1

ON THE EVOLUTION OF

MUSICAL INSTINCTS
ROMESH SENEWIRATNE (MD)

B AILA DANCING AND THE P EACOCK S T AIL

The only time I played the piano for my own enjoyment as a
child was when I tried to play bailas. The term baila,
meaning dance, was adopted from the Portuguese who
introduced this Latin rhythm to Ceylon when they
conquered the coastal parts of the island in the 17th
century. Since then, bailas have become the most popular
folk music in Sri Lanka, sung in the Singhalese language by
an assortment of young and ageing men, but rarely women.
The reason for baila singing being a dominantly male
activity is not entirely clear to me, but it may have
something to do with peacocks, and their outsized,
colourful tails. At least, thats the argument currently being
put forward by a well-known American cognitive
psychologist to explain evolution of the human music
instinct.

Geoffrey Miller, an associate professor of psychology at the

University of New Mexico, argues that our minds evolved as
courtship machines rather than just survival machines.
He believes that excessive focus on survivalist
explanations, rather than what Darwin called sexual
selection through mate choice, has resulted in failure to
explain the more ornamental and enjoyable aspects of
human culture. These, he lists, in The Mating Mind (2000)

as art, music, sport, drama, comedy and political ideals.

By focusing, instead, on the sexual choices our ancestors
made, the evolution of these human abilities can be better
explained.

The evolution of the peacocks tail is the classic example

used by Miller to illustrate the difference between
adaptations for survival and adaptations for courtship.
Cumbersome tails pose a clear disadvantage when it comes
to escaping from predators. The peacock has evolved its
beautiful tail because peahens find such tails attractive.

I read some years ago that peahens find most attractive the
males with the largest and most immaculate tails because
the peacock overcoming the disadvantage of its over-sized
tail advertises his fitness to the peahens. Miller has a more
aesthetically-oriented view. He explains that the peacock
tails biological function is to attract peahens and they
have evolved bright plumage with iridescent blue and
bronze eyespots because peahens preferred larger, more
colourful tails.

Miller suggests that the human minds most impressive

abilities are like the peacocks tail: they are courtship tools,
evolved to attract and entertain sexual partners. The
evidence he uses to support his claim that music is one such
ability includes the numerous sexual liaisons of certain
famous rock musicians. Miller has also done psychological
tests he interprets as showing that women prefer to have
sexual encounters with men who show creative
intelligence ahead of material wealth during their peak

fertility more so than at other times of their menstrual

cycle, in addition to a study revealing that lap dancers made
more money at the time of ovulation.

Miller makes a valid point, which he acknowledges was

raised by Darwin himself. However long an organism lives, if
it does not produce any offspring it will not contribute to
the genetic inheritance of the next generation. At the same
time he risks over-emphasising the role of attractiveness to
mates in the evolution of musicality. In supposing that
music evolved and continues to function as a courtship
display, mostly broadcast by young males to attract
females Miller ignores the fact that across cultures and
continents mothers are lulling their babies to sleep by
singing to them, people of all ages are singing together and
sharing music with their family and friends, while others are
singing, playing various instruments or listening to music all
by themselves, just for the pleasure of doing so. Meanwhile,
as they have done since ancient times, young men are
preparing for, or marching to, war to the steady beat of
drums.

In some ways the Singhalese version of the baila is a

classical courtship dance, similar to that of birds. Men
compete to impress the ladies by striking often comical
poses while dancing to the upbeat, syncopated rhythm. This
rhythm is often, at the parties where a baila session
extends into the early hours, played on the spoons. A
good spoon player is always in demand at such parties.
Much music and musical activity, however, does not appear
to have much to do with courtship, and more to do with
socialisation and social bonding. Even bailas, as played in Sri

Lanka, are more to do with having fun and sharing the

experience of dancing, singing and playing together than
procreation.

H OT D EBATE ABOUT E VOLUTION OF THE M USIC

I NSTINCT
Charles Darwin believed that the human music instinct
evolved because it provides an advantage in courtship and
hence reproductive success. This is undoubtedly the case in
bird song and dance: it is well-established that many male
birds dance to impress potential mates, and the complexity
and beauty of their dances is obvious even to human
observers. Birds sing for many reasons, and courtship is one
of them. These facts support Darwins idea that our music
instinct provides an evolutionary benefit by making us more
attractive to the opposite sex. However, a closer
examination of human musical behaviour and that of birds
suggests other factors that may have contributed to the
evolution of this instinct.

To understand the evolution of our music instinct, it helps

to define the terms we are using. This is not easy, when it
comes to music or instinct or evolution, for that matter.
Darwinian use of the term evolution is not the only
reasonable one when it comes to music. Music itself has
evolved, and continues to evolve, in a more Lamarckian
than Darwinian manner. The next generation inherits the
acquired characteristics of the previous generations, as
Lamarck had proposed in his competing explanation for why

the giraffe has a long neck. Though the French zoologist was
wrong in his analysis, believing, as he did, that the effort of
stretching its neck to get at the high leaves led to the
giraffes offspring having longer necks, when it comes to
music, language and so-called cultural capital, evolutionary
change occurs much faster than biological, as in genetic,
change.

Instinct theory in scientific academia has waxed and waned,

and is currently increasing in popularity again. Not long ago
many textbooks, especially those leaning towards
behaviourism, limited possible instincts to basic drives for
homeostasis, feeding and sex. This narrowed definition was
hardened by the assertion by the Nobel-prize-winning
zoologist Konrad Lorenz that instincts are characterised by
what he called fixed action patterns.
Lorenz, who achieved fame for his studies of imprinting
goslings, is the scientist who first demonstrated that birds
(he studied geese) will follow and later attempt to mate
with the first creature they lay their eyes on after they
hatch out of the egg. By his definition (which was repeated
in many a sociology and psychology text in the 1960s, 70s
and 80s) humans have no instincts as such (fixed action
patterns like coughing, sneezing and withdrawal from pain
are reflexes rather than instincts). The building of nests and
courtship dances of birds do qualify as instincts by Lorenzs
definition but the building of houses and human dance is
not instinctual, since such behaviour is not fixed. By this
narrow definition humans have no evidence of a music
instinct, nor can such things as curiosity and play (or
language) be regarded as instinctual.

In the hypotheses that will be proposed, what I mean by the

music instinct is the innate tendency and ability the
capacity we have - for appreciating, analysing and creating
music, for feeling intense emotions, and the urge to move,
pleasurably, in response to music. These instincts cannot be
localised precisely in the brain, but then neither can
memory or consciousness, and these mental attributes
most certainly exist. Rather, they are likely to be general
properties of neural organisation.

In Origin of Species (1859) Darwin devotes an entire chapter

to instinct, though he focuses on only two of the most
wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted. These
turn out to be hive-making by bees and the slave-making
instinct of certain species of ant.

In The Descent of Man (1871) the father of evolutionary

biology had more to say about the music instinct. He
hypothesised that musical notes and rhythm were first
acquired by the male or female progenitors of mankind for
the sake of charming the opposite sex. Thus, wrote Darwin,
musical tones became firmly associated with some of the
strongest passions an animal is capable of feeling, and are
consequently used instinctively.

