. The terms 'sound frequency ' and ' rhythm frequency'
are not perceived differently but have distinct meanings. Whilst both rhythm frequency
and sound wave frequency share the common descriptor (Hz), the frequencies of sound
waves cannot be construed as being similar to the frequency of a perceived rhythm.
Professor Rupert Braithwaite warns us of the dangers of the misinterpretation of scientific
concepts,
' Pseudosciences never produce new insightful knowledge, they are circular and static.
Any research that is carried out serves only to establish the pre- existing beliefs or
agendas of the individuals (committing the confirmation - bias fallacy). Here, only certain
forms of information count as knowledge ' ...
Till goes further, his alternative descriptor for the term infrasound as 'Time' leads to a
method in which a number of scientific concepts are confused, conflated and replaced by
a single unworkable approach,
' it is possible to hear notes lower than 20 hz they have to be increasingly loud in order to
hear them... Periodic rhythmic vibrations with frequencies below 20 hz such as a series of
short impulses or clicks, can also be heard ...10 hz can be described as 150 bpm with a
semi quaver pulses or as a time period of 0.1 s (Till 2010 pg 7),
Infrasound (0-20 hz) is not related to or associated with the creation of 'a series of short
impulses or clicks' . Sounds with frequencies below 20 hz are described as inaudible
frequencies because laboratory tests suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion. To think
of infrasound as anything like a rhythmic pulse or beat is highly misleading ( a 2 hz sound
wave is 171 metres long and 42 metres high). Till's approach leads to the conclusion that
Stonehenge has a 'resonant frequency ' of 10 hz, possibly linked to alpha wave patterns.
'Stonehenge could be made to resonate...much like blowing over the top of a bottle to
make it hoot, or like running one's finger around the top of a glass or hitting the skin of a
drum... This would work by making the air in the space vibrate at its fundamental resonant
frequency. Measurements of the diameter of Stonehenge told us that this frequency would
be about 10 hz. ...10 hz is a frequency that when detected in the brain is described as an
alpha wave pattern... ' (Till 2010 pg 7).
Braithwaite warns us of the use and over-reliance on metaphor as an argument in and of
itself. In the paragraph above Till compares the space within a stone circle to that within a
bottle, a glass, and the shell of a drum. The reader is expected to accept understand and
link these metaphors using his peculiar interpretation of the term frequency. Computation
of any fundamental resonant frequency using axial, tangential and oblique mode
calculations is impossible at Stonehenge (the stone 'circle' is open to the sky) such
computation requires an enclosed space (four walls, floor and ceiling). The presentation of
a mathematical model for predicting resonant frequencies (Till 2010 Figure 1 by Faziendi)
at Stonehenge based on the geometry of an open ended cylindrical tube is unhelpful.
Stonehege is not circular in shape. If Stonehenge was an open ended cylindrical tube we
might expect its resonant frequency to be 45 hz but Stonehenge is not an open ended
cylindrical tube.
' At the centre of a circular building... a sound hits and reflects straight back from the
wall ... this would produce a prominent echo and reverberation from the combination of a
number of 'echoes', or reflections …In a circular space.... The overall effect would be
echoes (in a large space) or resonance/ reverberation ' (Till 2010).
Inside a circular building the shape of the walls will be one of many factors (room
dimensions, air gaps, internal structures, surface and building materials) which may
influence the acoustic characteristics of the space. In prehistoric circular dry stone
constructions, bee hive cells, Scottish round houses and circular brochs, sounds do not 'hit
and reflect straight back from the wall' . Inside circular dry stone structures sounds of at
least 1000 hz and upwards are not reflected but scattered, diffused by the edge surfaces
and gaps between the stones. Dry stone construction fosters an acoustically 'dry '
environment with few reflections and short reverberation times (Thomas 2007).
' Pseudoscience presents itself as scientific in nature... the problem here is not only the
false interpretations, but the claims that these interpretations are factual in a scientific
sense. It is this latter inherent claim of scientific credibility and authority which makes the
toxic effect of pseudo thinking so potent. To the uncritical and ill-informed, a pseudo
scientific claim could appear perfectly reasonable' (Braithwaite 2006).
