Various observations argue for a role of adaptation in recent human evolution, including results from genome-wide studies and analyses of selection signals at candidate genes. . . On a broad scale, the geographic distribution of putatively selected alleles almost invariably conforms to population clusters identified using randomly chosen genetic markers. Given this structure, there are surprisingly few fixed or nearly fixed differences between human populations. Among the nearly fixed differences that do exist, nearly all are due to fixation events that occurred outside of Africa, and most appear in East Asia (my emphasis).The authors focus on distributions associated with three genes, the "KIT ligand gene," and the "SLC24A5 gene," both apparently associated with light skin pigmentation, and a "nonsynonymous SNP in the MC1R gene." The distribution patterns for all three are presented in Figure 4:
Figure 4. Global allele frequencies and haplotype patterns at three genes with signals of positive selection. The left-hand column shows pie charts of allele frequencies (blue ancestral, red derived) across the HGDP populations for: (A) a SNP upstream of KITLG (rs1881227); and for nonsynonymous SNPs in (B) SLC24A5 (rs1426654; data from [18]), and (C) MC1R (rs885479). The right-hand column shows a representation of haplotype patterns for 500 kb around each gene, in each case centered on the SNP displayed in the pie charts. Each box represents a single population, and observed haplotypes are plotted as thin horizontal lines, using the same haplotype coloring for all populations (see Methods and [59]). In all three cases the derived allele plotted in the pie charts is found mainly on the red haplotype.
The gap we've been discussing can clearly be seen in map B, representing the SLC24A5 gene (possibly associated with skin color). Significantly, blue, found predominantly in Africa, East Asia and Melanesia, represents the ancestral form of the allele, and red, found exclusively in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia, represents the more recent, derived, allele. The gap can also be seen in the rectangular graphs on the right, with the patterns for Europe, the Middle East and S. Asia clearly contrastive with those for Africa, E. Asia, Oceania and the Americas.
Another paper, also dealing with worldwide distributions of specific genes, has already been discussed on this blog (see Post 265), as an example of how not to interpret simple correlations: Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin, by Dan Dediu and D. Robert Ladd. The authors found a correlation between the distribution of two genes thought to be associated with brain size, and the worldwide distribution of tone languages. The most convincing correlation is between the distribution of ASPM-D and tone language, as seen in the following maps:
ASPM-D (ancestral alleles in white, derived alleles in black)
Tone Languages (in blue)
Though the pattern shown on the ASPM-D map isn't as clear as the one on the tone language map, the authors claim to have found a statistically significant correlation between the two -- and on that basis, concluded that there must be a cause and effect relation between the presence of the derived forms of the genes and the absence of tone language. As I argued in Post 265, their cause and effect inference is highly questionable, since they failed to consider the fact that the gene distributions themselves must have a cause. And in the light of all the evidence we've been considering here, it looks very much like the correlation found by Dediu and Ladd stems from the likelihood that both distributions have a common cause, the very cause their mathematical model ruled out as unlikely: demic diffusion over a continuous geographical area, from Africa all the way to East Asia -- a pattern masked by the same gap we've been finding, over and over, as we consider evidence, both cultural and genetic, associated with the Out of Africa migration.
Posts
43 comments:
Sadly, you are again only looking at the data in ways that are convenient for your hypothesis.
Maju: "Sadly, you are again only looking at the data in ways that are convenient for your hypothesis."
I see evidence of a cultural gap, Maju, in more or less exactly the same part of the world where there is evidence for a genetic gap. Why wouldn't I be interested in additional evidence that seems to point to the same gap?
The classic response of the skeptic to any new idea is: "show me the evidence." Well, I am showing you the evidence. But apparently no amount of evidence will satisfy the hardened skeptic, so maybe I'll just have to resign myself to not convincing you, Maju.
For the record, I have some questions about this evidence myself, and plan to discuss them on the blog. And if you have questions, fine, let's hear what they are.
I have a theory, yes, but I'm not in love with it and would happily trade it for one that made more sense and fit the evidence better. Thus, far I've seen nothing of the kind, so feel it necessary to continue along the same path I've already been exploring.
What I mean is that when you look at derived alleles in the pigmentation paper (that I told you about), you are only willing to notice one derived branch (West) and not the other also very obvious derived branch (East).
You are so fascinated by Oppenheimer's catastrophe hypothesis that you are not even considering other possibilities.
You say that you are exploring but you are in fact only "exploring" what fits in that pre-conceived idea and ignoring the rest.
I have a theory, yes, but I'm not in love with it and would happily trade it for one that made more sense and fit the evidence better. Thus, far I've seen nothing of the kind.
I believe that I have offered you alternative viewpoints, like the paper on demic growth and the theory of innovation caused by interaction. You are just not wanting to consider them even as a possibility.
So, yes, you are in love with the catastrophe hypothesis, even if it's not mainstream at all and lacks of clear evidence.
Maju: "What I mean is that when you look at derived alleles in the pigmentation paper (that I told you about), you are only willing to notice one derived branch (West) and not the other also very obvious derived branch (East)."
Ok, fair enough. But first of all, note that I made no attempt to hide the fact that there are two other maps that do NOT conform to the gap I find so important. And yes, both show derived branches in East Asia. And if there were reason to believe there is some contradiction between the two types of distribution pattern, I'd have discussed that.
But I don't see a contradiction and neither do the authors, as they don't mention one either. Their principal point is that such non-random patterns are rare, which means that each of the three maps most likely represents an evolutionary process of real significance.
There is no reason to expect that all three would show the same pattern, however, since each most likely developed over a different time period and under different circumstances.
What IS important, and I should have mentioned it, is the fact that maps A and C both reveal associations between continguous regions and are thus not inconsistent with what one might expect from large-scale migrations over a long time period. It is only map B that poses a problem, and the fact that the problem it poses looks very similar to the problem posed by the other evidence I've been considering, that I naturally singled it out.
For me, the other maps are irrelevant, clearly referring to migration patterns other than the southern route that I've been discussing. It is only map B that seems relevant, and this is why I singled it out.
Particle physicists look at millions of particle interactions all the time, Maju, but it is only certain ones that interest them, the ones that are relevant. The others don't matter and can be ignored, thank God.
This does NOT mean map B is necessarily relevant, just because it looks right. Naturally it would be helpful to get some sort of estimate as to when the derived allele originated, in order to fully assess its relevance to the southern route. But to be frank, I can't think of ANY other type of migration at any other time in history that would show such a pattern, containing such a huge gap. For that reason alone, it speaks to me.
Maju: "I believe that I have offered you alternative viewpoints, like the paper on demic growth and the theory of innovation caused by interaction. You are just not wanting to consider them even as a possibility."
I did consider them, but I find it very difficult to take them seriously, for very good reasons that I think I explained. But even if they were perfectly valid, I'm sorry but I don't see the connection with Out of Africa, and I certainly don't see how such a theory could explain the cultural and the genetic patterns I've been trying to understand. What you are proposing seems extremely simplistic to me, and largely unrelated to the problem at hand. If you can clarify for me why you think it IS related, then maybe I'd reconsider.
