Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).

fm Page 79 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Contemporary Music Review, 2003, VOL. 22, No. 3, 7989

Music and Evolution: Consequences and Causes


Ian Cross

Music is definable in a broad sense as embodying, entraining and transposably intentionalising time
in sound and action. Human infants, in infantcaregiver interaction, and in childhood patterns of
thought and behaviour, appear universally to engage in activities that share those attributes, and
musics can be construed as cultural particularisations of those infant/childhood interactive and individual behaviours. Music as defined in this way appears to be uniquely human and ancient, most likely
arising with Homo sapiens sapiens, ourselves. It is notable that our primate relatives do not appear to
engage in activities with all the attributes of music as defined here. However, several primate
behaviours and attributes might constitute precursors of musicality. In particular, it is suggested here
that music may have arisen in the course of evolution in part as a result of processes of progressive
altricialisation (a lengthening of the pre-reproductive juvenile period) in the primate and hominid
lineages; a scenario for exploring the dynamics of altriciality in computational terms is also suggested.
KEYWORDS:
behaviour

origins of music, altricialisation, primate and hominid behaviour, proto-musical

I. The Roots of Musicality


Music is both a cultural and a material phenomenon. Its cultural actuality is
unquestionable; musics are heterogeneous, shifting (Magrini 2000) and embedded
in the cultural contexts in which they occur (Bohlman 1999), deriving meaning
from and, in turn, conferring meaning on those cultural and social contexts. But
music also has materiality in its sounds and actions, and that materiality is framed
and shaped by our biological being, affording at least the possibility that musicality is humanly universal. While the heterogeneity of musics across cultures may
seem to speak against this, it does appear that no human society of which we are
aware lacks music, and that, within many of those societies, musicality is reckoned
to be as fundamental an attribute as speech for every one of their members
(Blacking 1995). Of course, what is intended by musicality may vary vastly from
culture to culture, but it can be argued that common attributes characterise what
might constitute music in different cultures.
Cross-culturally, at a first approximation, musical behaviours involve not just
patterned sound, but also overt action; musicality is a property of communities
rather than of individuals; and music is mutable in its specific significances or
meanings (Cross and Morley 2002; Cross 2003a, b). From these considerations, one
can derive an operational definition of musics functions and hence a fundamental
delimitation of what can legitimately be construed as musical across cultures and
times: music embodies, entrains and transposably intentionalises time in sound and
action.
Contemporary Music Review
ISSN 0749-4467 print/ISSN 1477-2256 online 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0749446032000150906

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 80 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

80

Ian Cross

This is offered as a step towards a broad definition of music, and is intended


to characterise both the minimal conditions for classifying behaviours as musical
and the factors that are likely to have a bearing on any narrow definition, or
definitions, of music (see the broad and narrow definitions of the language faculty
proposed by Hauser et al. 2002). Note that music is here not (easily) differentiable
from dance; it might be that music and dance are simply two sides of the same coin,
a view supportable by reference to some cultural practices outside those of the west
that do not differentiate between music and dance but subsume them within the
same category (Gourlay 1984). Indeed, the necessity of a link between music and
overt action is obscured in the (fairly recent) social practices of western art-music,
which involve drawing clear distinctions between active performer and passive
audience, and by very recent technological developments that enable music to be
caused by purchasing a phonographic roll or downloading an MP3 file.
Even if the above broad definition of music is accepted, one is confronted by the
question of identifying the mechanisms whereby human beings come to be able,
and to desire, to engage in activities of these types. One possible route is proposed
by a number of authors, including Stern (1991) and particularly Trevarthen (1999),
who have suggested, and in the latter case demonstrated, that human infants
interact with their caregivers in ways that appear to be proto-musical. These protomusical behaviours involve production of and response to patterns of sound and
action, entail temporally controlled interactions involving synchrony and turntaking, and are employed both in the modulation and regulation of affective state
(Dissanayake 2000) and in the achievement and control of joint attention (for
Trevarthen, primary intersubjectivity). It can be suggested that this multifunctionality of proto-musical behaviours derives, in part, from the fact that they
are not tied to specific situations; one and the same behaviour (whether of infant,
or of parentinfant dyad) might be employed in quite different contexts and might
be interpreted differently by the participants according to context. In effect, these
proto-musical behaviours exhibit a kind of floating intentionality (Cross 1999) or
transposability; their about-ness is at most loosely constrained, in that one and
the same behaviour might be about different things on different occasions.
As Papousek (1996b: 92) notes, the preverbal origins of musical skills cannot
easily be differentiated from the prelinguistic stages of speech acquisition and from
the basic alphabet of emotional communication. Proto-musical/proto-linguistic
behaviours are not only universally evident in (human) infantcaregiver interactions, but also tend to exhibit the same range of characteristics such as exaggerated pitch contours on the caregivers part (motherese), and melodic modulation
and primitive articulation on the infants part, all in the context of an interactive
and kinaesthetic rhythmicity. On the part of the infant, these activities develop into
exploratory vocal play (between 4 and 6 months) which gives rise to repetitive
babbling (from 7 to 11 months) from which emerges both variegated babbling and
early words (between 9 and 13 months).
Linguistic behaviour can be interpreted as differentiating out from infant protomusical/proto-linguistic capacities. As the infant develops, parentinfant interaction will build on the use of vocalisations and gestures to communicate affect in
the exchange of requests (Messinger and Fogel 1998); these activities then support
the development of referential gestures and vocalisations, orienting the attention
of both participants to objects, events and persons outside the parentinfant dyad
(Tomasello and Camaioni 1997). As the child develops, factors such as relevance