D ARWIN S S TRONGEST P ASSIONS

Whether or not Darwin meant by musical tones (which
become firmly associated with some of the strongest
passions) the timbre of the music, melody or music more
generally, he is clear about the emotional impact of music.
As everyone knows, music can have profound effects on
emotions.
But what are the strongest passions, and in what way could
humans use musics ability to rouse the passions
instinctively? Many people in modern society might tend
to think of love and hate as the strongest passions and
certainly music can stimulate these strong emotions. Bliss is
another strong passion. Music can certainly cause bliss, and
any degree along the spectrum of pleasure intensity
including joy, elation and ecstasy.

The obvious way in which this emotion-manipulating tool

can be used is to arouse bliss and love for the music in the
mind of the person being courted. Sing a love song to the
object of ones affections, take them to a cool (or hot) gig, or
give them an album theyll love, in modern terms. In
Darwins day it might have been singing and playing the
piano, or maybe taking ones intended to the ballet or
opera.

Another strong passion that can be aroused by music

especially when accompanied by appropriately rousing
lyrics is pride, including patriotism and pride in the group
sharing the song. This less benevolent property of music has
also been used since time immemorial to unite people in a

single repertoire sung in unison under a single flag, and

ruled by a single king, emperor, tsar, politburo or pope.
Oliver Cromwell exhorted his roundhead army to sing
Christian hymns as they charged in a killing frenzy. The
soldiers of countless armies have marched to the steady
beat of drums the drummer boy was a vital part of the
infantry through the centuries of European colonial
expansion.

In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals

(1872) Darwin makes it clear that he regards the expression
of emotions (though not necessarily recognition of the
emotions that are felt) as instinctual. In this book he
discusses the physical expression (in terms of facial
expression and body language) of various emotions,
including fear, terror, anger, rage, joy, love, jealousy and
sympathy in humans of various races as well as higher and
lower animals. The cross-cultural similarity of emotional
expression, Darwin concluded, indicates that all the human
races originated from the same species of proto-human,
rather than from different species, as some biologists of his
day were maintaining. He also uses the term passion to
refer to any strong emotion, including rage.

Music can elicit many strong passions, from the most

pleasant to the most unpleasant. Playing music people hate
repeatedly, and loudly, can drive them mad, and certainly
cause rage. In fact, even playing a piece a person loves
continuously, especially at high volume, can cause terrible
mental anguish. This distress can be compounded by
playing the music through speakers that distort the sound,
and by restraining the person so they cannot escape the

music. Such use of music has also been studied

scientifically, and is one of the so-called soft torture
techniques reportedly used in the American military prison
camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Darwin may have been looking at music through rosecoloured glasses when he proposed that music evolved for
courtship. Maybe it evolved for war? Maybe it evolved for
many reasons, including courtship and war, the promotion
of social cohesion, soothing infants and the development of
complex mental and physical skills. Maybe our musical
instincts evolved because of health, and therefore survival,
benefits appreciating and creating music have conferred on
our ancestors (they evolved because music is good for our
health, in other words). Maybe human musicality evolved
because of an evolutionary advantage conferred on
individuals who were good mimics, capable of convincingly
mimicking the sounds of intended prey (including birds) and
a stable bipedal gait enabling them to run for long distances
(unlike other primate species).

A DANCING COCKATOO CONTRIBUTES TO THE

INSTINCT CONTROVERSY

Chimpanzees and other primates do not respond to rhythm

as we do. Though it may be possible to train a chimpanzee
or monkey to dance (or a horse or dog, for that matter),
this is very different to the spontaneous rhythmic
movement in response to the music that we see in human
babies and infants. Our human ability to dance and create
music is rivalled only by that of birds, and one bird in

10

particular, a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo by the name of

Snowball.
You can see Snowball on You Tube. He is quite a celebrity,
and has even been on the David Letterman show.

Snowball, the dancing cockatoo, now eleven years old, has

enjoyed serious scientific study by psychologists at Harvard
and MIT. Ironically, this extraordinary parrot is being used
to bolster the claim that music does not provide any
evolutionary benefit to humans (or parrots) at all. According
to an influential group of linguistically-oriented cognitive
psychologists in the USA, music is what the zoologist
Stephen Jay Gould called a spandrel a behaviour that
came along for the ride, as it were - what Steven Pinker at
MIT has described as auditory cheesecake. In the opinion
of Pinker there is no music instinct. We are able to create

11

and appreciate music because it is processed by neural

structures that evolved to enable language. Acquiring
language is instinctual, but enjoying music is not, according
to this eminent psychologist.

How can a dancing cockatoo, however famous, be used to

bolster Pinkers auditory cheesecake hypothesis? The
answer can be found in a recent paper based on the
scientific study of this particular, unusually gifted, bird.

The Elsevier journal Current Biology contains, in its May

2009 issue, a paper titled Spontaneous Motor Entrainment
to Music in Multiple Vocal Mimicking Species. The study,
conducted by Adena Schachner and colleagues at Harvard,
was quite delightful, and involved searching You Tube for
dancing animals, and analysing whether they move in time
to the rhythm of the music. They looked at thousands of
videos and found a handful of creatures that convincingly
danced in time to externally-generated beats (within
music). Fourteen of the fifteen were parrots, including the
amazing Snowball, who had been previously studied by the
MIT neuroscientist Aniruddh Patel. The fifteenth dancing
creature was not a parrot or a bird (many species of which
are famed for their dancing ability, though not in time to
external rhythms) but an elephant. No further information
is provided in the paper about this apparently dancing
elephant, although elephants are listed, along with various
members of the parrot family, magpies, hummingbirds,
sparrows, whales and bats, as vocal mimics.

12

The claim, it turns out, that elephants are capable of vocal

mimicry comes from a 2005 Nature article (consequently
publicised in a Scientific American article) about two
elephants in captivity, one in Kenya and one in Switzerland.
The Kenyan elephant (called Mlaika) was found to be
mimicking the sound of moving trucks, while the Swiss
pachyderm (Calimero, by name) was observed to make the
typical calls of Asian, rather than African elephants.
Calimero was a 23-year-old African elephant that had been
in a Swiss zoo for 18 years, and shared a compound with
two female Asian elephants. The authors claimed that this
discovery in elephants is the first example of vocal imitation
in a nonprimate terrestrial mammal. Such mimicry is,
though, a far cry from the sophisticated vocal mimicry
demonstrated by many birds, and by human beings.

None of the rhythmically responding animals were nonhuman primates. Though monkeys (like parrots) were
among the first human pets, only parrots are known to
dance in time to human-created beats (or any other pulsed
acoustic stimuli). For centuries, circus trainers and street
entertainers have been trying to convince audiences that
they possessed dancing animals dogs, monkeys, even
horses. These animals, though, are trained to perform
according to visual and other non-auditory cues. Their
movements are then synchronised with the music.

The authors of Spontaneous Motor Entrainment to Music

in Multiple Vocal Mimicking Species claim their evidence of
entrainment (to external rhythm) in non-human animals
supports the recent hypothesis that human entrainment
capacity evolved as a by-product of our capacity for vocal

13

mimicry. When you realise they are talking about human

capacity to dance, sing, drum and play musical instruments
in time as human entrainment capacity, the claim that
shared tendency to dance between humans and parrots is
not just connected, but that human musicality developed as
a by-product of vocal mimicry appears to be a rather long
shot. Even if it were true, it does not necessarily follow that
musicality confers no evolutionary benefit.

Schachner and her co-authors authors claim their study of

Snowball the dancing cockatoo (described, with appropriate
subject confidentiality as subject 2) and subject 1, a less
accomplished, but also thoroughly-studied, African grey
parrot, lays to rest the misconception that aligning
movement to an external auditory pulse is uniquely human.
In the article, this ability to align movement is thenceforth
described as entrainment; their quest being to find
animals that could be entrained to align movement to
auditory pulses dance in time to the beat, in other
words.