Ok, fair enough. But first of all, note that I made no attempt to hide the fact that there are two other maps that do NOT conform to the gap I find so important.
They do conform more or less to your interpretation of the gap, right? The ASPM-D and the tonal languages map appear to suggest even to my critical eye that East Asia (though not clearly SE Asia/Australasia) have ancestral types, not derived.
Certainly you do not present them as contradictory with your hypothesis.
It is only map B that poses a problem.
No problem whatsoever: founding mutation in South Asia expanded to West Eurasia. It also follows the pattern you describe for A and C, it also does "reveal associations between contiguous regions and are thus not inconsistent with what one might expect from large-scale migrations over a long time period".
The study (as so many others) sadly lacks of genetic data for India anyhow.
If what troubles you is the two populations with large "blue" fractions, these are in fact akin to East Asians: Uyghurs and Hazaras.
I really see no reason whatsoever to make a distinction between maps B and C: they are perfectly complementary and illustrate and support the nowadays mainstream understanding that Eurasia was populated in a U pattern from tropical Asia.
I did consider them, but I find it very difficult to take them seriously, for very good reasons that I think I explained.
Not really.
But even if they were perfectly valid, I'm sorry but I don't see the connection with Out of Africa, and I certainly don't see how such a theory could explain the cultural and the genetic patterns I've been trying to understand. What you are proposing seems extremely simplistic to me, and largely unrelated to the problem at hand. If you can clarify for me why you think it IS related, then maybe I'd reconsider.
Well, it's not just me. Most geneticists and prehistorians would have a hard time swallowing Oppenheimer's hypothesis. In fact they tend to ignore it altogether.
I can't clarify further unless you clarify first what is so "extremely simplistic" and specially what does not fit with the genetic patterns. I understand that it is Oppenheimer's hypothesis which frontally clashes with the genetic patterns in fact and that's why so few take him seriously and instead follow the rapid coastal migration hypothesis.
However, as always happens with Prehistory, a time machine would be the only way to fully clarify the matter beyond doubt.
"I did consider them, but I find it very difficult to take them seriously, for very good reasons that I think I explained."
Sorry to interfere, guys, but I again have to bring to your attention, Victor, that you are being dismissive of very solid and rather innocuous scholarly works. First, you dismissed evolutionary musicology when it came to the monophony to polyphony development, then evolutionary phonology when it came to parallel evolution of phonetic patterns, then cognitive science when it came to tones and music, now evolutionary demography when it came to triggers of culture change. All because they are not relevant to your vision of what out of Africa should be all about. If you look at my "Genius of Kinship," you'll see that its list of references exceeds 2000 items from several branches of science. I have no problem proposing a preposterous idea just as long as it's well-referenced. I know precisely why people shouldn't be trusting published gene trees. I know precisely why there's no archaeological evidence for the peopling of the Americas. But I'm very optimistic about the amount of interesting research out there (yours and Lomax's included). I'm suspicious, however, of proposals that embrace the consensus at the expense of dismissing volumes of "irrelevant" patterns, data and opinions.
Although Luis and I disagree much more frequently than we agree, I also feel like I have given you plenty of ideas as to how to better slice musical evidence to fit other branches of knowledge. But you seem to perceive everything as talking at cross-purposes.
On a different note, I agree with you, Victor, that your chart B from the last paper is the most interesting one of the three. For once, American Indians aren't shown to be "absolutely derived."
Maju: "They do conform more or less to your interpretation of the gap, right? The ASPM-D and the tonal languages map appear to suggest even to my critical eye that East Asia (though not clearly SE Asia/Australasia) have ancestral types, not derived."
I was referring to maps A and C on the set of three maps in Figure 4 of the Coop paper, which present a different picture from map B.
DocG: "It is only map B that poses a problem."
Maju: "No problem whatsoever: founding mutation in South Asia expanded to West Eurasia. It also follows the pattern you describe for A and C, it also does "reveal associations between contiguous regions and are thus not inconsistent with what one might expect from large-scale migrations over a long time period"."
You are forgetting that TWO very different migrations are represented in map B. The expansion of the derived allele from South Asia to West Eurasia, in red, AND the expansion of the ancestral allele from Africa to East Asia and Melanesia, in blue. It's the distribution of the earlier migration, in blue, that presents the problem, precisely because of what looks like the same gap we see in the other maps.
If there were a thousand other maps, all different, THAT map would stand out precisely because of this major discontinuity. Not just to me, but to anyone sincerely trying to understand what happened during the Out of Africa migration. There was either a continuous expansion from Africa to East Asia that was later obscured by some event producing that gap -- or precisetly the same exact ancestral allele arose independently in Africa and East Asia (or Melanesia). I'm not a statistician so I won't attempt to estimate the odds of such a huge coincidence.
Maju: "I can't clarify further unless you clarify first what is so "extremely simplistic" and specially what does not fit with the genetic patterns."
What is extremely simplistic is the notion that innovation or any other type of change can be explained by any single cause. While large population size may facilitate certain types of innovation it could discourage others. Everything depends on the type of society. In a very conservative society, a larger population would mean more people around to police everyone else and make sure that any innovations are stifled. So surely the values of the society in question must also ber a factor.
Also to be considered is whether the society is stable or in a period of stress. For example, if they are at war, then innovations in weaponry and defense would be welcome. If they can't find game, then innovations relating to fishing or agriculture might be welcome. If they are living in peace and have everything they need, then certain innovations might be seen as pointless and be ignored. This has nothing to do with population size, but with the condition and values of the society, large or small.
As far as the fit with genetic patterns, you have first to tell me whether you recognize the gap I've been pointing to. If you do recognize that gap and agree with me that it is reflected in the genetic evidence, then that's great, thank you. And in that case, the notion that the gap could have been produced by large population size in South Asia IS consistent with the genetic pattern -- as I see it at least.
But I have a feeling that you do NOT agree with me about the existence of this gap, and if that's the case then I fail to see what you are trying to account for with the population size theory. What aspect of the genetic picture does it correlate with, for you?
Maju: "The study (as so many others) sadly lacks of genetic data for India anyhow."
Here I agree. They refer to South Asia in the paper, but the map shows only the northwestern part, with no data for most of India. More information is definitely needed and there is always the possibility that the gap I see in blue might be filled in over time when more evidence from the rest of India becomes available.
I plan to discuss this and other questions in my next blog post.
You are forgetting that TWO very different migrations are represented in map B. The expansion of the derived allele from South Asia to West Eurasia, in red, AND the expansion of the ancestral allele from Africa to East Asia and Melanesia, in blue.
Check the rectangular plots in that same figure for true alleles and not just catch-all simplifications. There is no "blue allele" but an array of non-red alleles. The only thing that all "blue" carriers share is a negative one: they don't share the red allele, which is what the maps are focused on.