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 81 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Music and Evolution

81

(Sperber and Wilson 1986) will increasingly constrain the extent to which vocal
and gestural behaviours can substitute one for another in the linguistic contexts
that they encounter. In addition, entrainment in linguistic interaction will increasingly favour the progressive use of reciprocity and aperiodic asynchrony in utterance and bodily signing because the typical linguistic requirements of information
exchange will diminish the acceptability of periodic and simultaneous utterance.
Hence vocal, tactile and gestural interaction between caregiver and infant seems
to underlie the emergence of linguistic competence (Karmiloff and KarmiloffSmith 2001).
By contrast, proto-musical and musical behaviours retain at least a degree of
ambiguity or transposability in their about-nesses. This ambiguity is evident in
their capacity to reflect or at least, to co-occur with and to mirror the temporal
dynamics of joint dyadic actions, physical events, experienced affective states
and changes of affective state and socially relevant exchanges. In other words the
elements of proto-musical behaviours (sounds, sound patterns, gestures and
movements) might be linked for the infant to any or all of a wide range of types
of event in the infants experience of the world. Proto-musical and musical behaviours also continue to permit, indeed, to sustain, both periodicity and synchrony
as major components of interactions.
It seems likely that proto-musical elements in infantcaregiver interaction may
act as scaffolding for other, referential elements of interaction, given that the protomusical elements are difficult to dissociate from the proto-linguistic, protoreferential elements, of infantcaregiver interactions. At a first approximation,
proto-musical interactions in the infantcaregiver dyad are not consistently otherdirected. If the sounds and actions that comprise proto-musical behaviours can be
said to have any referentiality, that referentiality is likely to be in respect of
emotional body state and of transitions from one emotional body state to another.
Emotional body states are not necessarily associated with single stable referents
(though some might be, hence the efficacy of motherese in eliciting positive
emotional responses in infants). A variety of interactive contexts could elicit the
same emotional body state, prospectively endowing one and the same protomusical event with a degree of transposability of reference.
It could be that in motivating and sustaining emotional body state as well as in
structuring transitions between emotional body states (and hence perhaps transitions between attentional modes of processing (Damasio 1995)), proto-musical
interactions act to scaffold the achievement of joint attention and specificity of
reference. The generality of the relationships between emotional body state, and
transitions between such states, and multiple different specific interactional
contexts (which themselves may or may not incorporate acts oriented towards the
elicitation of joint attention) allows proto-musical interactions to have a degree of
transposability from context to context and from referential framework to referential framework.
The existence of these proto-musical capacities in human infants can be interpreted as being rooted in our biological heritage. In a similar way, Spelke (1999)
suggests that early capacities to deal with things physical and things social constitute domain-specific competences that are in part innate. According to Spelke,
whereas infants represent inanimate object motions as initiated on contact, they
represent human actions as directed to goals. . . . research already suggests that
distinct systems of knowledge underlie infants reasoning about persons and