Subject 1, the African grey parrot, is also a famous bird, and

had been trained and studied for many years by one of the
co-authors, Irene Pepperberg. His name was Alex and study
of his extraordinary linguistic and cognitive abilities was
interrupted by his unexpected death during the course of
the experiment. This bird was able to name objects
according to colour, number and composition (naming
wool, wood, paper, etc) and demonstrated ability for more
than mimicry he clearly understood a limited vocabulary
of (English) words and was able to apply this knowledge
with intent to communicate specific wishes. When Alex died

14

after 30 years of study by Pepperberg, she demonstrated

his language-acquisition capacity was not unique by training
another African Grey parrot, Griffin, to understand and
speak a smaller number of words and phrases. Pepperberg
can be seen in the photo below with Griffin. The others are
photos of Alex the famous talking parrot.

Griffin and Alex can be seen in You Tube clips clearly

expressing their wishes in English with broad American
accents. Go back now, give me water, pick up corn were
three of the phrases Alex used in one of the many clips
featuring this linguistically-accomplished bird. Though it was
not mentioned in the paper, Alex, who was trained and

15

studied by Pepperberg at Brandels University for thirty

years, was such a famously gifted bird that his death was
reported on CNN.

Adena Schachners team from Harvard and MIT analysed

the movements of these two birds (Snowball and Alex)
under controlled conditions, presenting novel music to the
famous parrots. After videotaping the parrots dancing to
external auditory pulses (music with a strong beat), they
analysed their movements in extraordinary detail to
establish that the birds kept the beat more reliably than
would be expected at random (using sophisticated
statistical analyses). This demonstrates the difficulty in
proving the visually obvious in numbers and statistics. All
one has to do, to establish beyond doubt that Snowball the
dancing cockatoo is a groovy dancer who keeps better time
and has more ingenious dance moves in his repertoire than
a great many humans, is look at the several videos of this
avian celebrity on You Tube.

16

Having demonstrated, statistically, that these birds were

certainly bobbing their heads in time to the music, and that
Snowball also displayed foot-lifting movement in response
to the music, the authors argue that:
Claims of human uniqueness are defeated by even one
well-documented case study demonstrating the existence
of the capacity in a non-human animal; here we report
entrainment in two non-human subjects. These data rule
out the claim that entrainment is unique to humans and
provide initial support for the hypothesis that vocal mimicry
is necessary for entrainment.

This hypothesis, the summary introducing the article

explains, was proposed by Aniruddh Patel in 2006, in a
paper entitled Musical rhythm, linguistic rhythm and
human evolution (published in Music Perception in
September 2006) and a book published by Oxford
University Press in 2008, Music, Language and the Brain. In
the first of these references Patel introduces the subject as
follows:
There is now a vigorous debate over the evolutionary
status of music. Some scholars argue that humans have
been shaped by evolution to be musical, while others
maintain that musical abilities have not been a target of
natural selection but reflect an alternative use of more
adaptive cognitive skills.

Patel cites as one of the skeptics the head of cognitive

psychology at MIT, Steven Pinker, who has been arguing
that music is an enjoyable mental technology built from
existing cognitive skills since 1997. These thinkers, writes

17

Patel, echo the sentiment of William James, who said that

love of music is a mere incidental peculiarity of the nervous
system with no teleological significance . The debate (such
as it is, given that William James is said to have been tone
deaf) can be resolved, writes Patel, by adopting an
approach advocated in two 2005 articles in which efforts
are made to determine whether there are fundamental
aspects of music cognition which are innate and which
cannot be explained as byproducts or secondary uses of
more clearly adaptive cognitive abilities such as auditory
scene analysis or language. This approach had been used
to relegate pitch discrimination to a by-product of language
evolution, according to Patel, and he hoped to apply the
same approach to musical rhythm.

In the last chapter of his thought-provoking and informative

This is Your Brain on Music, McGill Universitys Daniel
Levitin convincingly argues against Pinkers auditory
cheesecake claim, and the contentious claim that musicality
does not confer any evolutionary benefit. Levitin mentions
several possible reasons for evolution of a music instinct
suggested by different theorists over the years, including
Darwins sexual-selection hypothesis. These include social
bonding and cohesion, and general promotion of cognitive
development. The evidence he presents in support of a
music instinct (rather than music being a spandrel or
auditory cheesecake) includes the fact that music has been
a ubiquitous part of human society, across cultures and
across the globe, for millennia. Also, there is considerable
evidence that though some neural structures are involved in
processing both music and language, others appear to be
devoted specifically to music. Further evidence supporting
different neural substrates for music and language is the

18

well-documented (but uncommon) observation that brain

damage (usually from strokes) can result in loss of ability to
speak (aphasia) but not to sing, and vice versa.

W HY CAN T CHIMPANZEES KEEP A GROOVE

WHILE PARROTS CAN ?
Recently, comparative studies using modern genetic
techniques have been employed to try and elucidate the
differences in gene expression in various primate brain
structures, in order to understand their evolution. These
studies are largely focused on what has long been regarded
as a unique human capacity for language acquisition and
use. Comparing human brains with the brains of
chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives, is also one
way the evolution of human musicality might be explored,
since chimpanzees can neither sing in tune nor dance in
time, even with years of training. Yet parrots can. What do
our brains have in common with those of parrots, that we
do not share with chimpanzees?

Human language is characterised by a unique capacity for

the abstract use of sounds. Our countless different
languages ascribe arbitrary meanings to particular sounds
(words) which are understood by others only if they have
had prior learning in that particular language. What means
one thing in one language may mean something quite
different in another, and most words do not sound anything
like what they mean semantically. The exceptions, which do
sound like their meaning, are so exceptional they have the
special category of onomatopoeias.

19

The earliest human languages, or proto-languages, may well

have been comprised largely, maybe only, of
onomatopoeias. A bear was referred to by its growl, and
bird was referred to by its call. Even today, many birds
common names are based on their calls (the Currawong is
an example that springs to mind, here in Australia). During
the hundreds of thousands of years it took to progress from
the manufacture and use of stone tools to the earliest
settled agriculture, the human instincts for language and for
music evolved side by side to take their place among the
most highly valued of individual and cultural achievements.

The brains of chimpanzees are much more similar to our

own than those of parrots, yet many species of parrot can
dance in time, while no non-human primates, including
chimpanzees, are known to have this capacity. Though
there has been recent evidence that at least one
chimpanzee (in Japan) prefers consonant (German classical
music) over the same tunes made dissonant by flattening all
the Gs and Cs by a semitone (using orchestration software)
no chimpanzee has been trained to dance in time to music,
let alone dance spontaneously to music it likes.

The abovementioned study of a Japanese chimpanzee

named Sakura (published in the journal Primates in 2009)
does suggest that chimpanzees do have a preference for
consonant over dissonant music, as do humans, even as
babies (excepting the 3 percent who are tone deaf or, to
use the medical terminology, suffering from amusia).