From the quote you selected:
"Given this structure, there are surprisingly few fixed or nearly fixed differences between human populations. Among the nearly fixed differences that do exist, nearly all are due to fixation events that occurred outside of Africa, and most appear in East Asia".
That means in fact that East Asians are the ones who have more marked founder effects (or "bottleneck effects" if you wish), though all Eurasians do to some extent (while Africans don't and keep a high diversity).
As far as the fit with genetic patterns, you have first to tell me whether you recognize the gap I've been pointing to.
As I have pointed out elsewhere I don't see "the gap" the way you do (and certainly not in genetics). I see a musical gap and maybe an unclearly related tonal language gap but I don't see any clear genetic gap at all.
Also I am more and more seeing your "the gap" (specially in the musical aspect) as a series of gaps and not just one, starting in Africa and, yes, probably culminating in India (and by extension West Eurasia). And with this renewed perception of the musical gap as something more complex than just a single event, I also need a more elaborate and general explanation than Toba (or any other single event).
There is no P/B anymore in Eurasia, just fragmentary remnants. But the same happens in Africa, even among such old and P/B-ish peoples as the Hadza. So there must be a more generalist explanation and the interaction hypothesis sounds like right: the greater the density at the late MP (OoA and Eurasian spread period), the less P/B that remains, it seems.
Maybe there is some other explanation but certainly the Toba catastrophe hypothesis sounds more and more impossible.
"Also I am more and more seeing your "the gap" (specially in the musical aspect) as a series of gaps and not just one, starting in Africa and, yes, probably culminating in India (and by extension West Eurasia)."
And also Australia and North America. A series of "gaps" like I was talking about all along.
"So there must be a more generalist explanation and the interaction hypothesis sounds like right: the greater the density at the late MP (OoA and Eurasian spread period), the less P/B that remains, it seems."
Agree with the need for a general evolutionary theory, explaining the observed patterns. Toba won't work, as there are too many gaps all over the world. However, all genetic systems concur that Africa has had the largest long-term effective population size, which, through a formula, translates into the largest demographic population size in the Pleistocene. Hence, P/B should have disappeared altogether in Africa (according to the prediction of the interactive hypothesis). This is not the case, hence it's likely that P/B is a derived form of polyphony. The reason there's very little monophony in Africa also speaks to the derived nature of African musical traditions.
Maju: "Check the rectangular plots in that same figure for true alleles and not just catch-all simplifications. There is no "blue allele" but an array of non-red alleles. The only thing that all "blue" carriers share is a negative one: they don't share the red allele, which is what the maps are focused on."
Interesting. I must admit I don't understand the relationship between the "pie charts of allele frequencies" on the left and the "representation of haplotype patterns for 500 kb around each gene, in each case centered on the SNP displayed in the pie charts" on the right. I took seriously what they said about "blue ancestral, red derived" and assumed that the blue portions of the map referred to the distribution of ancestral alleles for that gene, just as the red referred to derived alleles. Naturally, if one occupies positive space then the other will occupy negative space, since, as I'm assuming, the gene is present in all humans in either one form or the other.
I'm not sure whether this is a problem or not, but I must admit that at this point I'm confused, because frankly I don't understand the significance of what they are calling the "haplotype patterns," or why they are using so many colors to represent them. So thanks for pointing that out. I need to withhold judgement on this evidence until I can get a better handle on what it means.
All I can say for now is that if I was fooled, so were Dediu and Ladd (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/26/10944.full.pdf), who based their PNAS paper on a very similar type of distribution mapping. I had no problem with the correlation they found between "ancestral alleles" and tone language, only their assumption that the genetic pattern was responsible for the linguistic one.
According to their paper, "Those areas of the world
where the new alleles are relatively rare also tend to be the areas
where tone languages are common." So clearly, as far as they are concerned, the distribution of the rare occurences is as important as the distribution of the frequent ones. But maybe they too were mislead by the confusing nature of this research.
The maps we were discussing are different: they do not deal with the microcephalin gene but with a series of pigmentation related genes.
But a good thing to do in such cases is to check available gene databases, such as SNPedia. This site gives some 20 different SNP in a search result for MCPH1 (Microcephalin), what means that it has probably some 40 variants (could have as many as 20x4=80 but most SNPs only have two variants - if it has only one variant, then it is not a polymorphism, aka SNP)
ASPM instead only seems to involve two different SNPs, of which one is almost uniform and the other does show a dual African/Eurasian (and quite specifically European) pattern.
However the SNPedia may also be limited in its information availability. Searching for the KITLG gene, only a few SNPs were mentioned, not refelecting the wide diversity captured in Africa for this study.
Similarly the search on SLC24A5 yielded only a handful of SNPs, while the much more famous MCR1 gene (as it's associated with red hair) instead leads to a large series of polymorphisms, though again apaprently missing the huge African diversity and probably also part of the Asian one.
In any case, it's good to get a better grasp of what you are talking about before you take sides on such complex genetic discussions. Taking only one reference may often be misleading.
I took seriously what they said about "blue ancestral, red derived" and assumed that the blue portions of the map referred to the distribution of ancestral alleles for that gene.
It is pretty much confusing admittedly. They should not use those terms and they probably deserve a comment note for that error (you can and are encouraged to make constructive comments to PLoS articles, either in general or to some specific spot such as this graph).
I imagine they use that terminology because the whole point of the paper is that certain alleles (red) experienced selection and fixation and hence they decided to call them "derived" (and all the rest "ancestral" - meh!)
I must admit that at this point I'm confused.
That's sometimes a good thing. Discerning the truth is often not easy task, so confusion and uncertainty should be accepted as normal.
IMO, you were as of late too much "not confused", too certain of things that are not so clear at all.
I don't understand the significance of what they are calling the "haplotype patterns," or why they are using so many colors to represent them.
If you have, say 5 SNPs in some gene, you will have normally some 10 haplotypes (as said before there could theoretically be as much as double but in practical terms this doesn't happen because polymorphisms as such are rather rare, so they almost always have just two variants). If the genes have 15 SNPs, then the variants will probably be 30, and so on.
Apparently Coop and colleagues captured a wide array of them in each of the three genes, specially in Africa. Although this wide diversity is (sadly) not reflected in SNPedia yet.
German wrote:
However, all genetic systems concur that Africa has had the largest long-term effective population size, which, through a formula, translates into the largest demographic population size in the Pleistocene.
Not per Atkinson et al. The Pleistocene is a very long period and, if we follow this paper, soon after the OoA episode, Asia held quite larger populations than Africa (specially South Asia).
Hence the rest of your conclusions don't apply, at least by "my" tentative model of demography and innovation.
"soon after the OoA episode, Asia held quite larger populations than Africa (specially South Asia)."
