six additional climate model simulations with two different climate models, . . . in two different versions, to investigate additional mechanisms that may have enhanced and extended the forcing and response from such a large supervolcanic eruption.
While "none of the runs initiates glaciation" and, in all cases, their simulations revealed that "the climate recovers over a few decades", nevertheless,
A second study, conducted by Stanley Ambrose and Martin Williams, was recently (Nov. 2009) reported in Science News:the “volcanic winter” following a supervolcano eruption of the size of Toba today would have devastating consequences for humanity and global ecosystems. These simulations support the theory that the Toba eruption indeed may have contributed to a genetic bottleneck. (my emphasis)
Ambrose and his colleagues pursued two lines of research: They analyzed pollen from a marine core in the Bay of Bengal that included a layer of ash from the Toba eruption, and they looked at carbon isotope ratios in fossil soil carbonates taken from directly above and below the Toba ash in three locations in central India.The investigators concluded that there was
"incontrovertible evidence" that the volcanic super-eruption of Toba on the island of Sumatra about 73,000 years ago deforested much of central India, some 3,000 miles from the epicenter . . . The bright ash reflected sunlight off the landscape, and volcanic sulfur aerosols impeded solar radiation for six years, initiating an "Instant Ice Age" that -- according to evidence in ice cores taken in Greenland -- lasted about 1,800 years.When we combine such reports of Toba-induced devastation with Petraglia's findings, strongly suggesting the presence of modern humans in South Asia at the time, the possibility of major population bottlenecks downwind from the volcano seems strong indeed. While stone artifacts were found both above and below the Toba ash, indicating that at least some humans survived (I'm wondering, though, whether these items may have leeched to the surface while the ash was molten), we can assume that any survivors would have been struggling very hard in an environment radically different from the one that first greeted them. And while the presence of the artifacts suggests that they survived the immediate effects of the disaster, this does not mean they were able to survive its long-term effects.
As both the archaeological and genetic evidence suggests, much of the Indian subcontinent, especially the east coast, directly in the path of the volcanic plume, could have been depopulated, only to be repopulated at a later time from the East, as Oppenheimer suggests, by people who would also have been affected by the disaster, but to a lesser extent. It is these Toba survivors who would most likely have experienced severe population loss, resulting in bottlenecks, both genetic and cultural. Populations even farther to the east and southeast, and also farther to the north (assuming there were any at that time) would also have suffered, but to a much lesser extent, and would thus show fewer signs of genetic, morphological and cultural change. This does indeed seem to be the case, though the situation is obscured by the considerable movement of various peoples into and out of this region for many thousands of years since.
It's possibly for this reason that "some of the best, if not the only archaeological evidence for dating the beachcomber's trek along the coast of the Indian Ocean, comes not from India, South Arabia, or Africa, but from the later parts of the trail -- the Malay Peninsula, New Guinea, and Australia" (The Real Eve, 159), those areas least affected by the volcanic fallout.
"While stone artifacts were found both above and below the Toba ash, indicating that at least some humans survived."
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out, we don't know if the tools above the ashes and the tools below the ashes were made by genetically the same population. We know that AMH were replaced by Neandertals in Levant. In South Asia, they could have been replaced by anatomically AND behaviorally modern humans, who either migrated from the East, as in my theory, or who represent another, later migration out of Africa. An Eastern migration effectively solves the problem of a gap in musical evidence, as this eastern population was probably monophonic (as evidenced by Australia and North America), hence continuity with South Asia.
German: "As I pointed out, we don't know if the tools above the ashes and the tools below the ashes were made by genetically the same population."
ReplyDeleteAccording to Petraglia, both sets are very similar, so if the ones below the ash are AMH the ones above probably are also. But we can't say for sure whether they were left by AMH or homo erectus types (or maybe Hobbits?).
"An Eastern migration effectively solves the problem of a gap in musical evidence, as this eastern population was probably monophonic (as evidenced by Australia and North America), hence continuity with South Asia."
I continue to marvel at your ability to come up with musical evidence despite your complete ignorance of world music. I see no reason to assume they sang monophonically, no, even if they did come from the East.
And the gap exists regardless of whether they were migrating east or west. Regardless of what happened in the past, there is a gap in the 20th century evidence.
"According to Petraglia, both sets are very similar, so if the ones below the ash are AMH the ones above probably are also. But we can't say for sure whether they were left by AMH or homo erectus types (or maybe Hobbits?)."
ReplyDeleteSure, all archaeologists attest to continuity in lithics between MP and UP, whether in Europe, East Asia or South India. That's why Multiregional evolution was first put forth.
"I continue to marvel at your ability to come up with musical evidence despite your complete ignorance of world music. I see no reason to assume they sang monophonically, no, even if they did come from the East."