20

Recognizing consonant over dissonant intervals (shown to

be a mental capacity of birds but not of tamarin monkeys) is
essential for musicality, but in itself cannot be regarded as
evidence of a music instinct. It has been found that playing
Mozart to mice affects the levels of neurotransmitters in
their brains, but few would reasonably regard this as
evidence that rodents are blessed with a music instinct. The
harmonic principles that underlie the sounds we hear as
dissonant are based on hard physics facts, and interference
patterns that occur when two adjacent notes (semitones)
vibrate at a frequency (pitch) close to each other. Likewise
there are fundamental physical reasons, related to their
wavelength and frequency, that certain intervals of pitch
(notes) harmonize with each other. Recognition of
harmonic consonance and dissonance is necessary for
musicality, but do not necessarily imply a musical
sensibility.

There was a startling increase in size in the brains of our

distant ancestors between 2,500,000 years ago and 200,000
years ago. During this period of time the hominid brain
increased in size by almost 300 percent, in terms of weight,
but considerably more in terms of potential complexity.
Though all parts of the modern human brain are bigger than
their equivalent in chimpanzees (our brains are twice as big)
some brain structures are disproportionately so notably
parts of our frontal lobes (outlined in red in the illustration).

21

Though not as dramatic, the

human temporal lobes, especially
the superior temporal gyri (green
in the illustration) are also large
compared to those of the
chimpanzee.
The
superior
temporal lobes contain the
primary and secondary auditory
cortex, cortical areas known to
processes all sounds including
music, speech and sirens.

Though chimpanzees have brains that are structurally

similar to our own, they do not demonstrate what might be
reasonably called a music instinct. Of course, there are
significant differences as well, other than the fact that the
human brain is considerably larger. These differences
inform, and provide constraints for, hypotheses about the
neuropsychology and neurobiology of human music
perception and creation.

Of course, humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but

we did share common ancestors, estimated to have lived 6
to 8 million years ago. If chimpanzees do not possess music
instincts, it can be assumed (with qualifications) that our
common ancestors did not either.

22

For many decades now, scientists have been trying to teach

chimpanzees to talk (usually in American-English) and to
test their capacity for acquiring and using language. Though,
like parrots, chimpanzees are able to communicate using
arbitrary, learned signs and symbols, they are unable to use
their voices to communicate their wants, likes and dislikes,
or to answers to the questions and problems they have
been tested on by experimental psychologists and other
scientists over the years. This is thought to be because their
vocal apparatus is unable to create the range of sounds
needed for speech. Parrots, on the other hand, have a
particular knack, even among songbirds and accomplished
mimics, to reproduce sounds similar to human voices.
Though they tend towards a nasal tone, they can mimic
many different human timbres, for example the
characteristic timbral tones of different members of the
household they live in.

Capacity for mimicry, though it may be a necessary

precursor of language acquisition, cannot be regarded as
language unless it is used for communication, and even
then many would have reservations, arguing that language
is much more than mimicry, even if the mimicry is used for
communication.

One essential difference between simple mimicry and

proper verbal language resides in semantics and
understanding. The words and sentences mean something,
and the individual sounds, combined with each other in
different temporal sequences mean different things.
Another difference is that while mimicry is limited to
repetition of the learned words or phrases, human language

23

is characterized by ability to use words and phrases in

different combination, extending them to create sentences
of limitless variation. There is evidence, though, that
parrots, chimpanzees and probably many other animals are
able to understand words and simple phrases used by their
human trainers.

The frontal lobes of the human brain are especially large

compared to those of chimps, especially the premotor
cortex, the strip of grey matter immediately in front of
(rostral to) the motor strip. This suggests that humans have
a far greater capacity for planned actions, especially those
involving the fingers, hands, face (including mouth) and
tongue, since movement of these body parts command
relatively large amounts of motor cortex (to which the
premotor cortex is directly connected, structurally and
functionally).

24

Fig 1. Motor homunculus in human brain. The main figure is a diagrammatic

representation of a section of the precentral gyrus (motor cortex) sectioned parallel
to the central sulcus (separating the frontal and parietal lobes). Identification of
these areas and their corresponding motor function was achieved by the Canadian
neurologist Wilder Penfield who observed the effects of electrically stimulating
various parts of the human cortex in the 1940s. He used electrodes applied directly
to the brains of conscious patients and carefully noted which parts of the body
moved when he applied a weak current through them.

25

Figure 2. Brain of chimpanzee, showing functional localisation in the motor cortex. It

can be seen, from comparison with figure 1, that, as in humans, the hands and face
(including tongue) occupy a large area in comparison with the body (trunk)
reflecting greater muscular control of these areas. The unshaded area immediately
in front of the motor cortex is the premotor cortex. This is considerably larger in
humans than chimpanzees, relative to the total size of the brain.

The large size of the pre-motor areas in the human brain is

consistent with the view that intelligent, pre-planned,
voluntary movements are particularly (if not uniquely)
human attributes. The intelligent use of tools, including
those used for hunting, probably played a key role in human
evolution including evolution of the brain and the body
parts it controls. Dextrous opposable thumbs and fingers
capable of writing, drawing and playing musical instruments
may have evolved for efficient gathering as much as for
hunting and tool-making, perhaps more so. Again,
comparisons with chimpanzees, which also hunt and gather,
but do not show the acquisitive tendencies of humans, may
be informative. As far as gathering is concerned, humans

26

are experts among animals. We also seem to have an

instinct
for
gathering
things
we
regard
as
valuable/useful/beautiful and arranging them in ways that
delight us. Infants do this, and so do collectors and
musicians. Rather than tangible objects, musicians gather
and arrange sounds, but the principle is the same in several
respects. A mental capacity and tendency to arrange and
organise objects to create visible beauty is art, doing the
same thing with sound is music.

The human vocal apparatus is unrivalled among terrestrial

mammals, in terms of the range of pitches and tones we are
capable of producing. Without the wide range of sounds we
can produce, and the accuracy of pitch most humans can
control, singing would not be possible, and our capacity for
spoken language would be hugely impoverished. The fact
that our vocal apparatus is so much more sophisticated
than that of chimpanzees, our closest primate relatives, is
generally regarded as one of the primary reasons that
chimps and gorillas cannot speak, despite their ability to use
abstract symbols, including sign language, for
communication.

Despite understanding many words and phrases, no

chimpanzee has yet been taught to produce anything
resembling human speech, although the brain of a
chimpanzee is very similar to our own. This is remarkable
because, as has been recently confirmed by the American
scientific establishment, parrots, whose brains are very
different to ours, are capable of talking meaningfully and
dancing in time.

27

The intelligence required for tool development and use is

not, in itself, adequate to explain our musical or verbal
capacity. Many primates (including all the large apes) and
birds are known to use tools, and make rudimentary tools.
Chimpanzees break off twigs, and strip them of leaves, to
flush termites out of a nest, for example. Stones are used by
chimpanzees and many birds to break nuts and shells.
Though young apes (especially gorillas) are known to hit
things rhythmically and clap their hands at times, and male
gorillas to beat their chests in order to impress (again
rhythmically), these abilities and the neuromuscular
circuitry subserving them, have not given rise to the
tendency, so obvious in humans, to move rhythmically - to
dance - to the created rhythms.

B IPEDALISM AND EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN

SENSE OF RHYTHM

Balancing, walking and running on our hind-limbs are

among a handful of abilities that humans share with many
species of bird, but not with other apes. It is obviously of
great survival benefit to be able to run fast if one is a hunter
(or a hunters prey). Running tests endurance and ability to
run fast, and run great distances, displays physical
superiority both likely to be selected because of societal
approval as well as sexual attractiveness (judging by their
fan clubs and star status athletes continue to be seen as
sexually desirable along with musicians and actors). Among
the 4000 or so known mammals, Homo sapiens is the only
living species of mammal that can run rhythmically on two
legs for long periods of time, though most mammals can

28

run (or jump) rhythmically on four. Not only can humans

run, we run for the pure enjoyment of running, and do so
even as young children. In fact, as soon as we are able to
run, we have an urge to do so (which usually increases in
early childhood, with increased motor skills, and then
diminishes with age, and loss of them). Running is, in other
words, instinctual in humans.