Atkinson et al. is pretty confusing, as they break down their data by rather geographically unequal regions (the reader is invited to compare America with North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa with India, etc.). So I don't know how to use it. In any case, the difference between Africa, South India and a couple of other areas is insignificant. America is the only area that stands out. The radical difference in eff pop size between America and Africa is attested by all genetic systems, with other geographies in-between. It's true that African foragers are less diverse than African agriculturalists and pastoralists (a fact downplayed in early genetic studies in order not to open a can of worms around the claim that Africa diversity reflects the age of this population), hence it's possible that throughout Pleistocene other regions went ahead of Africa in terms of population size only to be overtaken by Africa again in the past 5K years. Powell et al (2009) that you brought up, as well as another paper, argue, rather convincingly, that the emergence of the modern human behavioral package in Africa, Middle East and Europe around the same time was determined by advanced population densities in contrast to Asia and Australasia, where the same package is rather ephemeral until 10K years.
This pretty much puts your interaction theory in direct confrontation with Victor's claim that P/B musical style is an archaic retention. Rather, it could be seen as an innovation (from simpler forms of polyphony found in Melanesia and South America and from monophony found elsewhere, including Australia and North America, where modern human behavior is very hard to detect archaeologically until 110-15K). So it doesn't explain Victor's facts better, it threatens to refute them.
Check the supplementary material, German. They offer an array of other regional groupings that are very much clarifying.
the difference between Africa, South India and a couple of other areas is insignificant.
Measure it with a ruler c. 50 Kya. It's very clear to me.
It's true that African foragers are less diverse than African agriculturalists and pastoralists.
I'm not so sure but that would be anyhow almost unavoidable: small populations tend to fixation (reduction of diversity by drift). At deep phylogenetic levels anyhow Bushmen have some of the oldest branches (and Pygmies are next behind), so if you compare properly you must get higher basal diversity for forager ethnicities, because they do have it.
... hence it's possible that throughout Pleistocene other regions went ahead of Africa in terms of population size only to be overtaken by Africa again in the past 5K years.
That is nowhere to be seen. Africa still today only has some 1 billion people, 1/7 of all Humankind. The thin African soil is not too productive and the whole region is prone to aridity. Africa is large but seemingly doesn't have such high yields.
Powell et al (2009) that you brought up, as well as another paper, argue, rather convincingly, that the emergence of the modern human behavioral package...
Well, I just don't believe in the concept of "modern human behavioural package". It's just an arrogant Eurocentric fetish. It'd be like saying that all nations that don't have nuclear power are sub-human: the Hitler type of fallacious discourse, you know.
Also our ability to contemplate the past from a very patchy archaeological research, almost unavoidably focused in certain types of materials (rocks), makes our ability to compare very much limited. If people in some area painted on skins instead of rocks, we'd have no way of knowing it (or would be at least a zillion times much more difficult to detect); if people in SE Asia made their weapons with perishable bamboo, how can we compare with European flint ones?
"Modern human behaviour" is an empty phrase.
This pretty much puts your interaction theory in direct confrontation with Victor's claim that P/B musical style is an archaic retention.
No because archaeologists can't see music (except arguably in cave paintings - there was someone arguing that rock art marks special resonance places in caves; or in the few bone instruments that have survived - but wooden ones just don't make it).
I look at my room and most stuff would not make it to the museum some 40,000 years in the future. Maybe the Turkish alabaster box or some copper cables or a low quality industrial pot that I use to hold pens would be all that could survive. Neither the computer, nor of course my books, nor steel, nor wood, nor plastic would make it. Think in the usual paraphernalia of the typical forager: leather or bark clothes, strings, baskets, nets, wooden darts... nothing of all that makes it. Only a few stone knives or mashers if anything.
"No because archaeologists can't see music."
Yes, because your theory in general predicts that innovation is more likely to occur (or survive) in a larger, more dense population. Victor postulates the most complex vocal tradition as primordial for all human vocal traditions. It's most common in an area with a large long-term eff population size (attested through all systems, I don't even know what's here to discuss but see below), while, as a contrast, the region with the smallest eff population size has either monophony or "rudimentary polyphony."
"If people in some area painted on skins instead of rocks, we'd have no way of knowing it (or would be at least a zillion times much more difficult to detect); if people in SE Asia made their weapons with perishable bamboo, how can we compare with European flint ones?"
Agree on that one. Small population size and perishable artifacts explain the difficulty with finding unequivocal archaeological sites in America before 12,000 YBP (when population growth led to the emergence and spread of Clovis-type tools).
"Well, I just don't believe in the concept of "modern human behavioural package". It's just an arrogant Eurocentric fetish."
Same for modern human morphology, right?
"Modern human behaviour" is an empty phrase."
Tell it to Blombos Cave aficionados.
In any case, the archaeological record changed dramatically around 45-40K. Neandertals and other archaics disappeared, only us survived. Now we fly to the space, possess nuclear weapons and teach chimps to talk.
"Measure it with a ruler c. 50 Kya. It's very clear to me."
Sure, if they interpret diversity as a function of age. All African diversity is distributed from 100K, all other regional diversities from a later point in time. Had they tested the hypothesis that diversity is the function of population size, Africa, as the continent with largest intragroup diversity, would end up having the largest population size of all regions. Plus, how come on Fig 2, the plot shows America having the largest population size?? I doubt they made such a gross mistake, may be I'm just missing something?nizfo
Yes, because your theory in general predicts that innovation is more likely to occur (or survive) in a larger, more dense population. Victor postulates the most complex vocal tradition as primordial for all human vocal traditions. It's most common in an area with a large long-term eff population size (attested through all systems, I don't even know what's here to discuss but see below), while, as a contrast, the region with the smallest eff population size has either monophony or "rudimentary polyphony".
On what are you basing these claims of population size. You just made all this up yourself (again).
Anyhow. It's not "my theory", it would be "my tentative hypothesis". I'm arrogant maybe but not as much as to claim that sketch is a fully finished theory.
I am suggesting anyhow that larger population sizes may collude as a crucial factor to cause innovation in the form of simplification. The population sizes seem reasonably demonstrated (by others than me) and the simplifying innovation process has been rather well argued by Victor in this blog and his other works. The two factors are there and appear correlated at least. My only part in all the issue is to show such correlation and to suggest that might be related somehow, possibly because greater population sizes, or rather the greater interactivity they caused (not necesarily just for party, maybe also for war) might be the cause (or a cause) of the simplification (innovation) process. Much like the huge demic and communictaional growth of the 20th century caused (or favored) Punk Rock (which is also a simplifying type of music - deconstructivist or decodifying if you wish) or Rock music in general.
Of course the comparison is only valid up to a point and, in any case, I don't claim to have the definitive answer: just a trail that looks pretty much suggestive to me.
Same for modern human morphology, right? -
Not sure what you mean. I do think that H. sapiens is a different species from other Homo variants like H. neanderthalensis or H. erectus. I don't agree with the multirregionalists and I understand that by now they have been totally debunked (last one: the Lagar Velho child, the last foothold of MR, is just a regular sapiens - go figure!)
