Comments on: The adaptive strategies behind music and violence http://anthropology.net/2008/01/31/the-adaptive-strategies-behind-music-and-violence/ Beyond bones & stones Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Victor http://anthropology.net/2008/01/31/the-adaptive-strategies-behind-music-and-violence/#comment-9607 Victor Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:53:16 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=670#comment-9607 My own research on paleolithic musical traditions (http://music000001.blogspot.com/) coupled with what we're learning from the genetic research, plus a considerable amount of ethnographic research, tells us that the earliest "modern" humans were most likely 1. egalitarian; 2. gender-equal; 3. non-violent; 4. non-aggressive; 5. much more prone to share food, property, etc. than accumulate it. While this was once regarded as a "romantic," "idealized" view of early humans, it is now becoming widely accepted again, due to the preponderance of evidence, especially the genetic evidence, which points to relatively gentle, nonviolent groups such as the "Bushmen" and "Pygmies" as most closely related to our earliest ancestors. Many other indigenous groups living in marginal areas in many different parts of the world, hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists share a very similar cultural ideal. It's a shame that so many people still think of humans as "naturally" violent. There's no evidence for that. The tendencies toward violence, aggression and competition most likely came later, probably due to the need to adapt, culturally, to conditions of extreme deprivation -- such as, for example, those described by Turnbull in his book, "The Mountain People." My own research on paleolithic musical traditions (http://music000001.blogspot.com/) coupled with what we’re learning from the genetic research, plus a considerable amount of ethnographic research, tells us that the earliest “modern” humans were most likely 1. egalitarian; 2. gender-equal; 3. non-violent; 4. non-aggressive; 5. much more prone to share food, property, etc. than accumulate it. While this was once regarded as a “romantic,” “idealized” view of early humans, it is now becoming widely accepted again, due to the preponderance of evidence, especially the genetic evidence, which points to relatively gentle, nonviolent groups such as the “Bushmen” and “Pygmies” as most closely related to our earliest ancestors. Many other indigenous groups living in marginal areas in many different parts of the world, hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists share a very similar cultural ideal. It’s a shame that so many people still think of humans as “naturally” violent. There’s no evidence for that. The tendencies toward violence, aggression and competition most likely came later, probably due to the need to adapt, culturally, to conditions of extreme deprivation — such as, for example, those described by Turnbull in his book, “The Mountain People.”

]]> By: Snow day??? « blueollie http://anthropology.net/2008/01/31/the-adaptive-strategies-behind-music-and-violence/#comment-9589 Snow day??? « blueollie Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:05:55 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=670#comment-9589 [...] another article they also discuss human music and violence and wonder if these aspects of us come from adaptation or “just [...] [...] another article they also discuss human music and violence and wonder if these aspects of us come from adaptation or “just [...]

]]> By: Victor http://anthropology.net/2008/01/31/the-adaptive-strategies-behind-music-and-violence/#comment-9581 Victor Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:53:57 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=670#comment-9581 OK, I'll give this one a shot. Thanks for asking. There's recently been considerable interest among cognitive scientists, linguists, etc., in both the evolution of music and possible early connections between music and language. But much of this thinking is from the "bright idea" or "light bulb over the head" school. You get a bright idea, very logical and reasonable, of how music might have originated and/or evolved and/or how it might be connected with language and you then proceed to weave a lovely web compounded of fanciful thinking and selective forays into the biological and/or archaeological literature that, lo and behold, reinforce your theory. Many very interesting ideas have been presented and some interesting studies done, physiological, neurological, psychological, etc. Much of it is certainly worth reading -- and pondering. But in my view there are two very important things missing from all these speculations and all this research. First of all, before we can speculate on how music got started and what it means, we have to have some idea of what it is. Which means we have a responsibility to educate ourselves regarding the many different types of music now being made in the world around us, especially that of indigenous and other tradition oriented peoples. No linguist, nowadays at least, would dream of speculating on the origins and evolution of language without spending a fair amount of time becoming acquainted with at least some of the research being done on the major language families and possible relations between them. Similarly, imo, no one can have any hope of coming up with anything meaningful regarding musical origins and evolution without taking the time to become acquainted with the major musical families. Second of all, if we are to get anywhere in relating music and language, we must add semiotics to the intellectual mix. No amount of neurological or psychological research or phenomenological speculation will take us very far if we fail to see both music and language as mediated, and mediating, systems of communication/expression, controlled by the sorts of processes and codes that consitute the semiotic domain . OK, I’ll give this one a shot. Thanks for asking.
There’s recently been considerable interest among cognitive scientists, linguists, etc., in both the evolution of music and possible early connections between music and language. But much of this thinking is from the “bright idea” or “light bulb over the head” school. You get a bright idea, very logical and reasonable, of how music might have originated and/or evolved and/or how it might be connected with language and you then proceed to weave a lovely web compounded of fanciful thinking and selective forays into the biological and/or archaeological literature that, lo and behold, reinforce your theory.

Many very interesting ideas have been presented and some interesting studies done, physiological, neurological, psychological, etc. Much of it is certainly worth reading — and pondering. But in my view there are two very important things missing from all these speculations and all this research. First of all, before we can speculate on how music got started and what it means, we have to have some idea of what it is. Which means we have a responsibility to educate ourselves regarding the many different types of music now being made in the world around us, especially that of indigenous and other tradition oriented peoples.

No linguist, nowadays at least, would dream of speculating on the origins and evolution of language without spending a fair amount of time becoming acquainted with at least some of the research being done on the major language families and possible relations between them. Similarly, imo, no one can have any hope of coming up with anything meaningful regarding musical origins and evolution without taking the time to become acquainted with the major musical families.

Second of all, if we are to get anywhere in relating music and language, we must add semiotics to the intellectual mix. No amount of neurological or psychological research or phenomenological speculation will take us very far if we fail to see both music and language as mediated, and mediating, systems of communication/expression, controlled by the sorts of processes and codes that consitute the semiotic domain .

]]> By: j http://anthropology.net/2008/01/31/the-adaptive-strategies-behind-music-and-violence/#comment-9580 j Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:43:03 +0000 http://anthropologynet.wordpress.com/?p=670#comment-9580 Music fascinates animals. A well known story tells that the famous pianist Baremboim was touring Africa and lions penetrated in his suite and he started to play the piano and the animals relaxed and did no harm to him. Wait? Wasnt Baremboim the pianist eaten by lions in his African tour? Yes, that was when the old hearing-impaired lion arrived... Music fascinates animals. A well known story tells that the famous pianist Baremboim was touring Africa and lions penetrated in his suite and he started to play the piano and the animals relaxed and did no harm to him.
Wait? Wasnt Baremboim the pianist eaten by lions in his African tour?
Yes, that was when the old hearing-impaired lion arrived…

]]>