Biography
Braithwaite and Townsend. 2006. Good Vibrations: The Case for a Specific Effect of
Infrasound in Instances of Anomalous Experience has Yet to be Empirically Demonstrated
{Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK,
B15, 2TT}http://birmingham.academia.edu/DrJasonJBraithwaite
Braithwaite J. 2006 Seven Fallacies of Thought and Reason: Common Errors in
Reasoning and Argument from Pseudoscience {Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre,
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK, B15, 2TT}
http://birmingham.academia.edu/DrJasonJBraithwaite
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2003) Asking the right questions. A guide to critical
thinking (7th Edition), New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Campbell M. and Greated C. 1994 The Musician's Guide to Acoustics. Oxford. Publisher.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 019159167X, 9780191591679
Carroll, R. T. (2005) Becoming a critical thinker. A guide for the new millennium (2nd Ed).
Boston. Pearson Custom Publishing.
Carroll, R. T. (2003) The skeptics dictionary. A collection of strange beliefs, amusing
deceptions and dangerous delusions. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons,
Gardner, M. (1957) Fads and fallacies in the name of science. New York. Dover
Publications, Inc. Oxford 2010.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conflate
Till R 2010 'Songs of the Stones : An Investigation into the acoustic culture of Stonehenge'.
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/13248/1/TillSongs308-2422-1-PB.pdfBraithwaite, J.J. (2006)
Lett, J (1990) A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer (14), 2, 1- 9.
Shermer, M. (2002) Why people believe weird things. New York. Henry Holt & Company.
Thouless., R. H. (1968) Straight and crooked thinking. London, Pan Books.
Thomas 2007. An Investigation of Aural Space inside Mousa Broch by Observation and
Analysis of Sound and Light.
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue30/thomas_index.html
Whyte, J. (2005) Crimes against logic. New York. McGraw-Hill.
Archaeoacoustics is a very important subject that will (in time) give us an insight to why ancient structures were built with specific features (the facing of the inner walls of Stonehenge and the vaulted ceilings of Newgrange, Maeshowe and the Great Pyramid) and more importantly the philosophy and knowledge behind their engineering.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that Till's work is incomplete, but to attack the subject and call it pseudoscience is just no only inaccurate but idiotic. If till's has it wrong then point out a more accurate alternative and if you can't do that - then just keep quiet, as you are not adding to debate, but just being an antagonistic know-all - like some on this site.
RJL
Criticism is not antagonism .
ReplyDeleteDave has added to the debate , he has pointed out the errors in Till's article.
Read the Thomas article ,and note the second sentence , archaeoacoustics is not being described as pseudoscience , although there is plenty of it to be found in that subject , an area rich in pickings for the fantasists .
Seems a fair response essay to me. Difficult without seeing the original paper. Thomas's observation (that there is a difference in the meaning of the term 'frequency') is obviously correct when compared to the view that Till appears to have been promoting
ReplyDeleteJon, the original paper is linked by Tim , above. See pages 8-9 .
ReplyDeleteAntagonists concentrating on detail always miss the 'big picture' !!
ReplyDeleteThe best illustration in modern history is the demise of Lehman bros. It is reported that their was over 2,500 accountants - dotting the i's and crossing the t's making sure their little sections figures added up correctly, totally unaware that the entire company was bankrupt!!
This same senareo affects archaeology at present. As a sciennce it will remain bankrupt until it understands the big picture THEN and only then can the antagonists bore us with the detail - otherwise it's a waste of time and effort, just ask the 2,500 unemployed well qualified technical accountants!
RJL
That really covers the problem about Till's confusion between beats and wave cycles ,and your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the second sentence in Dave's article .
ReplyDeleteA re-reading of the commandments woudn't go amiss .
Again that's putting the cart before the horse Sherlock!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you don't know what is the solution you are attempting to answer - which may have nothing to do with either beats and cycle waves or their misinterpretation.
The BIG PICTURE in archaeoacoustics is what the sound was used for?
Only when that question is answered can you look at the acoustic spectrogram and analyse what could have had an influence on that factor.