Tell it to Blombos Cave aficionados.
What's your problem with Blombos?
In any case, the archaeological record changed dramatically around 45-40K.
Not true. It depends where. Only in Europe and related parts of West Eurasia that holds true and that is because of the Neanderthal-AMH quite radical transition.
Neandertals and other archaics disappeared...
We know that H. floresiensis survived until c. 12,000 BP. Neanderthals also survived till c. 30,000 BP (at least).
And anyhow that is again a Eurocentric perspective. The particular conditions and events of West Eurasia are definitively not extrapolable to other regions (which btw appear all to have older H. sapiens populations - except America).
Plus, how come on Fig 2, the plot shows America having the largest population size?? -
You should check your sight, seriously. You delude yourself once and again. In fig. 2 America is represented in orange, which is a thin line (i.e. pop. zero) until some 17 Kya.
Maju: "As I have pointed out elsewhere I don't see "the gap" the way you do (and certainly not in genetics)."
But what you've written about the archaeological pattern seems consistent with what Oppenheimer has written about the distribution of M in East India (and its relative sparseness in the West). I'm not expecting you to agee with him on Toba, but it does seem as though his analysis of the genetic data is consistend with the archaeological findings, no?
"So there must be a more generalist explanation and the interaction hypothesis sounds like right: the greater the density at the late MP (OoA and Eurasian spread period), the less P/B that remains, it seems."
I agree that we can probably see a correlation between sparse population density and presence of P/B. But it would be a weak one, because there are many small, isolated groups living in refuge areas in Africa and elsewhere that do NOT make music this way. The Hadza are only one of many examples.
Regardless, I think you are confusing a correlation with a cause-effect relation. I've already made the point that we tend to see P/B among isolated marginalized groups and these will of course usually be relatively small populations, which is due to their marginalization. The smallness of these populations is unlikely to be the cause of their being marginalized, but even if it could be, you would need to produce evidence of that, not just accept it because it "makes sense" to you.
As far as interaction per se is concerned, few societies are as intensely interactive as Pygmies and Bushmen.
Maju: "And with this renewed perception of the musical gap as something more complex than just a single event, I also need a more elaborate and general explanation than Toba (or any other single event)."
Sure there are a great many "little gaps," so what. The AFrican signature is almost always found among isolated groups, probably because they are traditionl, non-violent and would rather hide out in the hills than fight back against more agressive and warlike people.
The gap I'm talking about is huge. And its in the negative space around that gap that just about all the P/B people tend to be found. I'm interested in the large scale distributions we find in relation to this huge gap. And since there is only one such huge gap, Toba actually fits quite well.
Long answer ahead:
Part 1:
Maju: "As I have pointed out elsewhere I don't see "the gap" the way you do (and certainly not in genetics)."
But what you've written about the archaeological pattern seems consistent with what Oppenheimer has written about the distribution of M in East India (and its relative sparseness in the West). I'm not expecting you to agee with him on Toba, but it does seem as though his analysis of the genetic data is consistend with the archaeological findings, no? -
I really do not understand the correlation between all these different things. Let's see:
1. "The Gap" is (as I understand it from what you write) essentially a musicological issue, which may or not be correlated or caused by other issues. I do see that gap but in a less extreme or black/white manner than you seem to do.
2. Orissa (and nearby areas) is just a small piece in the puzzle. It seems rather unimportant to me in the context of the whole picture. It certainly does not equate to South Asia nor even the eastern half of South Asia.
I do, in principle, agree that the central-eastern area of India, nowadays largely populated by Austroasiatic peoples and other tribal groups appears to have been sparsely populated in prehistory in general (from archaeological data) or have been populated from the lower Ganges (Bihar, Bengal) and the Eastern Dravidian lands (Andrah, Tamilnadu) at a second moment maybe (from genetic data).
But I don't see what you or Oppenheimer what to make out of this detail. So please, explain yourself.
(cont.)
Part 2:
I agree that we can probably see a correlation between sparse population density and presence of P/B. But it would be a weak one, because there are many small, isolated groups living in refuge areas in Africa and elsewhere that do NOT make music this way. The Hadza are only one of many examples.
I can't fully evaluate group by group (partly because you have not posted a good illustrative map of the P/B musicological aspects - though you did post a list recently). But you have said that the Hadza, while not fully P/B are among those musicians that seem closer to the ancestral P/B style. So maybe they represent an early stage of transition or something like that.
The Hadza anyhow live at the center of East Africa and must have been exposed to other peoples much more than Bushmen and Pygmy in their whole history, so the connectivity hypothesis also stands for them, it seems to me.
That's why I don't see so much a black and white (P/B vs. zero P/B) gap but a less simple type of gap, where between black and white, there are a whole range of not grays but colors. Colors are made by turning on or off or graying the different frequencies of visible light or white. So if P/B is white (all on) and non-P/B is black (all off), we still have a range of cultures that make music in red, blue, green, etc., as you have explained (calling them A1, A4, A5, B1, etc. instead but representing anyhow partial expressions of P/B). These variants are neither white nor black but something in between and at the same time unique in their choice of "frequencies".
This partial turning off (and/or partly off) of some P/B "frequencies" and not others appears to begin already in Africa and may be due in part to demic expansion with its increase of connectivity (for good and bad: more sharing but also more tensions and less empty places to go).
This hypothesis would integrate well with most or all of your work, I understand, as well as with the archaeological and genetic data and mainstream theories on human expansion. I am liking it more and more precisely because it seems very holistic or integrative of all aspects of the problem.
Of course, being my own brainchild, I acknowledge I can be easily deluded so please feel free to make the criticisms that it deserve. I'm just trying to find a better alternative explanation to your adoption of Oppenheimer's hypothesis that I find quite non-convincing on light of the available data.
(cont.)
Part 3:
Regardless, I think you are confusing a correlation with a cause-effect relation.
Correlations can be three things:
1. Mere coincidences (not really likely in this case)
2. Parallel effects of the same cause
3. Cause and effect
I don't think it's reasonable to think that musical styles cause demic growth and increased interaction so, if it's #3, then demography and increased connectivity should be the cause. If it's #2, then I don't know which could be the cause (nor seemingly do you either).
The smallness of these populations is unlikely to be the cause of their being marginalized.
I'm not saying that, at least not that way. I'm just saying that greater population density means increased interaction among populations (and maybe also within them but specially with different groups). Isolation and small densities go side by side: they are not cause and effect but the very same thing (at least as far as I can see).
As far as interaction per se is concerned, few societies are as intensely interactive as Pygmies and Bushmen.
But among themselves, not with other groups (at least until recently). I, at this extreme of the Internet, am being connected with people from New York, Buenos Aires, Hyderabad, Sanghai... my blog gets 9000 single visits in six months (and growing), my additions to Wikipedia surely have a much greater impact... Instead, living in a classical forager band you only communicate with a few hundred, maybe thousands, people in all your life.