I'd say an "incomplete knowledge" of world music. And I'm working on it. Thanks to you, Lomax and some earlier scholars. However, for a simple hypothesis like I advanced you don't need more than that: if Australia and North America are monophonic (and I'm not sure you know North American musical traditions as well as you know Sub-Saharan ones), and India is monophonic, too, and I believe East/Northeast Asia are also monophonic, with some pockets of polyphony, (am I wrong?), and even parts of East Africa are monophonic (according to you) and North Africa as well, then it stands to reason that there's not much of a gap between these areas, no?
You can put me back on track by simple outlining music-internal reasons, apart from genetic trees, for thinking of monophony (simple and complex, unison and solo) as devolved polyphony. Everywhere, at all times. Otherwise, your superior knowledge of world music remains largely esoteric.
Another thing: the reason why I'm dabbling with your data is because you seem to be making things too complicated (again, oddly enough, for a fan of Occam's Razor). This is to be expected from a narrow specialist of your magnitude and depth. You postulate the most complex musical tradition at the beginnings of human musical evolution (apparently, because old evolutionism doesn't satisfy your sophisticated mind), then, when you observe gaps in the distribution (not surprisingly, IMO, because what is likely a product of local evolution is accorded a transhistorical status that's hard to support geographically) of this tradition you resort to a natural disaster to explain it. I'm just looking for a more parsimonious explanation for the pattern I gleaned from your writings. So far, I have a feeling that simple monophony and simple polyphony gave rise to various more complex versions around the globe. (Mind you, I don't derive polyphony from monophony but keep the two traditions equally old for the time frame required to explain their global distribution. One may have diverged from the other prior to the expansion of modern humans out of Africa or out of America). It's my intuitive thinking, of course, powered by experience working with cultural and other data. However, instead of giving me an empty flak for this liberty, take some time to consider (and refute), if appropriate, alternative models of musical evolution as well as fucntional dependencies between musical styles and 1) languages and 2) kinship structures. Forget about genes and volcanoes, for a second.
ReplyDeleteGerman: "Sure, all archaeologists attest to continuity in lithics between MP and UP, whether in Europe, East Asia or South India. That's why Multiregional evolution was first put forth."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what Petraglia said. He said the lithics resembled modern African artifacts, MP but modern. And he explicitly said that in his opinion they could be associated with OOA, not the multiregional model.
" if Australia and North America are monophonic (and I'm not sure you know North American musical traditions as well as you know Sub-Saharan ones), and India is monophonic, too, and I believe East/Northeast Asia are also monophonic, with some pockets of polyphony, (am I wrong?), and even parts of East Africa are monophonic (according to you) and North Africa as well, then it stands to reason that there's not much of a gap between these areas, no?"
I've studied North American Indian music very thoroughly, German. And as I've explained, it is mostly monophonic. But the picture for South America is more complex and there are several groups that sing in a variant of P/B I've called canonic/echoic, as you know.
Asia is largely monophonic, yes, and I've also had a lot to say about that, as you know. But the gap I'm talking about has to do very specifically with what I've called the African Signature, as you also know. I've made it very clear what this gap is, where it is and why I think it's important so I see no point in going over all that again here.
"But the gap I'm talking about has to do very specifically with what I've called the African Signature, as you also know."
ReplyDeleteSure, but you can't accuse me of ignorance of musical data just because at face value music doesn't support the out of Africa model (monophony is pervasive outside of Africa, its distribution has no gaps but it's rare in Africa). I just base my ideas on the most palpable feature of the music geographies. They may not be as sophisticated as yours, but it doesn't require as many assumptions (hypothetical add-ons) as you make either.
You invoke the Toba explosion only to explain a gap in the distribution of P/B, which you postulate as ancestral not for music-internal reasons but because genetics makes it look like it is, and not some objective gaps in the distribution of musical styles. For instance, if South Asia didn't have music at all, you could say: it's objective and neutral to either polyphony or monophony, so it must be explained by the Toba eruption. But South Asians do have music and this music doesn't sound volcano-damaged to me. It's just different from P/B style.
"I've studied North American Indian music very thoroughly, German. And as I've explained, it is mostly monophonic."
Very good. I just don't recognize the scale of complexity suggested by Nettl (a foremost authority) for North America in your phylogenetic tree. It'd be good to be able to relate what other musicologists are writing in a synchronic frame to what you are writing in a diachronic frame. North American Indian music is monophonic, yes, which only adds another vast territory, with its own diversity of substyles, to the non-P/B geographies.
"That's not what Petraglia said. He said the lithics resembled modern African artifacts, MP but modern. And he explicitly said that in his opinion they could be associated with OOA, not the multiregional model."
ReplyDeleteThis is rather simplistic, Victor. See an extended discussion in the monograph The evolution and history of human populations in South Asia, by Michael D. Petraglia (2007) around pp. 219-221, where he discusses the similarities and differences between the MP-UP transition in India, Europe and Africa. Petraglia's also the one who believes in the generative role of population demographics on culture change.
German: "You invoke the Toba explosion only to explain a gap in the distribution of P/B,"
ReplyDeleteActually, it was only when I read Oppenheimer's book and especially what he had to say about Toba that I decided to return to ethnomusicology, because I felt that what I knew about world music might enable me to make a contribution. The musical gap can be explained by Toba, yes, but it is also imo an important clue that can help us understand something essential about human history. Sorry if this offends you, but I couldn't resist.