RJL
The big picture Stuart/Davis/Hudson (whoever you are at the moment)is that every space will produce data relating to it's acoustic properties .In the vast majority of cases the various resonances ,echoes etc will not have been intentional or even partially the reason for build of the structure . The problem is that some interpreters will use the data to support pseudoscientific notions (with countless conditional maybe's , “seemed to's “ and “possibly's ) , like entrainment , which even by Till's understated admission is “ a somewhat controversial field ." . Other suggestions are in the real fantasy area e.g.“Stonehenge shows evidence of likely rhythmic musical activity “ ,“the sonic features of Stonehenge were noticeable and significant, and that it is likely that they were a part of the ritual culture of the site.", “The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .”. Bruno Fazenda has done a great job in getting the data , you don't get that nonsense from him ,he also knows the difference between beats and wave cycles . Stonehenge like all structures has sonic properties and visitors would have noticed them , that is the real result of the findings . That basic mistakes are made is telling ,whether misunderstanding beats and wave cycles or the being incapable of understanding/misrepresenting the second sentence of Dave's article .
ReplyDelete“The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .”.
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly... you don't need to spend months facing stones for a better 'music activity' - find a cave!!
Speculation and the detail within the speculation is futile until you know the purpose Sherlock!!
RJL
“The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .”.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that then it goes some way to explaining your errors .
Not only is the basic premise flawed , even when applied to the real monument , but the data is based on a monument that had not seen months of "facing" (supposedly your term for dressing ) but was made of concrete . As always ,the more you respond the deeper into the mire you get
Don't understand what your wittering on about - yet again Sherlock!
DeleteI don't have a view on why acoustics were used at these monuments and clearly neither does anyone else including you, Till or Thomas. So the 'research was a waste of time!
RJL
You don't understand , nothing new there .
DeleteIf not why did you make the comments you did which are clearly illogical?
"I don't have a view on why acoustics were used at these monuments"
I think you are attempting to say that you don't what sounds were heard or how (not why ,we don't know the if the properties were utilised ) the acoustic properties were used at these monuments .
Quite ,that's the point .Studies of the acoustic soundfield of spaces can only tell us how a sound may have been perceived in the past , not whether a particular sound was actually heard . To extend the description to music is obviously impossible today, and may well remain so in the future , to extend it to the nature of the melodic , rhythmic ,harmonic and timbral qualities of music is even more ridiculous .
The problem you have Sherlock is that you are only capable of understanding simple concepts.
DeleteThe subject matter not only includes 'hearing' which is just part of the acoustic spectrum but other aspects as vibration, which affects the physical aspects of homo sapiens.
As I keep repeating (pointlessly in your case) until we understand the nature of what acoustic aspects we are looking at - the linguistic detail which you indulge yourself in...is (like most aspects of your knowledge) pointless.
Clearly Sherlock, you need an example to remove you from your simple single mindedness - If we look at sound (indepth) we find it can kill things as small as bacteria to as large as humans. In which case 'dave's second sentence' is totally irrelevant (like yourself!) as we are not looking at audible tones.
comprendi?
RJL
Curious. I read the report (briefly) and came up with the same quote: "In conclusion, the research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in prehistory"
ReplyDeleteTrouble with this conclusion is that my lounge was likely to have been a venue for 'ritual' musical activity in the particular era that it was built. So the implication is that the author means something more meaningful, such as Stonehenge was designed a venue for 'ritual' musical activity in the era that it was built.
But he doesn't say that; it's just something that others can read into it.
All in all, it would have been better if he had stated that this was not what he was implying. David might not then have had cause to write a refutation.
His conclusion was based on the research , that's the problem .
ReplyDeleteDave was mainly concerned with the confususion between wave cycles and beats ,if something so basic is misunderstood what does this say about the interpretation ?
The usual evasions , meaningless bluster and pre-adolescent type jibes .
ReplyDelete“As I keep repeating” You only keep repeating errors .
Here’s what you actually have said .
“to attack the subject and call it pseudoscience is just no only inaccurate but idiotic.”
The idiot is the one who didn’t understand and misrepresented a simple comment e.g. “The author suggests that Till's approach is a pseudo scientific approach and likely to lead to erroneous conclusions and misinterpretation.”
Note Till’s approach and no mention of archaeoacoustics .
“If till's has it wrong then point out a more accurate alternative” That was the content and point of Daves article you failed to notice that Till confuses waves and beat cycles .
“The BIG PICTURE in archaeoacoustics is what the sound was used for?”
This shows an ignorance of the subject and what it can do , ask real acousticians like Fazenda not fantasists .
The Till comment which you endorse ““The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .” Is nonsense , I have already explained why ,if you don’t understand take your time and sit down with a dictionary .
