There’s a concrete replica of Stonehenge here in Washington State. A Yorkshire lad, Rupert Till, paid it a visit and discovered unexpected acoustical properties:
Although the replica has not previously gained any attention from archaeologists studying the original site, it was ideal for Dr Till’s work.
He said: “We were able to get some interesting results when we visited the replica by using computer-based acoustic analysis software, a 3D soundfield microphone, a dodecahedronic speaker, and a huge bass speaker from a PA company.
“By comparing results from paper calculations, computer simulations based on digital models, and results from the concrete Stonehenge copy, we were able to come up with some of these theories about the uses of Stonehenge.
“We have also been able to reproduce the sound of someone speaking or clapping in Stonehenge 5,000 years ago.
“The most interesting thing is we managed to get the whole space (at Maryhill) to resonate, almost like a wine glass will ring if you run a finger round it.
As some of you may remember, I’ve been thinking about sound a lot lately, and this article really, ahem, struck me. I have some notions of how to use these stone-and-sound notions for my big old sword-swangin’ fantasy novel. Weird and spooky and creepy-creepy-creepy, heh heh.
Nicola Griffith 
This is fascinating, but my first response was “come on people, build your own monument!” Of course it is convenient for research. But how do you know it sounds like the real thing?
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing – concrete sounds just like that stone would’ve? But it must sound enough like it. Pretty cool discovery. I’ve never seen the real Stonehenge (dammit), but maybe I’ll get to see this one instead. It reminded me of the Parthenon replica in Nashville. It’s made out of concrete also; I have been to the real Parthenon in Greece, and it doesn’t seem remotely the same as that replica – even tho it’s the same dimensions, etc.
EEeenteresting. That is a lot of fun, but I’m guessing incidental– I’m pretty sold on the AstroChartCalendar notion. Double duty? Possibly. I’m a big proponent of reminding everyone that historical people were just as smart as anyone.I’m also a proponent of the notion that neanderthals were probably smarter than humans.
I heard (incorrectly?) that researchers think that Stonehenge wasn’t using solar information, but .lunar. … interesting, eh?As the local “physicist” in these here parts, my key question is: okay, so does concrete resonate in similar ways to that stone? Each has different properties and can absorb/transmit/reflect sound differently. Field trip!!
<>barbara<>, people like to copy. I think the Washington monument was built as a war memorial.<>jennifer<>, I’ve been to the real Parthenon–though now it’s so rebuilt it’s hard to tell what’s ‘real’ and what isn’t. But the big thing about ritual buildings is their setting. You can’t reproduce that. I’m guessing stone and concrete resonate quite differently, though their reflective quality might be similar.<>mordicai<>, I believe sound is a seriously important part of monument building. Think of the resonance of old churches.<>janine<>, there are more theories about Stonehenge than there are stones. I think it was part of a larger ritual landscape. I think the siting of some of the stones might have incorporated midwinter sun stuff but that wasn't the point. I just don't know what the point was: burial? healing & pilgrimage? general awesomeness? It's a mystery.