I was asked by the History Channel to be involved in making a documentary about my theories about the acoustics of Stonehenge. I called upon Dr. Bruno Fazenda to work with me on the project, and as part of this we visited Stonehenge itself, the picture above is of the crew after the shoot. Dr. Simon Wyatt is also in the picture, who is an expert on TRB drums, and prehistoric instruments in particular.
The show was first aired in the USA on the History Channel (now known simply as History) on 2nd and 3rd December 2009, and will next be shown on 12th December 2009 at 12pm.
You can download the show on i-tunes for $1.99 if you are in the USA. This is not downloadable from other countries. SImply click on the button below.
This is what we saw at dawn.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 1, 2010 at 5:41 am
nahezkhan
awesome, what a beautiful & mysterious site.
April 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Greg
Great stuff! Thank you.
January 2, 2013 at 2:23 pm
Joe Vastola
Specifically, what type of drums did you use during the documentary if i wanted to buy one similar? thanks…loved it.
January 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm
ruperttill
You can’t buy these drums I’m afraid. This was a replica of a TRB Culture (c.5000 years old) ceramic drum, made by Dr. Simon Wyatt whose PhD involved the experimental making of replica prehistoric drums.
January 3, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Joe Vastola
thank you. interestingly enough i pressed “play” on the 5 minute drumming.mp3 in my headphones almost the same time you responded! it is awesome. i will look around for something comparable / simpler that i can purchase…i am not an audio expert so it doesn’t have to be exact. thanks again.
January 3, 2013 at 3:45 pm
ruperttill
The closest modern drum is probably a ceramic moroccan goblet drum. The one we used was about 18 inches tall. There are several online companies that sell such things.
January 3, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Joe Vastola
thank you very much.
July 27, 2013 at 5:52 pm
thewordsmith
I am watching the History Channel episode on television as I write this and I was moved to point out that this pseudo-scientific approach to the mysteries of the site is lacking in credibility. As often happens I when scientific expeditions set out to find answers to mega-mysteries such as Stonehenge, they work backwards, creating a hypothesis and working to fit the truth into their particular cubbyhole even if it is a false “truth”..
In the case of this Stonehenge investigation, this seems to be exactly what has occurred. We have “The Stonehenge Archer” whom you have deduced, without any validation whatsoever, to be a sacrifice. The proof fallacy you offer is that 1) he was shot at close range – approximately 20′; 2) he was, based on the angle of entry wounds, shot while in a supine position – lying down; 3) based on the fact that he was buried at Stonehenge, he much have been very important to the tribe. You then go on to extrapolate from your hypotheses that the Archer was killed in a ‘ritual sacrifice’.
NONE of your theories are upheld by the information you present. I could just as easily theorize that the Archer may have been a king, “not simply a murder victim” but a ruler of the tribe, someone held in high esteem by the people of the tribe. He died in battle, having been knocked to the ground stunned, dazed, and/or unconscious, and his adversary, ensuring his enemy was dead, shot him repeatedly with arrows. Why do you suppose he was shot from the back? A sacrificial lamb willing to be made sacrifice to protect the tribe but not courageous enough to watch it coming? There are too many holes in the study’s deductions.
And then we have the “drums are the key” hypothesis. validation of this theory is attempted by use of MEG and recordings from Stonehenge vs. recordings of traffic noise. The recordings from Stonehenge are more or less balanced whereas the traffic noise, in varying pitches and tones and most adults are predisposed to a somewhat negative reaction to those traffic noise, equating with daily stress. The “first traffic [irregular] beep” is pre-ordained to have a ‘negative’ reaction in the brain. A regular, more readily recognized and anticipated rhythm in any situation, would, logically have a more balanced response in the brain and, thus, would display the calm brainwave pattern found in the Stonehenge recordings used in the ‘experiment’.
Then the presenters go so far as to state, with absolute certainty, that there were night rituals so there was fire. Fire does not necessarily mean night and a night with a full, bright moon, does not necessarily mean fire. Yet another false absolute.
There are countless other flaws in the “scientific” study but, let’s go back to the beginning of this program and the origin of the first, blue stones in Wales. The pseudo-scientific researchers declare this entire project, taking a thousand years, more or less, was all about the rituals and the reverberating sound to be produced when the structure was completed. How, exactly, did these brilliant post-cavemen figure out the reality of harmonic resonance? How did they know about the stones at Pesteles Hills and that these very stones, above and beyond the stones locally available in the area of Stonehenge, would be just the ideal resonators for their rituals?
There are far too many questions unanswered about Stonehenge and pseudo-scientific studies such as this do nothing to answer those questions. Rather, they create their own questions and manipulate the facts to find their answers.
I have, for years, marveled at the generations of “truths” expounded by scientists on one issue or another. They beat their own political drums stating with absolute certainty that “this is the truth.” A generation or three later, another group of scientists take up their own philosophical drum and shout that the previous “truths” are wrong. “THIS” is the ‘real’ truth. Then, of course, a few decades on, another fine group of ‘scientists’ proclaim “THAT” is wrong. “THIS” is the real truth.
One thing I can say with absolute certainty: A scientist who states anything with absolute certainty is no scientist.
August 28, 2014 at 9:12 am
bfazenda
Dear thewordsmith,
Thank you for your comments. Indeed your reading of the ‘science’ as is presented in the History Channel episode is correct. I too feel that there are many ‘theories’ being postulated that do not follow a scientific rationale. This is mainly because these TV programmes are put together by producers and editors who have brilliant experience in making catchy TV but are not scientists themselves. In the case of the Stonehenge episode, you are looking at an amalgamation of many different pieces of research being spliced together for the show. I have been involved with the measurement and analysis of the acoustic response at both sites, but not the MEG or the Archer lines of enquiry. I have to agree that I too was a little disappointed at how these were presented and discussed. There are a number of conclusions that are a little too ambitious from the evidence presented. All I can say is that sometimes boring science does not make exciting TV.
I hope viewers and readers of this work can unravel the real science from the sensationalist material.
August 28, 2014 at 10:18 am
ruperttill
Dear the wordsmith,
I worked with Bruno on the Mystery Quest programme. It is important to remember that this is not really an attempt at science by the programme makers, and it is easy to make the mistake of thinking of it in this way, and expecting it to be or present science. MysteryQuest is a cable TV entertainment show, and you have to enjoy it (or not) as such. We spoke for many hours with the TV producers, who told us they had to cut anything we said down to less than 6 seconds because that is the maximum concentration time of their audience. The producers of the show work within their own medium, you are of course entirely correct that it is not science, but it is not perhaps fair to expect it to be, although of course the show is presented a little as if it is science. If you are interested in the science behind this subject, look at this webpage in more detail, and do some searches online for research by myself and Bruno.
Having spoken to the MEG researcher, they said this was not an experiment, but an illustration of the kind of experiment they would do if they were to look into the subject, but with many people being tested, and a lot more detail, years of work rather than one afternoon!
We had nothing to do with the conclusions presented in the show, and they are chosen more for entertainment than scientific validity. It is an entertaining show though I think, and it at least made you interested enough to post something!