“you don't need to spend months facing stones for a better 'music activity' –“
Again logically unsound as usual , there is no reason to assume the stones were dressed for acoustic purposes it could have been a range of other reasons but more importantly the impact of the dressing was not part of the study and the surfaces of the stones that were used were made of concrete .
“I don't have a view on why acoustics were used at these monuments “ If you did it would undoubtedly be fantasy ,more to the pint you don’t know if acoustics were used at all .The soundfield is a given if there was any sound produced naturally or by humans it would be effected by the monument and not necessarily “used”. ,if it was you have no way of knowing.
“As I keep repeating (pointlessly in your case) until we understand the nature of what acoustic aspects we are looking at - the linguistic detail which you indulge yourself in...is (like most aspects of your knowledge) pointless.” That is gobbledygook .
.”Look at sound in depth “ lol ,is this another of your “studies” like archaeoastronomy ?
“'dave's second sentence' is totally irrelevant as we are not looking at audible tones.”
Daves second sentence is not only relevant you misunderstood and misrepresented it initially and still fail to understand it .
“as we are not looking at audible tones.” You mean ultrasound and infrasound . You didn’t mention either earlier , however I noted the pseudoscientific entrainment mentioned by Till which is related to infrasound , you probably were well lost by then .He also mentions it ,and this is where his understanding starts to fall apart , apart from the earlier earlier earlier fantasy .
You need to go on a 'passive' reading course Sherlock - no wonder you get so much wrong!
ReplyDeleteThe Till comment which you endorse ““The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .”
I never endorsed Till quite the opposite - I was just quoting your statement
From 18/08/14 16:35
“The research has shown that it is likely that Stonehenge was a venue for ritual musical activity in pre history .”.
My point exactly... you don't need to spend months facing stones for a better 'music activity' - find a cave!!
That's not an endorsement Sherlock... this was reinforced on my comment on the same day at 23:39
I don't have a view on why acoustics were used at these monuments and clearly neither does anyone else including you, Till or Thomas. So the 'research was a waste of time!
Hence the comment "Don't understand what your wittering on about - yet again Sherlock!"
You seem just fixated on 'Dave's second sentence" as if it was on some importance?
So you just carry on adding up those all unimportant columns, dotting the i's and crossing the t's like a good Lehman accountant - oblivious to the insignificance to your contribution the 'big picture'.
RJL
“The BIG PICTURE in archaeoacoustics is what the sound was used for?”
ReplyDeleteThe big picture is that you don't understand archaeoacoustics and what it is capable of .This is reinforced by "I don't have a view on why acoustics were used at these monuments and clearly neither does anyone else including you, Till or Thomas. So the 'research was a waste of time! " It wasn't a waste of time it produced data on the soundfield , the interpretation from Till had fundamental technical errors and was theoretically fantastical . You evade all the points .
You seem just fixated on 'Dave's second sentence" as if it was on some importance?
You as always evade that importance or is it you still don’t understand ? You misunderstood and misinterpreted that sentence and have been running away from the consequences ever since .In your first post you said "to attack the subject and call it pseudoscience is just no only inaccurate but idiotic. " The only idiocy apparent here is your failure to understand a simple sentence .The subject was not being attacked and it was not being described as pseudoscience ,you misunderstood and misrepresented it . Next came " If till's has it wrong then point out a more accurate alternative " This was done , you just didn't understand .
Your only response since is evasion , see Lehman bros and the usual bluster when you are out of your depth .
.
"The big picture is that you don't understand archaeoacoustics and what it is capable of "
ReplyDeleteOMG! Has Sherlock has come up with an original thought ?
After 4 years of waiting and being bored by academic quotations of no value is this a game changer??
Lets hold our breathe together and wait for these words of wisdom for if I don't understand you must I guess???
So lets go Sherlock what was archeaoacustics capable of......
RJL
As ever , evading the issues .
ReplyDeleteIt's safer that way , don't make any substantive comments and you won't any mistakes/get deeper into the mire .
You have already been told about the limitations of archaeoacoustics ,also as ever ,beyond your understanding ,but read slowly using your finger , have a dictionary at hand and you might get it eventually .
Then maybe you might be capable of saying something of substance .
But this is unlikely and all we will get is the usual evasions and schoolboy stuff .