Walking on our hind-limbs is obviously instinctual, and

provides a possible clue to why humans and parrots dance,
but chimpanzees do not. The rhythms of our gait
alternating our weight from left to right, and stepping
forward are controlled by circuits that can be over-ridden
voluntarily, by action of the motor cortex, but when we are
not so exerting our will, once we decide to start walking it
becomes automatic. We do not need to concentrate on
moving our feet correctly to walk, unless suffering from
specific neural deficits. The brain structures that evolved to
control walking and running are shared by other mammals,
birds and reptiles the cerebellum, the pons and brainstem
to which the cerebellum is attached, the red nuclei (which
lessen in prominence in higher vertebrates, with increasing
development of the motor cortex), and the basal ganglia.

The cerebellum, pons, brainstem, midbrain, basal ganglia,

thalamus and thoroughly-studied parts of the frontal lobe
of the brain (including the motor cortex) are the main
structures involved in dancing, as well as walking and
running. The role of these neural structures is wellestablished as far as walking and running are concerned,
because it can be proved by selectively damaging these
areas in chimpanzees, monkeys, cats, dogs and rats, which

29

share these phylogenetically ancient structures. The same

structures exist in the brains of birds, and are proportionally
larger in bird brains than those of mammals.

These structures, which evolved to control our gait and

coordinate our movements, probably played a key role in
subsequent evolution of the music instinct especially in
the evolution of dance and our capacity to create and
respond to rhythms. The brains of birds are endowed with
these structures, as are those of all mammals, but birds and
reptiles do not have a layered, folded cerebral cortex. In
fact, the cerebellum and equivalents of the primate basal
ganglia constitute a considerably larger portion of a birds
brain than that of monkeys or men (partly because the
volume of primate brains is dominated by the folded layers
of cerebral cortex, which birds lack).

Fig. 3

30
Figs 3 and 4: Two views of the right side of
the human brain. In the lower illustration, the
lateral part of the cortex has been removed
to show the location of the three major input
nuclei of the basal ganglia. These are the
putamen and caudate nucleus.

Figure 4.

The motor cortex, mentioned earlier, is only one

component of the primate brains motor system. The motor
strip is intimately connected with the other major
components, including the basal ganglia and cerebellum,
which play key roles in regulating the movement and
learning new motor skills.

The cerebellum is known to be centrally involved in both

correcting and learning movements, and is thought to
function as a time-keeper, though the details of how this

31

function is achieved are uncertain. There is an accumulating

body of evidence that the cerebellum is also involved in
emotional reactions, and especially pleasurable responses
to rhythm. Fascinating research by Daniel Levitin and
colleagues at McGill has shown that cerebellar activity (on
fMRI scans) increases when people listen to pleasurable
rhythmic music they have heard before, but not when they
listen to novel music, even if this music is experienced as
pleasurable.

There are also neural structures other than the cerebellum

that are implicated in ability to maintain a steady beat.
These include the basal ganglia and a specific part of the
right parietal lobe known as the precuneus. One recent
report of a patient with a lesion localized to the right
precuneus indicated an inability to clap in time to an
external beat or spontaneously generate a steady rhythm.
The neural substrate of musical rhythm remains a
potentially fruitful area for future research.

C OULD MUSICALITY HAVE EVOLVED BECAUSE IT

CONFERS HUNTING ADVA NTAGES ?
It is widely accepted that for tens of thousands of years,
before the curiously synchronous dawns of civilization in
the Middle-East, Asia and America, all humans were hunters
and gatherers. Around the world hunters, mainly men,
provided essential protein for their kith and kin by stalking
and hunting animals (often large ones), while gatherers,
mainly women and children, collected wild grains, fruit,
yams, roots, shellfish other edibles of untold variety. This

32

hunting lifestyle obviously shaped our evolution, and our

genetic inheritance.

The earliest of human art, and anthropological study of

modern hunter-gatherer societies, attest to the importance
accorded to a successful hunt, and the development of
hunting skills, especially among males in the society. One of
these essential skills, one that every experienced hunter is
aware of (if not accomplished in) is how to attract birds and
other potential prey by imitating their calls, especially their
mating calls. Is it possible that the unique human vocal
apparatus, notably the extra-ordinary control we have over
tongue, cheek, larynx and diaphragm, and the anatomical
differences in our voice box (lower position of the hyoid
bone and larynx compared to other apes) evolved because
of survival (and reproductive) advantages generated by our
capacity to imitate birds?

After this possibility occurred to me I looked for similar

hypotheses on the internet and found none, but I did find
many advertisements for gadgets that could be used to
imitate bird calls. These were clearly targeted at birdhunters. There were CDs complete with portable speakers,
mechanical contraptions that could reproduce the calls of
dozens of bird species, and the older traditional bird-call
whistles.

In the modern world there is also a small market for

sophisticated portable units that produce wild bird calls for
less lethal shooters photographers, who have also
increasingly used the trick of attracting birds to be shot

33

(with a telephoto lens). Ornithologists and amateur birdwatchers have long used this open secret to get closer to
birds or stalk them, using the hunting term that is often
adopted by photographers and bird-watchers.

H UNTING AND HUMAN EVOLUTION

Changes in dentition indicating a meat-eating diet is an
important evolutionary finding from comparison of
Australopithecine and Homo erectus teeth and jaws. The
heavy brow ridges of Australopithecus (shared with modern
day chimpanzees and gorillas) are thought to relate to the
strong muscles needed to crush hard vegetable fibre.
Though bipedal, the pelvis and lower limbs of
Australopithecine remains suggest that these 2 to 4-millionyear old hominids, our likely ancestors, were unable to run
for long periods. This is an ability that evolved alongside an
increase in meat in our common ancestors diet, some time
before Homo erectus first left Africa, 1.5 to 2 million years
ago (or thereabouts).

Fossil remains of the prehistoric hominids Australopithecus,

Homo habilis and Homo erectus show a steady increase in
cranial capacity, development of running ability (evidenced
by evolution of Achilles tendons, narrow pelvis and longer
legs), a diet including hunted meat, changed dentition and
the possibly related use of fire for cooking. Meanwhile
stone tool-making evolved from virtual absence among
Australopithecines to the simple stone flake tools of Homo
habilis and early Homo erectus, to the considerably more
sophisticated Acheulean culture (including stone-axes,

34

hammers and cleavers) of late Homo erectus. The tools of

early Homo sapiens show further refinement in comparison
to those of Homo erectus. These (relatively) suddenly
became more finely crafted about 40 to 50 thousand years
ago, from which period the earliest cave art and bone flutes
yet discovered have been dated.

During this period of around three million years, cranial

capacity increased, according to the fossil record, from an
average of 450 cc for Australopithecus, 650 cc for Homo
habilis (dated between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago), 7501225 cc for Homo erectus (1.8 mya to 300,000 years ago), to
1450 for modern Homo sapiens. Early erectus skulls tend
towards the smaller end of the range (750cc), while the
oldest crania identifiable as archaic Homo sapiens were
closer to 1200 cc than the modern average.