"which you postulate as ancestral not for music-internal reasons but because genetics makes it look like it is, and not some objective gaps in the distribution of musical styles."
Why should the history of music be isolated from human history as a whole? If a population bottleneck changed history in a major way, then it certainly would have changed many aspects of culture, including music. The internal structure of music is also important and that also plays a role in my work, but I think it important to consider the context as well as the music itself, why not?
"North American Indian music is monophonic, yes, which only adds another vast territory, with its own diversity of substyles, to the non-P/B geographies."
Exactly. So what?
"North American Indian music is monophonic, yes, which only adds another vast territory, with its own diversity of substyles, to the non-P/B geographies."
ReplyDeleteExactly. So what?"
Once again: Australia, North America, East Asia, South Asia, West Asia, Europe, North Africa, East Africa are monophonic. There's a lot of internal variation within the monophonic tradition, from simple to more complex. North America is a good example of it. I just don't see how you can derive it all from polyphony, especially by invoking a volcano as a fundamental cause for this transformation.
"Why should the history of music be isolated from human history as a whole?"
"The internal structure of music is also important and that also plays a role in my work, but I think it important to consider the context as well as the music itself, why not?"
Of course, not, but there's some more immediate context (linguistic, kinship/social, ritualistic, demographic) in which music exists in all societies. This context is structured historically, no less than genetics. You take genetics out of context, say demographic (lots of geneticists do, so that's not your fault), but then you also decontextualize music. I can suggest reading Musique de Maale: Éloges et bénédictions, bu Hugo Ferran, in which he shows variations in musical style (from yodelized monophony/"monodie" to counterpoint) across moieties. Back in the summer I wrote in a comment on your post:
"Another question: in parts of South Ethiopia, among Omotic speakers such as Dorze and Maale, social organization is based on dual divisions into moieties. In this part of Africa, as well as elswhere in the world, where moieties are found, the moieties are interlocked into a complicated system of exchange. For instance, one moiety buries the members of the other moiety after they die. A religious and musical expression of this reciprocity is the pattern by which the leader of one moiety starts a song or a prayer, while the leader of the other moiety finishes it."
We can discuss it more, but I'm just giving you an example of what kind of immediate social context surrounds musical styles. The exclusion of this context may create artificial "sets" or "types" (e.g., "P/B style"), which then are hard to track down geographically. However if the type is not "P/B" but say "moiety-based polyphony" or "moiety-based polyphony and monophony" or "non-moiety-based polyphony" (and I'm very hypothetical here), then the global distribution is going to be different.
East Africa may be the area in which polyphony and monophony coexist in the same subdivided "tradition." Genetically, East African populations are also highly subdivided, so you can slowly move into the genetics territory, once you cleared the way by addressing a more immediate social context of musical styles.
Once again, a structural-functional analysis is always part of a historical analysis, otherwise the units of historical analysis may end up being defined incorrectly.
German: "Once again, a structural-functional analysis is always part of a historical analysis, otherwise the units of historical analysis may end up being defined incorrectly."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it seems to me that your standards for the conduct of this sort of research are unnecessarily rigid and even dogmatic.
Secondly, I am not in a position to conduct the comprehensive study of world music, history, ethnology, kinship, etc. that you expect and in fact demand. There are all sorts of interesting possibilities that could and should be pursued, including the relation between musical style and moieties, but I am not in a position to do that. I noticed some interesting clues that look promising and I'm following those clues in the hope they lead to something meaningful.
I'm going to have to repeat what I said earlier, German, because your comments are once again becoming repetitive, insistent and even offensive, and have little direct bearing on particular issues raised in my posts.
I will no longer respond to posts regarding the general tenor of my research. I insist on the right to do this research my way and not yours. I WILL respond when you comment on specific ideas or evidence discussed in a particular post. If you want to challenge some piece of evidence or some specific idea, feel free to do so. Otherwise, don't be offended if I ignore you.
"Otherwise, don't be offended if I ignore you."
ReplyDeleteYou've been doing it already (not always), and I don't take offense. However, when you refer to my comments as "complete ignorance of world music," please understand that you very well may be wrong.
"First of all, it seems to me that your standards for the conduct of this sort of research are unnecessarily rigid and even dogmatic.
Secondly, I am not in a position to conduct the comprehensive study of world music, history, ethnology, kinship, etc. that you expect and in fact demand."
These requirements are pretty standard for anybody who goes through a Ph.D. track in anthropology. Imagine the topic of your dissertation is "The Use of comparative musical evidence for the study of human origins and dispersals," and imagine that I'm one of your readers. I understand your purposes are different from this, which is fine, and I apologize for continuing to slip into the habit of rolling these expectations over into a more relaxed and conversational mode of inquiry and writing, which I personally enjoy and benefit from. But there's nothing in my comments that can possibly be offensive. It's just the nature of the business you got yourself into.