Of course this is a extreme opposition but the same type of differences surely also happened in the past depending largely on how populated and easy to travel was the region in question.
The kind of internal interaction you mention, if anything would enhance conservatism, it is external interaction (i.e. with peoples that are at least somewhat different to your own culture) which favors innovation and a more "cosmopolitan" and open-minded attitude.
Sure there are a great many "little gaps," so what. The AFrican signature is almost always found among isolated groups, probably because they are traditionl, non-violent and would rather hide out in the hills than fight back against more agressive and warlike people.
As I just explained elsewhere, I don't mean that but rather the fact that P/B evolved (or un-evolved if you wish) into a colorful array of different derived groups, none of which keeps the full P/B signature but just aspects of it, different aspects in each area and group.
This for me seems to imply a general pattern of evolution, of turning off more or less totally specific aspects of the P/B musical tradition, with the extreme case of totally turning off P/B in South Asia and other areas, including West Asia.
Of course they did not turn off music as such (I'd dare say that would be inhuman).
And since there is only one such huge gap...
I don't see that single huge gap in your data. I see a wide array of gradations from P/B to non-P/B.
...
On a separate note. I have been thinking that, as some semi-P/B traditions managed to reach West Eurasia, it is highly unlikely that P/B was totally turned off in South Asia before the colonization of West Eurasia. IMO, the process of totally switching off P/B in South Asia should be more recent than 50-45 Kya.
As I see it, the Western P/B remnants appear to provide a minimal chronology for the P/B final disruption in South Asia.
Maju: ""The Gap" is (as I understand it from what you write) essentially a musicological issue, which may or not be correlated or caused by other issues. I do see that gap but in a less extreme or black/white manner than you seem to do."
As an archaeologist, if I told you I see a certain type of pottery in abundance in Africa, and variants of that same type of pottery in East Asia, but no trace of that same type of pottery anywhere in between, then what would you think? Assuming you agreed with me about the classification of the pottery, of course, which is another matter. Wouldn't that be a huge gap, and also a very clear gap? Well, that's what I'm saying about the distribution of P/B in Africa and Asia.
And since archaeologists prefer to work with tangible items, I can attest to essentially the same distribution of musical instruments. In fact the instrument situation is even clearer, because precisely the same types of instruments are found in Africa and Southeast Asia/Oceania and they are played in essentially the same manner: hocketed interlocking. In this case there is really no gradation but either presence or absence.
To me the lack of such instruments in South Asia is also a clear sign of a very clear gap.
I see other signs as well, in the artistic practices of Africans and SE Asians/Melanesians, which I don't see in South Asia, but in this case I can't be sure since this is not my field and I need to learn more about the Indian tribals. But when we look at the literature on "primitive art" generally, we see many quite remarkable examples of wood carving and mask making in Africa and very similar sorts of things in SE Asia and Melanesia. Carvings and masks from India are hardly ever represented in such surveys -- but that could be due to a lack of research in this area, I'm not sure.
There is also the distribution of tone languages, which follows the same pattern, a great many in Africa and East Asia/Melanesia but hardly any in South Asia (aside from Punjab, which was probably out of range of Toba ash and would not have been affected by a Tsunami). I need to research this more thoroughly as well, but regardless of what groups might have influenced what other groups in relatively recent times, it's very hard to ignore the striking contrasts we see on that map.
Maju: "But I don't see what you or Oppenheimer what to make out of this detail. So please, explain yourself."
It's much more than a detail, as Oppenheimer makes clear. You need to read his book, that should be a must for you, Maju, especially because his research is very thorough with very precise references to every piece of data he mentions. True, it's out of date, but any book is going to be out of date by the time it's published. And what is now the latest thing is going to be out of date in a few years also. What's most important are the ideas and especially the recognition of certain problems that most others don't see.
The series of posts I'm now writing should clarify for you why I see this gap as so important, and there is more to the problem than just the gap, though the gap is a huge clue to solving it.
Maju: "But you have said that the Hadza, while not fully P/B are among those musicians that seem closer to the ancestral P/B style. So maybe they represent an early stage of transition or something like that."
The Hadza sing polyphonically, so in that sense they can be understood, I suppose, as some sort of transition between P/B and monophony. But there's a lot more to it (Cantometrics covers 37 different parameters and there are other important things it doesn't include). But the Hadza do NOT sing in any form of P/B and their style is atypical for Africa generally, which leads me to believe they must have suffered a serious bottleneck early on. I think it possible to "read" various musical styles the way one would "read" mtDNA or Y results, in terms of certain markers, or haplotypes. As I see it, certain distinctive features of P/B can be understood as markers in this same sense and either they are present or they are absent, just as with genetic markers. Among the pygmies and bushmen one could say that the P/B markers are close to 100%, but that among other African groups they might be closer to 60% and among certain SE Asian or Melanesian groups, 30% or so. However, in India, it would be roughly 1/2%, which is a huge contrast, no?
Maju: "So if P/B is white (all on) and non-P/B is black (all off), we still have a range of cultures that make music in red, blue, green, etc., as you have explained (calling them A1, A4, A5, B1, etc. instead but representing anyhow partial expressions of P/B). These variants are neither white nor black but something in between and at the same time unique in their choice of "frequencies"."
If by a range of colors you mean some sort of gradual "evolutionary" transition of the usual sort then I have to disagree strongly. We do see instances of that sort of evolution in a limited way within certain traditions, especially in more complex societies where professional musicians compete and there is an almost Darwinian mechanism at work where certain ones get selected (by the rulers) and others fall by the wayside. But in traditional societies, where innovation is discouraged if not forbidden, the pattern is very different. Which is why I have such a hard time with your association of innovation with population size, because for me interest in innovation is itself an innovation that begins apparently in the Neolithic, when many of the old traditions are cast aside. As I see it, there are the older type of society, that forbids innovation and the newer type that encourages it, and these two have to be thought of in very different ways.
It's true that the neolithic led to larger pop. size, so maybe that's why it's so easy to associate population size with innovation. But for me that is an effect and not a cause.
I appreciate your interest in what I'm doing and also welcome your ideas, which are interesting. But for me musical style can be studied in much the same way as pop. geneticists study haplotypes and haplogroups and specific markers, such as deletions. This is a very different approach from the gradual evolution idea. If geneticists thought like that they'd be back to studying gradations in skin color or gradations in head size.
A good picture of how I am thinking about the musical evidence can be seen in the (provisional) phylogenetic tree I presented in Post 12 (http://music000001.blogspot.com/2007/05/12-phylogenetic-tree.html).
For me this is a much more sophisticated and realistic approach to the problem than trying to trace gradations of certain traits, such as polyphony or P/B, and look for continuities across large areas. I see large style families for sure. But I also see abrupt borders between them, not continuities.
Maju: "This partial turning off (and/or partly off) of some P/B "frequencies" and not others appears to begin already in Africa and may be due in part to demic expansion with its increase of connectivity (for good and bad: more sharing but also more tensions and less empty places to go).