The size of the brain does appear to correlate with increase

in intelligence in hominid evolution, though it should be
mentioned that there is a considerable normal variation in
brain size, as there is in height (the two are closely
correlated, of course). Consequently the average volume of
mens brains is larger than that of womens, and those of
people 2 metres tall are larger than those a metre tall.
There is no evidence that bigger brains correspond to
higher intelligence in these situations (though considerable
time and effort were spent trying to prove such to be the
case in the nineteenth century).

The larger brain capacity of Homo erectus appears to

coincide with migration from the central forests to the open

35

savannah of East Africa, and change of habitat such that the

forests where our ancestors lived were replaced by
grasslands and open scrub, where running became a more
important survival skill. Fruits and vegetables are less
plentiful in drier areas, leading to a change in diet of our
Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens ancestors. Wild
grains and hunted meat are two of the more popularly
imagined additions to the diet of cave men, and there is
certainly evidence of both being important factors in human
physical and cultural evolution. However, large game was
probably less of an obsession to our ancestors 500,000
years ago than it was during the age of African big game
hunting in the 19th century. Our distant ancestors were
probably more interested in hunting smaller and less
dangerous quarry such as birds and their eggs, the very
nutritious larvae of beetles and other insects, and the rich
pickings of the shallow seas and beaches of the East African
coast.

Discoveries of many species of avian bones from Neolithic

cave sites, and the more recent analysis of human
coprolites (fossilized faeces) from later hunter-gatherer
cave sites indicate that birds have long been a source of
animal protein in the human diet (along with small animals
including fish, rodents, lizards and whatever small animals
have been available for hunting). Particular types of birds
appear to have been favoured large flightless ones, doves
and waterbirds, including ducks, coots and geese amongst
them.

The recent (2007) discovery by Jill Pruetz and co-workers of

wild chimpanzees in the Senegalese savannah making and

36

using spears (for spearing bush babies) suggests that the

move from the forest to the open savannah may have
provided an evolutionary pressure for the human
development of spears and similar (wooden) weapons at an
early date. Pruetz observed that these savannah chimps
fashioned spears and used them, whereas forest
chimpanzees have not been known to (though they do use
other simple tools). Interestingly, it was mainly the female
savannah chimps that made and used the spears. The
discovery of 400,000 year-old wooden spears in Germany in
the 1990s (presumably made by Homo erectus) further
supports the view that hunting has played an important role
in human evolution.

Our hunter gatherer ancestors, who had to attract birds

without the help of such modern technological wizardry as
recorded bird songs and fancy playback devices, would have
been initially limited to use of their mouths and hands to
create convincing bird sounds. Later, they probably used
simple tools like leaf-borders and, later still, reed and
bamboo flutes. It stands to reason that those who could
best reproduce the voices of birds would have been the
most successful hunters, enjoying the various benefits such
status could be expected to bring. These include both
reproductive and survival benefits, as well as social benefits
and survival advantages to the (fed) group as a whole.

Of course, birds are not the only potential protein that can
be attracted by mimicking their voices, and the particular
sounds they make at various times for various reasons.
Many mammals, such as deer, which have been hunted
through the ages, can also be attracted by mimicking their

37

vocalisations. Also, being able to reproduce the sound of a

growling lion, tiger, bear or rattlesnake provides obvious
evolutionary benefits. Frightening off unwanted animals or
humans by growling and making frightening sounds is seen
cross-culturally, and seems to come naturally to us (in fact
Darwin mentions the evolutionary benefit of such ability in
The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals).

Could it be that the vast range of sounds that human beings

can make, ranging from birds to bears, and dogs to
dugongs, evolved because of a combination of benefits in
attracting mates and attracting (and repelling) birds and
animals?

Of course, such a hypothesis does not explain the evolution

of human musicality. It may, however, contribute to an
explanation of the huge differences in the anatomy and
physiology of our vocal apparatus when compared to our
nearest primate relatives. When our ancestors moved out
of the forests into the open plains of Africa millions of years
ago, there would have been natural selection for those who
could run fast (rather than swing fast through trees), both
for escape and pursuit. There would also have been a
selection advantage for those who could imitate the sounds
of the birds and animals of the areas they were migrating
into, and the cognitive skills enabling use of this physical
capacity in intelligent ways attracting birds, for example
requires much more than the ability to mimic their calls.
One needs to recognize the difference between a mating
call, social call and an alarm call, and the intelligence to
decide when to use each to best effect.

38

Our brains may also have evolved to experience the sounds

of birds as exciting partly because of our hunting instincts.
In addition, survival advantages from prowess at hunting
may have promoted our distant ancestors ability to
recognize the same melodies and rhythms (initially of bird
calls) in different pitches. A bird singing the same tune in a
different key is likely to be the same type of bird. A keen ear
(auditory perception) for different timbre is also essential
for the recognition of different birds (and other hunting
quarry) and would have acted as a survival advantage. The
ability to recognize as relevant the same notes for longer
duration, variations in melody (as many birds demonstrate
in their song) would also have been favoured by natural
selection among our early hunter-gatherer ancestors
(recognizing bird calls is also useful for locating the eggs of
wild birds). The timing and tempo of bird calls are also
important for hunter-gatherers. A birds alarm call is
frequently similar to its other vocalizations but faster
more urgent sounding. Recognizing such calls as a warning
that a predator (or potential hunting quarry) may be nearby
is of obvious benefit to survival.

It is worth noting that though genes can only be transferred

to the next generation by individuals successful in
producing progeny sexual selection in other words any
attributes that promote survival to an age of sexual
maturity as well as those that favour survival of the group
(or species) will also evolve according to the theory of
natural selection as espoused by Darwin. In addition, those
attributes that favour survival to old age may be selected by
social species such as ourselves, where survival of
youngsters, and of the group as a whole, are fostered by the
wisdom, knowledge and practical assistance of elderly

39

individuals. Furthermore, an adaptation that confers even a

modest advantage (hunting birds, for example, in a general
context of hunting) will be naturally selected.

The small brain capacity of the 3 to 4 million-year-old

hominid Australopithecus, which was clearly bipedal, lends
support to the theory that a large human brain capacity
developed after we started walking upright, rather than the
nineteenth-century assumption that our big brains came
first. This evidence that upright posture preceded the
increase in brain size that distinguishes humans from other
primates (and other mammals) lends support to the
hypothesis, proposed after the discoveries of
Australopithecine fossils by the Leakey family in East Africa
in the 1960s, that our ancestors (and other extinct largebrained hominids) developed large brains, and
disproportionally large forebrains, because they had their
hands free. They were thus able to develop their use of
tools, resulting in increase in the size of areas involved in
tool-making and use.

The earliest hominid stone tools have been dated to over 2

million years ago. Stone tools have been found with fossils
of Homo habilis and Homo erectus (but not
Australopithecus), further suggesting a connection between
the increase in brain size and tool use (the sophistication of
tool use also corresponds with increase in cranial size over
hundreds of thousands of years of hominid evolution).
Stone tools, however, were not likely to be the first tools
used by our ancestors. Tools (including reed flutes) and
shelters made of leaves, twigs, and other perishable
materials do not survive long in the stratigraphic record.

40

Tool use may have been acquired before the vocal and
mental skills necessary for conversation, or language, as
we understand it today. In all likelihood this early tool use
preceded our ability to create music but probably not our
primitive sense of beauty in tone, melody and rhythm.
These may well have evolved when our ancestors were still
living in forests, surrounded by the sounds of tropical birds.
It would not be surprising if the songs of birds shaped our
instinctual aesthetic regarding which sounds we perceive as
pleasant and which we do not.