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 82 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

82

Ian Cross

inanimate objects (Spelke 1999: 403). Of course, as with proto-linguistic capacities,


proto-musical capacities require appropriate environmental (here, primarily
social) circumstances for their expression (Gratier 1999). In the context of the
caregiverinfant dyad, these proto-musical behaviours can serve as the substrate
for the achievement of joint attention underpinning, for the infant, the development of a theory of mind (Baron-Cohen 1995), while, in the context of the infants
later individual and social development, they are co-opted into exploratory and
integrative play (Papousek 1996b). Elsewhere I have suggested that these latter
functions of proto-musical behaviours serve to bind information across the
physical and social domains and to give rise to a flexible, cross-domain intelligence, as well as serving to provide a risk-free medium for the exploration and
rehearsal of social interactions (Cross 1999, 2001).
These proto-musical capacities do not themselves constitute musicality, rather
they constitute predispositions to be musical, which may be expressed or actuated
differently according to the dynamics of the culture within which the child
develops (Papousek 1996b). The specific culture in which the child grows will
particularise and give shape to those proto-musical capacities, although, while the
mature music of any specific culture will be predicated on the possession by its
members of proto-musical capacities, it is not reducible to those capacities. In
effect, the mature musics of a culture are, in part, constituted through a persistence
into the adult world of childhood patterns of thought and behaviour, although the
potential for multiplicity of meaning embodied in proto-musical activity is likely
to underwrite, though not to direct or determine, a cultures musical ontologies
(Cross 2003a).

II. Music in Evolution


Music as defined above appears to be uniquely human. Although the behaviours
that constitute it are likely to have had precursors in those of our ancestors (Cross
and Morley 2002), it is only with the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens, ourselves,
at around 200,000 years ago (White et al. 2003), that it emerges in the archaeological record. Current theory locates the divergence between ourselves and our
nearest primate relatives, chimpanzees, at some seven to ten million years ago
(mya). The earliest bipedal members of the hominid lineage were the australopithecines (dating from some 25 mya), far more ape-like than human. With Homo
habilis (from about 2.3 mya), we have the first, though very sketchy, stone tools,
and a leap in brain size from the australopithecine 350500ml to Homo habilis at
600750ml. Their successors were Homo erectus (or ergaster), dating from about
1.8 mya, and capable of making sophisticated tools such as hand-axes, though
extremely conservative in their ways of doing so; hand-axes first appear in the
record around 1.4 mya and persist in the record for over a million years in much
the same form. At around 0.8 mya, emerges Homo heidelbergensis, from whom are
descended Homo neanderthalensis (from circa 0.35 mya) and Homo sapiens sapiens,
ourselves, from about 0.2 mya (although there is some debate on the specific
details of the transition from erectus/ergaster to us and the Neanderthals; Stringer
2003).
Within our own (fairly short) history, music is certainly of ancient provenance.
Indeed, until recently, the earliest artefact in the archaeological record indicating
the possession of a symbolising capacity was a bone pipe, unambiguously

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 83 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Music and Evolution

