8. On the Archaeology of Music

Whenever I speculate on certain possibilities regarding the "deep history" of music (i.e., its history prior to any of the written records), I am continually being reminded that it's a mistake to extrapolate backward, from the present situation to the past, because we cannot "go back to the past" to either observe musical performances or listen to how they sounded -- and since we are unable to do this, then we have no way of testing any theory regarding the nature of music in the past, especially the remote past. But isn't the same thing true of every aspect of history? Don't all historians and archaeologists base their theories on what is before them in the present, whether they are working in a library or a museum collection, or out in the field, examining sites, digging for fossils, etc.? It seems to me that I am doing the same thing they do, i.e., drawing inferences based on the methodological study of what I've been presented with in the present, and my understanding of its context, based on years of additional study and research, and extrapolating backward in a meaningful manner, based on those inferences.

How are inferences based on music heard on a recording different from inferences based on a fossil studied in a museum collection? It will be argued that the fossil is "old," a long dead relic of the past, while the music is "new," freshly recorded by a group of living, breathing humans. But how do we know the fossil is old? As far as the ordinary museum goer is concerned, it could be the skull of someone who died last week. An expert who examines the skull knows what to look for. The expert can make inferences about that object based on a lifetime of knowledge and experience. Similarly, how do we know the music is "new"? The composer is still living, you say, so it couldn't be that old, could it? Well, maybe not the specific composition, but most original works are rooted in a tradition, and what interests me is not the indvidual work but the tradition it represents. And there is no reason to assume that tradition is brand new simply because the composition and the performers are our contemporaries. Again, an expert can analyze that composition and that performance and make inferences regarding the age of the tradition behind it, which might, in fact, go back thousands or even tens of thousand of years. As I see it, therefore, there is really no fundamental difference between an archaeological site, a fossil, an ancient papyrus, and a brand new recording of a piece of music. None of the above presents itself to us directly and without mediation as a relic of the past. It can only be treated as such after the evidence is carefully examined and meaningful inferences are drawn.


I have also been told it is a mistake to make assumptions about the deep history of indigenous peoples, that we have no way of knowing whether or not they are still living in the same manner as their ancestors and that there is no reason to assume they haven't changed over time any less than we have. It was, indeed, once common, even among so-called "experts," to make all sorts of assumptions about "stone age," "primitive" and "backward" people, whose lifestyles were uncritically accepted as windows into the world of "early man." But there is a hyge difference between making assumptions and drawing inferences. While I completely agree that it is naive and even sometimes harmful to make assumptions about any group, it is, on the other hand, part of our responsibility as scientists and/or scholars, to collect evidence, and draw reasonable inferences based on that evidence. Arguments regarding the nature of any musical style and its meaning, historical or otherwise, should never be based on assumptions of any kind, on that I completely agree. If I treat certain musical styles as survivals from the past, it is NOT because I am making any sort of assumption about any of the peoples currently practicing such styles, who may or may not be currently living in a manner that reflects any other aspects of the way their distant ancestors lived. But I DO reserve the right to claim that the musical evidence might provide us with some clues as to the nature and history of their culture generally. Not based on assumptions, but evidence, and inferences based on that evidence.

Another objection I sometimes hear is that by suggesting that their musical practices could be survivals from the distant past, I am reducing certain indigenous groups to the status of "living fossils" and thereby "essentializing" them. And, indeed, in the past, it was not uncommon to think of such peoples in exactly that way. Our thinking has now changed, however, as has our vocabulary. We no longer use terms like "primitive" or "stone age peoples," nor do we anymore invoke "living fossils" (unless we are arguing with someone like me!). All people living today are fully alive. They are our contemporaries. No one is a "living fossil" for sure and it would be an insult to claim that anyone was. We do know, however, that certain peoples, and certain individuals, are carriers of certain traditions, traditions that could well go back thousands or tens of thousands of years, traditions valued quite highly by their own group, if not all educated, open minded people everywhere. The term sometimes used is: "Living Treasures."