tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post5494337886121470694..comments2023-06-28T05:54:47.372-04:00Comments on Music 000001: 8. On the Archaeology of MusicDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-1636475497523775542007-05-21T15:22:00.000-04:002007-05-21T15:22:00.000-04:00Sorry, Jeremy, I forgot to answer the second part ...Sorry, Jeremy, I forgot to answer the second part of your question, referring to whether or not there are specific musical markers, comparable to those used by archaeologists. The problem here is that Ethnomsicology has drifted quite far away from its original goal, the systematic comparative study of musical practices worldwide. So there is little or nothing of that sort that you're likely to encounter in your studies. I could write volumes on that topic, but for now all I'll say is that Alan Lomax, with my assitance, came up with a methodology designed to do just that: Cantometrics. In my opinion, it is a perfectly valid, highly systematic methodology for the heuristic (i.e., informal and provisional) comparative study of world music. What I am now doing is based both on Cantometrics findings and the knowledge I gained while doing Cantometric research -- plus a good deal of additional research since then. Cantometrics, while not exactly hard science, and despite some very real problems, is probably the best tool we have for the sort of comparative study that's going to be necessary if Ethnomusicology is to contribute to the current revolution prompted by the new genetic technologies.<BR/><BR/>You will of course hear many nasty things said about both Lomax and Cantometrics. I'll be addressing some of those issues in future posts, I imagine. For now all I'll say is that it's important to separate the Cantometric method from the more controversial aspects of the Cantometrics project generally, especially some of the more controversial claims made by Lomax that turned so many away from all aspects of his research.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-70557313050699851622007-05-21T15:03:00.000-04:002007-05-21T15:03:00.000-04:00Hello, Jeremy. I'm pleased to learn that you find ...Hello, Jeremy. I'm pleased to learn that you find my blog interesing and educational and hope you'll return. The question you've raised is very much to the point -- I'll answer as best I can, but admittedly I'm not an expert on archaeology.<BR/><BR/>The first thing to say is that the "definitive methods" you mention, and I assume you are referring to methods such as carbon dating, are relatively new. An enormous amount of archaeological research preceded those methods and all sorts of dates were arrived at purely by inference before the advent of "hard science" methodologies. Many of those dates have been corrected, by the way, thanks to the new mehtods.<BR/><BR/>The second thing to say is that carbon dating is limited, first because only organic materials can be carbon dated, and second because carbon dating can only take you back so far -- as I understand it, 40,000 years or so is the limit. A great many organic fossil remains have been dated to long before that time, some going back, apparently, millions of years. And all sorts of other important relics, for example pottery, stone implements, etc., cannot be carbon dated at all. Newer technologies have been introduced, I believe, so there is the hope that in future we can be more precise -- and more confident -- with regard to such research. But for now, I'd venture to say that the great majority of dating that goes on in fields such as paleontology and archaeology is based on traditional methods, i.e., the gathering and comparison of evidence and the drawing of inferences based on that.<BR/><BR/>The third thing to say is that carbon dating and other methods of "hard science" are themselves based on chains of inference -- and sometimes some of these inferences are proven wrong and certain techniques need to be re-calibrated. In other words, as I argued in my post, there is no such thing as a relic of the past that simply presents itself as such, all such evidence needs to be mediated by some process combining evidence with logical inference.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, there is a fourth thing to be said (and then I'm done): while archaeologists can now make use of all sorts of sophisticated scientific techniques, they must nevertheless make do with a pathetically thin and sparse body of evidence that more often than not, presents itself by chance. There are huge holes in that evidence, which will probably never be completely filled. As a result, archaeology is probably the most speculative, and contentious, science known to man. Musicologists, on the other hand, have access to an enormous treasure trove of data, in the form of a great many field studies, but also a vast array of films and even more recordings, a catalog that grows larger every day and may some day include large samplings from literally every corner of the world.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2808406058173173703.post-89868065334762648212007-05-21T09:52:00.000-04:002007-05-21T09:52:00.000-04:00Victor,First, let me thank you for your efforts he...Victor,<BR/><BR/>First, let me thank you for your efforts here - in relatively few posts, you have provided some very interesting and compelling information. As a beginning ethno student, it is incredibly helpful to read and discuss a wide variety of material - especially based on current issues (such as your blog here). The SEM listserve has been another great source of information, of course.<BR/><BR/>I've been keeping up with your thoughts and assertions here, and while I certainly do not claim to know much of anything, really, I'd be interested to read a bit more on the specific situation that you would equate music heard today (either via recording or live) with fossils and other such "relics." <BR/><BR/>It would seem to me that while there are definitive methods for determining a fossil's age, that there aren't really definitive methods for doing so in relation to a music selection. Are you speaking of specific markers/elements for each musical tradition, determined by a group of experts in that particular field? How would these markers determined?<BR/><BR/>Forgive me if these questions relate to something that is widely known to those already in the field! I just want to make sure I understand part of the foundation of your assertion. <BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your efforts! I would be very interested in reading the paper you make reference to here.<BR/><BR/>Peace to you,<BR/><BR/>JeremyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com