83

musical in design, found at Geissenklsterle in southern Germany, dating to


approximately 36,00040,000 years ago (Hahn and Mnzel 1995) and found in a
context associated with modern humans. However, Henshilwood and colleagues
have found abstract, geometrically regular, engravings on pieces of red ochre at
Blombos Cave in South Africa, dated to 77,000 years ago, in a context again
associated with modern humans, which suggests that symbolic behaviour manifests itself very early in the modern human record perhaps at its start (Henshilwood et al. 2002). On the basis of current evidence, it seems that symbolic and
symbolising behaviours such as music appear only with Homo sapiens sapiens.
That music crops up early in the modern human repertoire might be a fact of
little significance. After all, it has been suggested by Pinker (1997) that music is an
evolutionary by-product with no significance for human survival. However, that
suggestion is based on a view of music that is indefensibly ethnocentric and
presentist, misidentifying music as purely aural and hedonic (auditory cheesecake) in
ways that are incommensurate with its diverse manifestations and its consequential functions within most world cultures. Moreover, Pinker neglects to consider
the efficacy of proto-musical behaviours in scaffolding the emergence of cognitive
and social flexibility. Given that proto-musical behaviour appears to be humanly
universal, that it appears to be functional in the achievement of joint attention and
in the acquisition of both social and individual cognitive flexibility, and that it
appears to be uniquely human, the notion that music constitutes an evolutionary
adaptation that appears in the late hominid lineage seems to be a good fit with the
available evidence.
Modern humans can be differentiated in the archaeological record from our
predecessors and our sibling species (such as Neanderthals) by an immense leap
in cognitive flexibility and by a capacity to enter into and sustain a wide range of
social relationships and interactions. It seems likely that those proto-musical
capacities and their cultural particularisations as musics were crucial factors in
precipitating and sustaining the social and cognitive versatility that marks
modern humans (Cross 1999). In effect, musicality can be interpreted as complementing language in human evolution, filling in the gaps in language function
through its combination of embodiment, entrainment, and transposability of
intentionality. Music and proto-musical behaviours constitute low-risk media for
the gestation of social competences (Cross 2001), as well as individual means of
transposing meaning across physical, linguistic and social domains and hence
scaffolding the emergence of social and of individual domain-free cognitive
competences.
However, while musicality and proto-musicality may have a biological basis, it
is notable that our nearest relatives, the primates, do not appear to engage in
activities that can be interpreted as musical. Indeed, no other species seems to
engage in activities with the same suites of attributes. There are many species
(particularly avian) that utter complexly patterned sound in time, in social
contexts, but that patterned sound is generally tied to specific and nontransposable functions. Moreover, it is unlikely that birdsong and human music
share a genetic heritage, as all other mammalian species (very few of which use
complexly patterned sound in social communication) lie between birds and humans
from an evolutionary perspective, and a genetic base for commonalities in
musical behavioural traits between birds and humans is unsustainable. Birdsong
and human music are at best analogous behaviours and are not homologous.

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 84 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

84

Ian Cross

Nevertheless, the exploitation of complexly patterned sound may relate to some


phylogenetically general attribute of neural systems that is capable of being
expressed only when those neural systems have at their disposal a complex and
flexible apparatus for the making of sound (Marler 2000). And, of course, both
birds and humans have just such a flexible apparatus at their disposal (though
each of a very different kind and capacity). At that level, and at that level only, one
might consider the production and use of complex sound pattern to be a result of
this phylogenetically general attribute of neural systems. But, of course, that
general attribute would be being exercised in birds and humans within very
different biological contexts and within very different neural architectures; avian
capabilities, avian interactions, avian modes of life and avian cognitive flexibilities
are very different from those of humans.
While primate behaviours certainly exhibit features that can be interpreted as
evolutionary precursors of human capacities (Tomasello 1999; Falk, forthcoming),
there are distinct and profound discontinuities between primate and human
behaviour and capacities that would suggest that the functions sketched out for
proto-musical behaviours do not have correlates in the broader primate world.
Primates appear to lack a capacity to entrain, to synchronise to periodicities in their
behaviours (Merker 2002); they appear to lack a capacity to develop syntax (Ristau
1996); and they appear to lack a capacity to engage in joint attention mediated by
gaze (Povinelli and Eddy 1996; Hauser and Carey 1998). In addition (according to
C. Trevarthen, personal communication), chimpanzee mothers do not seem to
know how to play in the ways that chimpanzee infants desire to play; in other
words, it appears that there is not a persistence of childhood patterns of thought
and behaviour (as exemplified in play and in other exploratory behaviours) into
adulthood for primates other than ourselves (Papousek 1996a).
Whilst it is feasible to suggest that musicality is an evolutionary adaptation that
emerges with modern humans, it is also necessary to identify mechanisms that
might have enabled the consolidation and integration of proto-musicality and of
musics in to the modern human behavioural repertoire. It is highly unlikely that
music simply emerged, fully formed, with modern humans. There are few (if any)
physical characteristics that appear to relate to the possession of a faculty for music
that mark out modern humans from their predecessor species. It is much more
probable that modern human musicality (understood in the broad sense) emerged
from capacities possessed by our predecessors. These are likely to have been both
physiological and behavioural, and individual and social, and as much concerned
with speech (Buckley and Steele 2002) as with music.
The earliest musical sounds were most probably vocal, and the physiological
structures that underlie modern human vocal capabilities were certainly in place
in early Homo somewhere between 1.5 and 0.5 mya (Morley 2002). Among these
structures are a descended larynx (relative to our predecessors) and an enlarged
hypoglossal canal for fine control over tongue articulation. Aspects of brain organisation, which are implicated in speech and in music, such as a high degree of
lateralisation, appear to have been in the hominid fossil record over roughly the
same timescale. Somewhat more ancient precursors of both music and speech may
inhere in the multi-media, specialised caregiverinfant interactions evidenced
in large primates such as chimps (Falk, forthcoming). All these areas have been
suggested as underlying the emergence of the language faculty, and it can be
suggested that they also underlie the emergence of the music faculty.