This hypothesis would integrate well with most or all of your work, I understand, as well as with the archaeological and genetic data and mainstream theories on human expansion. I am liking it more and more precisely because it seems very holistic or integrative of all aspects of the problem."
Your thoughts interest me, but the above is so vague it's hard for me to tell whether or not this is compatible with my own approach. I do not see a gradual evolution from a high "frequency" of P/B or polyphony or whatever to a lesser degree over time, if that's what you mean. If by sharing you mean the influence of one group on another, yes that certainly happens. But it happens in different ways according to specific situations. In some cases a style disappears completely when a more powerful group takes over and replaces it with its own tradition. In some cases you get hybrids. It can get very complex which is why I try not to get bogged down in all these nuances. What I look for are large-scale distribution patterns involving certain distinctive markers.
And I think some of the problems you and German are having with my approach is that you aren't used to thinking in such terms -- so you keep returning to what I regard as a more traditional and also less fruitful approach. But maybe I'm being unfair. Let's just say it's a difference of viewpoint between us, we see the problems very differently, it seems, and so prefer different strategies in dealing with them.
(1)
As an archaeologist, if I told you I see a certain type of pottery in abundance in Africa, and variants of that same type of pottery in East Asia, but no trace of that same type of pottery anywhere in between, then what would you think?-
It's not pottery, Doc. Unlike an archaeologist, you can only see present distribution and not the past. In this sense musicology is as limited, in principle, as linguistics or even genetics.
A linguist can't claim that because now in Paris people speak French, it was that case 2000, 10,000 or 50,000 years ago. Geneticists can reach further because, unlike languages or music or in general cultural elements, genes cannot be learned or forgotten, but still they can't say for sure that if certain lineage is not found today in some area, it never ever existed there.
Archaeology instead looks at slices and sequences of the past. It has limitations too but it does look directly at them anyhow.
It is not a matter of mere materiality or immateriality but of present data and past data. Maybe hocketed pipes and slit drums were very popular in India some 40,000 years ago and were lost only 20,000 years ago (or whatever - this is not any hypothesis, just an example): you would not be able to know (unless an archaeologist happens to find them as actual material objects from the past - something practically impossible with wooden gear in fact).
There is also the distribution of tone languages, which follows the same pattern...
Not well enough to strongly support anything. A case by case comparison would be necessary and so far you have not dealt with that much needed detail.
The series of posts I'm now writing should clarify for you why I see this gap as so important...
I sincerely think you should focus on researching the fine detail of "the gap" and determining if it's such a radical and extreme gap or rather a gradation as I strongly suspect.
The Hadza sing polyphonically, so in that sense they can be understood, I suppose, as some sort of transition between P/B and monophony.
That is what I am more interested in now: the transition between the two extremes of "the gap". A transition, or rather transitions that seem strangely important and that you are not paying any attention to.
I think it possible to "read" various musical styles the way one would "read" mtDNA or Y results, in terms of certain markers, or haplotypes. As I see it, certain distinctive features of P/B can be understood as markers in this same sense and either they are present or they are absent, just as with genetic markers. Among the pygmies and bushmen one could say that the P/B markers are close to 100%, but that among other African groups they might be closer to 60% and among certain SE Asian or Melanesian groups, 30% or so. However, in India, it would be roughly 1/2%, which is a huge contrast, no? -
Now you are talking serious stuff!
1-0.6-0.3-0 is a clear case of gradation and that is what I would like to see dealt with in proper terms not as if it would be a mere black and white issue, as a single absolute "the gap".
If by a range of colors you mean some sort of gradual "evolutionary" transition of the usual sort then I have to disagree strongly.
I do suspect it may have such meaning. But in any case, I think we do agree that the gradation(s) exists. You just tend to ignore it and see all such gradations as a B&W extreme contrast, which they are obviously not.
(2)
But in traditional societies, where innovation is discouraged if not forbidden, the pattern is very different.
What I'm suggesting is that this would not be the case in the long run (i.e. along many many generations or centuries, not to say the many millennia we actually deal with). You may not see the change almost in a generational level but the accumulative effect could be brutal and the speed of change can also vary a lot between different periods, with some being more critical and others more stable.
Which is why I have such a hard time with your association of innovation with population size, because for me interest in innovation is itself an innovation that begins apparently in the Neolithic, when many of the old traditions are cast aside.
Innovation has existed always. Otherwise, we'd see the same kind of flat archaeology we see for Neanderthals: all Mousterian. Instead our species has created a wide array of cultures that have changed along time. That is a fact.
Of course, innovation accelerates with agriculture and then with metallurgy and horse riding and then with industrialization and electronics. But some innovation has always existed, of course.
I fear that with this matter we are reaching the essence of our divergence: you really believe in extreme conservatism no matter what, I just do not (not in the extremist way you do at least). I already mentioned that Pygmy hunter (filmed a few years ago) using a home-made crossbow, obviously a borrowing from the Portuguese colonization period: it clearly illustrates that even Pygmies are open to innovation.
It's true that the neolithic led to larger pop. size.
That is not too apparent in Atkinson's reconstruction nor in the distinct research of Loogväli-2009. Both seem to find pre-Neolithic expansions, rather than a purely Neolithic one.
... so maybe that's why it's so easy to associate population size with innovation.
I insist that my emphasis is not on "size" but on "connectivity". Density obviously has an effect on connectivity but so would the existence or not of geographical barriers, for instance.
Whatever the case, for forager peoples, different ecological conditions (sometimes variable along time, nearly always variable along space) provide a fundamental context on which there can be a larger or smaller population size - regardless of technological, cultural or social conditions (which can also increase or not productivity, and hence population, on their own merits).
There is a quite clear consensus on, for instance. the fact that European population expanded very much in the late Upper Paleolithic, coincident with the expansion (but not the beginnings) of artistic expression. However this demic expansion continued even after rock art was abandoned (and before Neolithic). Why this happened is not well understood but happened anyhow.
(and 3)
But for me musical style can be studied in much the same way as pop. geneticists study haplotypes and haplogroups and specific markers, such as deletions.
I don't think you can do that. You have not even reconstructed yet a possible phylogenetic tree which is the only thing that allows geneticists to have any perspective of the past. When geneticists deal with complex recombinable data (autosomal DNA for example) they can see groupings but not any kind of history - at least not easily.
Also, as I have pointed above, genes can't be learned or dropped as can cultural items... and their evolution is not defined by the human mind and social interactions. In other words: genes are not culture.
A good picture of how I am thinking about the musical evidence can be seen in the (provisional) phylogenetic tree I presented in Post 12.
Reminds me of pseudo-phylogenetic reconstructions I have seen based on craniometric data. I guess it's interesting but can only be tentative and is very distant from the more systematic approach I have been asking for as of late.
For me this is a much more sophisticated and realistic approach to the problem than trying to trace gradations of certain traits...