The first musical instruments on which melodies could be

played were probably flutes. Prehistoric bone flutes have
been dated to over 40,000 years ago, and it is very likely
that bamboo and reed flutes were invented before then.
The sound of such flutes has the timbre of bird voices, and
they may well have been used to attract birds. The melodies
that the early flautists played would doubtless have been
influenced by the songs that trilled around the planet long
before our ancestors came down from the trees, where
they had acquired their acute colour vision (which primates
share with birds, but not most other mammals). These
tunes, their melodies and rhythms, inspired by the most
beautiful songs of birds, would likely have won hearts in
prehistoric times, just as they do today. Bird songs would
thus have contributed directly to the evolution of our music
instinct, through straightforward sexual selection. Women
who could mimic the most beautiful songs of birds, and
embellish and vary, or just draw inspiration from them to
create their own unique songs would have enjoyed a similar
benefit, in terms of attractiveness to males.

41

Once such skills as playing flutes were acquired,

competition for mates may have driven the development of
the human musical instinct in a more Lamarckian than
Darwinian way. At the same time, even in strict Darwinian
terms, a strong sexual preference for musical individuals
could have resulted in intense selection pressure and
therefore rapid change in genetic endowment. Such rapid
genetic change may have occurred early in human
evolution, or it may have occurred later, perhaps explaining
racial differences in musicality.

The evolution of our capacity for recognizing and creating a

large range of vocal sounds, and to accurately control the
pitch of these sounds, which I am suggesting may have been
contributed to by advantages for skilful bird-mimickers
amongst our hunter forebears, is a precondition for singing.
It is likely that the beauty of bird songs (at least our
perception of them as beautiful) shaped the timbres,
melodies and scales humans reproduced in their early
musical attempts, as they continue to today. Watching and
hunting birds have doubtless influenced human dance since
prehistoric times. In this, and in many other ways, humans
have drawn cultural and artistic inspiration from birds much
more than from our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees,
bonobos and gorillas. Singing or dancing like a monkey, ape
or gorilla brings rather less beautiful images to mind than
singing or dancing like a bird (not to say that birds do not
perform comical dances).

Western classical music is full of references to bird songs,

and it is even possible that we love the scales we do
because of the intervals between the notes birds tend to

42

sing (there are other theories, of course). From dancing the

funky chicken and European ballet to the traditional
dances of Australian Aboriginals and Asian folk-dances the
movements, posture and gait of birds have provided
examples of elegance to humans (maybe not the Funky
Chicken). The natural grace of birds is equalled by few
mammals and fewer reptiles and amphibians. It is a fact
that humans try to dance like birds much more than birds
try to dance like us.

O N EVOLUTION OF THE HUM AN SENSE OF RHYTHM

The preference for regular rhythms with a strong beat by
the famous dancing cockatoo Snowball indicates that such
rhythms have cross species appeal. A review of modern
music from around the world suggests a cross-cultural
human preference for regular (but not monotonous)
rhythms. Like Snowball, we also appear to favour rhythms
with components that are, like pitches, characterized by
simple ratios. The most popular music around the world is
played in 4/4 or 2/4 time, with 3/4 (waltzes) and 6/8 (swing)
less so. Not too many successful popular songs are written
in 5/4 time, and when they are catchy (like Brubecks Take
Five, or Everythings Alright from Jesus Christ Superstar) it is
because the five beats are broken into regular, repeating
groups of 3 and 2. We do not often feel like tapping our foot
to a 5/8 or 7/8 rhythm. Within the meter, we also tend to
enjoy regular groupings of strong and weak beats. Though
syncopated rhythms can be very danceable, those with the

43

most appeal as far as the dance urge (or instinct) is

concerned are regularly syncopated (such as various Latin
rhythms).

There are some obvious reasons for a mental preference for

regularity in rhythm, and a preference for 2/4 and 4/4 time.
One is our bipedal gait, and another is the reassuring,
calming effect of predictability. Regularity, or predictability,
is of great importance in aesthetic response we enjoy
listening to music that satisfies our expectations and
anticipations. However, predictability, repetition and
regularity in music (and in other aspects of life) are
paradoxical. Violation of expectations is an important
pleasure stimulus when listening to music. People enjoy
music that contains melodic, harmonic, timbral and
rhythmic surprises but not too many of them. Too few
departures from what is anticipated and the music sounds
boring. Here exposure to music is all-important. The music
we have heard in the past shapes our expectations what
we predict we will hear as the musical piece unfolds.

Clapping hands and banging objects to create rhythmic

sounds are among an infants earliest actions. Though
chimpanzees can be trained to clap (for a reward) and
young gorillas do clap and hit their thighs repeatedly, as
well as beat their chests (as do male adults), they do not so
in time, as (most) human toddlers do. By the time they are
three most young children can clap, or hit a drum, in time;
many express this instinct even earlier. Usually, before they
can sing in tune (by 4 or 5), most children can dance in time

44

(2 or 3). Response to rhythm occurs even earlier in human

infants, and some studies have shown a preference for
rhythm over infant-directed speech in children under a year
old. These observations suggest that the human capacity to
respond to and create rhythms is instinctual, in a way that is
not the case with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans (or by any other primates).

The evolution of the human sense of rhythm remains a

scientific mystery however, though considerable progress
has been made recently in localizing parts of the brain used
when creating and responding to musical rhythms. These
studies point to neural structures known for many decades
to be involved with walking, running, balancing and gait,
such as the cerebellum, basal ganglia and cortical motor
areas.

Possible factors promoting a rhythmic sensibility in humans

include bipedalism, the comfort of regular rhythms
(resulting in relaxation, which is health-promoting), and
various social activities in which synchronising movements
between individuals is of value (such as threshing, digging
or pounding grains; marching; courting and lulling babies).
The underlying rhythms of the heartbeat and respiration, as
well as those of day and night (circadian) and the seasons
affect all mammals, including those that show no
musicality; these rhythms may have a bearing on the
evolution of the human sense of rhythm, however. For
example, there may be a relationship between aesthetic
pleasure from particular tempos and beats due to similarity

45

to the human (especially maternal) heartbeat and

respiratory rate.

Though the evolution of human musical rhythm remains

unexplained, some light may be shed on the matter by
imagining what rhythms might have been heard by our
hunter gatherer ancestors, which of these might have
excited their minds (and nervous systems) and which
rhythms might be expected to have calmed them. In terms
of the latter, rhythms reminiscent of the maternal heart
beat and the rhythm of calm breathing are likely
candidates. The rhythms of flowing water, from drops of
rain dripping from a leaf or a trickling brook to the hypnotic
decrescendos of the oceans waves, might be expected to
have been relaxing to our pre-musical ancestors. As for
exciting rhythms there are many possibilities, and the sound
of advancing and departing hoofs is among them. Such a
hypothesis may explain (in part) why crescendos in music
have been observed to cause the heart and breath to
quicken (suggesting sympathetic nervous system
activation). It is possible that the sounds of birds (their calls
and the flutter of their wings) are exciting to us because of
our hunter ancestry.