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 85 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Music and Evolution

85

Indeed, language and music can be seen as having common origins (Brown
2000), and the music faculty can be understood as complementing the language
faculty (Cross 2003b) in ways that are concerned with the achievement of both
individual and social flexibility. This suggests that the emergence of musicality is
unlikely to be tied to the emergence of specific neuro-anatomical features that
correlate with music; these may exist, but the broad array of neural activity
precipitated by music suggests that whatever the music systems in the brain, these
are not exclusively musics preserve (Zatorre and Peretz 2003). It seems more likely
that musicality may be linked to, or perhaps more feasibly identifiable in, features
of human interaction and sociality.
As noted, humans are immensely flexible both in terms of their individual
cognitive capacities and in respect of their competence in social interaction. These
different flexibilities mark us out from our predecessors and it can be hypothesised
that the origins of human musicality are linked to the factors that enabled that
cognitive and social adaptability. These factors might be identified with gradual
changes in physical capacities (such as the increased descent of the larynx, or the
augmented innervations of the tongue), or with changes in social organisation
(such as those discussed in Foley 1995). However, I shall suggest here that one
particular factor that appears to be related to social organisation seems likely to
have played a significant role in allowing the emergence of musicality. That factor
is altriciality, or relative proportion of lifespan spent in juvenile, pre-reproductive
state. The longer the period of a species typical pre-reproductive juvenile period
relative to its typical lifespan, the more a species is deemed to be altricial (the
shorter the relative period, the more precocial the species).
It has been found that, in primates, social intelligence (measured in terms of nonvisual neocortex size) is significantly and positively correlated with the proportion
of lifespan spent as a juvenile. In effect, primate species that have complex social
organisations are more likely to be altricial, and complex social organisation
requires a concomitant enhancement of the flexibility with which members of a
species manage their social interactions; Joffe proposes that the attribute of
altriciality is highly adaptive among socially intelligent species who require an
extended learning period for the acquisition of a large social skill repertoire (Joffe
1997). I shall suggest that this attribute, altriciality, may have played a significant
role in the emergence of human musicality.
It has long been established that modern human infants are extremely altricial
(Foley and Lee 1991); at birth they are helpless and highly dependent on their
primary caregivers for survival, unlike the young of most other species. However,
though helpless at birth, human infants demonstrate an immense plasticity; many
developments that take place in uterus for other mammals take place in vivo for
human infants. Humans not only take longer to grow up than do other mammals,
they also present to the world a greater degree of sustained neural plasticity over
their growth period than does any other mammal (sometimes referred to as
secondary altriciality).
Recent research by Dean and colleagues suggests that processes of increasing
altricialisation have been at work in the hominid lineage in both progressive
and saltational forms (proceeding by leap), from the australopithecines to
ourselves (Dean et al. 2001). In other words, we remain juveniles for a significantly longer proportion of our total lifespan than did our australopithecine
ancestors (from circa 5 mya) and our later precursors. While there is a progressive

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 86 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