Not necessarily. If there are gradations (and there are), you can't ignore them and treat them as mere true/false switches. It's a methodological problem.
Again it resembles more craniometry (with its many variants and phylogenetic uncertainty) than haploid genetics, where such absolute yes/no (or rather CTAG) switches do exist at every single mutational step or SNP.
Your thoughts interest me, but the above is so vague it's hard for me to tell whether or not this is compatible with my own approach.
I think it's compatible with your data, rather than with your approach as such. My fear is of course that you may feel rejection to such alternative approach but I can't do otherwise at risk of being dishonest (with myself and with you).
I'll see if I can build a minimally decent "draft exploration" of this approach based on your own cantometric data (or at least a selection of it). Not sure if that would be possible though or how long it will take me.
If three most important parameters could be chosen and I have the full cantometric data for them in percentages, as you have posted in some cases, I could easily draw a color-coded map using the 3-color system that computers (and all light-based color systems) use.
If by sharing you mean the influence of one group on another, yes that certainly happens. But it happens in different ways according to specific situations.
Fine. I'm not saying there must be a single model of interaction, just that interaction can't be ignored.
t can get very complex which is why I try not to get bogged down in all these nuances.
I understand that but "the devil is in the details".
What I look for are large-scale distribution patterns involving certain distinctive markers.
I'd love to help you with that. As I just said: I'd need three specific markers with their estimated percentages in each relevant culture, in order to be able to color-code them appropriately.
Maju: "Reminds me of pseudo-phylogenetic reconstructions I have seen based on craniometric data. I guess it's interesting but can only be tentative and is very distant from the more systematic approach I have been asking for as of late."
It was designed to work roughly like the genetic maps, not the craniometric or any of the other traditional phylogenies and to me it's completely different from them. But if you can point us to an example of what you're talking about I'll be willing to take a look.
As far as the "more systematic approach" you are urging me to take, you should know that I am currently collaborating with geneticists on two different projects and will probably be starting a third soon. I make clear to anyone I collaborate with that I have no intention of forcing my methods on them and in fact they are taking the lead in pursuing this research according to their own methods, which I feel sure you would approve. I'm happy to work with them in this way and am eager to see what they will come up with. But at the same time it's important for me to pursue my own approach here, which as you can see is very different and probably a lot more risky. But it's important to me that I explore this path as fully as I can so that's what I'm doing and will continue to do even though I feel sure you and German will never be convinced. I have my own ideas about how to do scientific research of this kind so this is what I intend to do.
I welcome your input and your criticisms but don't expect me to do things your way, at least not on this blog.
Maju: "you really believe in extreme conservatism no matter what,"
I follow the evidence. And I see very little evidence that human culture changed very much during the Paleolithic, unless due to external circumstances, such as extreme environmental change, response to disaster, or domination by another group. I see no real evidence of internal change due to "innovation." This is clear when we look at the distribution patterns of certain traits. I've already demonstrated how this works when comparing the many Pygmy and Bushmen groups.
I've also discussed, though briefly, how certain changes can take place in relation to dire circumstances, as with the Ik. And also how certain societies can become more competitive and how, in such circumstances, we see an almost Darwinian effort to innovate as part of the competition that ensues. None of this is remotely related to abstract concepts such as "population size" or "interactivity."
"I already mentioned that Pygmy hunter (filmed a few years ago) using a home-made crossbow, obviously a borrowing from the Portuguese colonization period: it clearly illustrates that even Pygmies are open to innovation."
How is borrowing from a Portuguese model innovation? Certainly pygmies and bushmen are open to change, but only when such "change" enables them to remain the same. If they were as innovative as you think, then there would have been many more differences among all these different groups when they were first studied. Conditions now are extremely different and they are under pressure to change that they can no longer resist.
Maju: "It's not pottery, Doc. Unlike an archaeologist, you can only see present distribution and not the past. In this sense musicology is as limited, in principle, as linguistics or even genetics."
In principle it's the same, Maju. We are all working with materials available to us in the present and drawing inferences based on that, using the most sophisticated tools available for the task. While it's true that archaeologists have the advantage of very sophisticated dating techniques, they have the disadvantage of having to work with very sparse, fragile and incomplete relics. Musicologists, and linguists, have a wealth of data to work from, and frankly I think we musicologists have the best of it because we truly have a wealth of recordings and field reports to work with, far beyond the scope of what's available in any other field, as far as I can see. And our work can be replicated far more easily since so much of the data we work with is so readily available, even on the Internet. The only drawback in being a musicologist is that I seem to be the only one interested in doing this kind of research at the moment so there's no way to build a consensus, I'm out here all alone. :-(
No. It'd be like if archaeologists would try to reconstruct the past from watching modern societies, peoples and their artifacts. You just cannot infer, say, Magdalenian culture without the "time machine" that are fossils, the same that you can't discover the dinosaurs just by watching modern birds.
Or maybe you can but it is not the same in any case. It's almost impossible to question the dinosaur fossils while someone who would claim the existence of dinosaurs based on bird morphology only without any other evidence would be accused of being highly speculative or even pseudoscientific and with good reason.
"Musicologists, and linguists, have a wealth of data to work from, and frankly I think we musicologists have the best of it because we truly have a wealth of recordings and field reports to work with, far beyond the scope of what's available in any other field, as far as I can see."
"You just cannot infer, say, Magdalenian culture without the "time machine" that are fossils, the same that you can't discover the dinosaurs just by watching modern birds."
I think this is a bigger discussion deserving a separate blog post. Victor, do you agree? Then Luis and I can chime in. It's so important, I'd hate to lose track of it in a forest of comments.
German: "I think this is a bigger discussion deserving a separate blog post. Victor, do you agree?"
See post 8: http://music000001.blogspot.com/2007/05/8-on-archaeology-of-music.html
But even if they were perfectly valid, I'm sorry but I don't see the connection with Out of Africa, and I certainly don't see how such a theory could explain the cultural and the genetic patterns I've been trying to understand. What you are proposing seems extremely simplistic to me, and largely unrelated to the problem at hand. If you can clarify for me why you think it IS related, then maybe I'd reconsider.
Well, "Credit Score Estimator," it's difficult for me to respond unless I know more about the problems you are trying to understand, and also how much you have already read here.
I've written a good deal on this blog that should make my thinking clear, and since my thinking is not at all simple, as you have assumed, it's not possible for me to clarify it in a single comment. The best I can do here is to say that there are problems with the Out of Africa model that can only be addressed by positing a fundamental discontinuity, most likely caused by some catastrophic event, along the "southern route" across the coast of Asia. I was not the first to notice this, but I was the first to notice that the existence of such a gap is consistent with the musical evidence. For the rest, you'll need to go back several posts to catch up with my thinking, if it interests you.
It would help to know more about your own view of the Out of Africa model and what you see as "the problem at hand."
Thanks for your participation and I hope you'll continue to comment.
Post a Comment