There are many other reasons, though, than vestiges of a

hunting instinct, for the evolution of musicality, and our
sensitivity to, and excellent memory for, rhythms. Looking
at musicality as one of many social instincts might help
explain the evolution of the (almost) uniquely human sense
of rhythm. Another obvious key to understanding human
rhythm and our instinct to move in time to the beat is
bipedalism. In walking and running comfortably on our

46

hindlegs we share an instinct with birds but not other

mammals, including other primates.

ON

THE EV OLUTION OF THE HUMAN SENSE OF

HARMONY

Certain aspects of music temporally and melodically, are

based on firm physics foundations. What is a regular
rhythm, or the pitch interval that constitutes an octave or
fifth are obvious examples. Also, in terms of melody and
harmony, the intervals that sound consonant are those
with small ratios between their frequencies, while those
that sound dissonant have large ratios (the notes are close
to each other in pitch). Thus the intervals of the tonic
(fundamental) with the perfect fourth or perfect fifth are
naturally consonant, and are seen in musical scales from
cultures around the world, as well as in bird songs.
It is interesting that recent observations of a young
chimpanzee in a Japanese zoo have indicated a preference
for consonant over dissonant (classical) music. This
chimpanzee, named Sakura, was trained to activate
consonant or dissonant music by pulling a piece of string,
and chose the consonant music significantly more
frequently. It has also been shown that some birds can also
recognize consonant versus dissonant pitches, and to
discern octaves, however a preference for consonant over
dissonant harmonies has not been demonstrated in birds.

47

Use of the word harmony outside the musical domain gives

an indication of how favourably we look at harmonious
environments and social situations. Harmony implies people
getting on well together in music it is the notes that get
on well together.
In ancient times, before the invention of polyphonic
instruments, the only way of achieving musical harmony
would have been by the synchronous creation of controlled
pitches by different individuals. Most likely these pitches
were vocal, rather than instrumental. In terms of vocal
harmony the fundamental yardstick, if it may be called that,
is the octave, followed by the perfect 4th and 5th. These are
naturally consonant intervals due to physical properties of
sound waves, rather than due to acculturation. However,
many harmonies in music are known to be culturally
acquired, as are the notes of familiar scales for different
cultures (though an octave remains an octave across
cultures, and are also noticeable in bird songs).

Harmony is a particularly strong stimulus for feelings of

pleasure in music. Perhaps this is because it evokes broader
associations of harmony between people, in addition to the
more obvious musical reasons. It is possible that what we
sense as harmonic intervals are more universal than many
suppose.

Support for the idea that certain harmonic intervals are

based on physics fundamentals comes, too, from a
mathematical sequence known as the Fibonacci Series. First
described by the Etruscan mathematician Leonardo
Fibonacci (1170-1250) the Fibonacci Series has been
consciously used by classical composers, but more often

48

appears in music because of an subconscious appeal of the

intervals of 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21....(the sum of the previous
two generations). Details of the relationship between the
Fibonacci series and music can easily found on the Internet.
The fact that this mathematical series also describes the
proportions of many natural growth phenomena supports,
somewhat, theories of universal natural aesthetic when it
comes to both hearing and vision.

It appears likely, then, that several forces have acted

together to fashion the human sense of harmony, and these
include both instinctual and learned factors.

D ID MUSICALITY EVOLVE BECAUSE IT IS GOOD F OR

OUR HEALTH ?
One obvious, and strangely neglected, explanation for the
evolution of musicality is that it is good for our health to
listen to and create music. The obvious capacity of music to
elevate the mood, to energize and to stimulate movements
(vocal, clapping, dancing etc) and encourage socialization
may have contributed to improved survival of individuals
and groups because they promote individual and group
health. This has obvious relevance to music therapy.

The human brain perceives time and rhythm with a

sensitivity unmatched in the animal world. Our sense of
time has been profoundly affected by language, by music,
and by history. It is only recently, though, that scientific

49

study has focused on our perception of time and rhythm.

These are important areas that impact on fundamental
aspects of human health, since the rhythms our brains and
bodies respond to can be of profound health benefit. Is it
possible that our unique sense of rhythm and the urge to
dance to particularly appealing ones, evolved because of
such health benefits?

This line of reasoning suggests an additional hypothesis to

the theory that musicality evolved to improve reproductive
success directly through courtship and thus likelihood of
copulation. Musicality may have evolved partly because
music has healing effects on the body and mind. Because it
hath charms to soothe the troubled breast, as William
Congreve put it.

It is known that many health problems are caused, or at

least aggravated, by mental and physical stress. Though the
medical profession has been slow to recognize it, both
physical and mental stress can be alleviated by music.
Mental relaxation and creation of a good mood is a wellrecognized benefit of music, but music can have physical
benefits as well. It is increasingly recognized that being
sedentary is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular disease
and for health of the muscles and joints. Dancing to music
provides physical activity as well as enjoyment. Both the
music listened to and the dancing it stimulates are good for
the health, providing sound reasons for their evolution.
Music may have contributed to the fact that humans live
longer than non-musical primates, such as chimpanzees,
gorillas and monkeys.

50

Musicality also enhances other mental skills, perhaps

including mathematics, certainly including more general
auditory acuity and perception. The physical skills of
improved balance and agility, precision of movements (in
dancing or playing musical instruments) may have had a
direct influence on improved survival as well as making the
musical individual more attractive to potential mates. Music
provides mental and physical energy and these are bound
to be of survival benefit as well as advertising fitness in
sexual selection.

C ONCLUSION
One thing that the new genetic discoveries have indicated is
that many mental functions (including memory, language
and music) are widely distributed through the brain, and
involve novel connections and uses of various brain
structures, rather than the development of new structures.
How the brain is wired, and how components of the
circuitry are activated and inhibited appear to be more
responsible for unique human abilities, than evolution in
our brains of new organs of language, morality, aesthetics
or music, as the phrenologists of the nineteenth century
maintained.
Studies of patients with acquired loss of musical ability
(amusia) have suggested that though some aspects of music
cognition are processed by areas that are involved in
language, others are distinctly musical.

51

It seems reasonable to conclude that creating and enjoying

both music and verbal language are instinctual, and
musicality is very much part of human nature. It is much
more than auditory cheesecake. Some of the evolutionary
factors that may have contributed to the development of
this instinct have been explored in this paper, which is an
adaptation of a chapter from my book, Music and the Brain
looking for therapeutic uses of music.

Romesh Senewiratne
76 Fegen Drive,
Moorooka,
Brisbane,
Australia 4105
Email: RomeshSenewiratne@gmail.com
Website: www.hub76.com.au

R EFERENCES :
Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species. Murray: UK
Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man. Appleton: UK
Darwin, C. (1872) The Expression of the Emotions in Man
and Animals. Appleton: UK
Levitin, D. (2006) This is Your Brain on Music. Penguin: USA.
Miller, G. (2000) The Mating Mind. Anchor: USA

52

Patel, A. (2008) Music, Language and the Brain. Oxford

University Press: UK
Pruetz, J. and Bertolani, P. (2007) Savanna Chimpanzees,
Pan troglodytes verus, Hunt with Tools. Current Biology. 17
(5): 412-417
Schachner, A., Brady, T., Pepperberg, I and Hauser, M.
(2009) Spontaneous Motor Entrainment to Music in
Multiple Vocal Mimicking Species. Current Biology. 19 (10):
831-836
Sugimoto, T., Koyayashi, H., Nobuyoshi, N., Kiriyama, Y.,
Takeshita, H., Nakamura, T. and Hashiya, K. (2010)
Preference for consonant music over dissonant music by an
infant chimpanzee. Primates. 51 (1): 7-12