86

Ian Cross

trend towards altricialisation across earlier Homo types (habilis, from circa
2.3 mya, and erectus/ergaster, from circa 1.8 mya), indicated by markers such as
brain size (Foley and Lee 1991), the findings of Dean et al. (2001) indicate that
there is a severely marked change to a considerably lengthened period of maturation from erectus/ergaster to both Neanderthals (from circa 0.35 mya) and
ourselves, most probably mediated through our common ancestor Homo heidelbergensis (circa 0.8 mya).
It should be noted that increasing altriciality is not an inherently progressive
trend. It may confer benefits on a species, deriving, perhaps, from the persistence
for a longer absolute duration of access to flexible infant and childhood patterns
of thought and behaviour over any individuals life, and hence perhaps a greater
within-group flexibility in managing social relations and a greater flexibility in
dealing with environmental events (Joffe 1997). But it typically imposes heavy
costs as well; altriciality signifies a longer period of juvenile dependence, in which
a lower percentage of a population will be able to access life-sustaining resources,
and is likely to afford a greater chance of early pre-reproductive-phase mortality.
But in order for it to be adaptive and to continue to be adaptive over several
speciation events, the prevailing circumstances must have enabled the benefits to
outweigh the costs (Bjorklund 1997).
According to Dean et al. (2001), the children of modern humans and of
Neanderthals appear to have taken longer to mature than did any of our
immediate predecessors (though the Neanderthal evidence rests on a single, late
specimen at present, and other evidence may indicate a much more rapid
maturation; Aiello 1996). It can be hypothesised that this absolutely longer
maturational period sustained the persistence of childhood patterns of thought
and behaviour into and through adulthood, at least in part because of the
increased likelihood that a higher proportion of a population than had previously
been the case would have had access to, and would have had to deal with those
with access to, such patterns of thought and behaviour. Populations that
accommodated their collective behaviours to childhood modes of thought, action
and interaction are likely to have had members who were possessed of flexible
modes of cognitive operation and were skilled in social interaction, hence
affording them an advantage in survival (and reproduction) over populations
that had not engaged in such an accommodation.
Hence, a selection pressure can be identified for the consolidation of childhood
behavioural modes into the adult repertoire. In effect, with increasing altricialisation there comes an increasing necessity to incorporate childhood patterns of
thought and behaviour, in particular those constitutive of proto-musical behaviours and cognitions, into the adult reproductive and autonomously survivaloriented repertoire of available modes of interaction. It might even be the case
that with increased altricialisation, it simply became more possible for adult
behavioural and cognitive repertoires to incorporate childhood patterns of
thought and behaviour.
Even if the slow maturation rates typical of modern humans were to have been
shared with Neanderthals (and as indicated above, there is debate on this point),
it can be suggested that the lack of evidence for symbolic behaviour or musicality
amongst the Neanderthals could be attributed to their extreme physiological
adaptedness for cold climates (Stringer and Gamble 1993). Their life ways seem to
have restricted them to narrow ranges of habitats, seem to have stereotyped many

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 87 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Music and Evolution

87

of their behaviours (e.g., in their manufacture and use of lithic tools) in quite
specific ways and appear to have limited the sizes of their communities to very
small probably kin groups. By contrast, modern humans appear far more
physiologically adaptable, exploiting a wide variety of habitats in different ways,
and having formed and used a wide variety of different types of social groupings,
in general incorporating very many more members than did those of Neanderthals.
Perhaps these environmental factors enabled modern humans to get to music
first. Or perhaps modern humans simply had the luck to be physiologically adaptable enough to enable proto-musicality, and music, to bootstrap us into culture and
into whatever we, in our contemporary human worlds, might wish to engage in
or to think of as music.

III. Postlude: Representing Altriciality


While grounded in evolutionary theory and in archaeological data, it has to be
admitted that much of the foregoing argument for a positive effect of altricialisation on music in human evolution is speculative. This is because, although
processes of altricialisation have been clearly identified within the hominid
lineage, there is little or no research to date that bears on the specific effect of
altricialisation per se. The argument above rests on an assessment of the likely
impact of progressive altriciality on human and pre-human populations, referring
to hominid species that were already possessed of considerable social complexity
and diversity (Foley 1995) and of well-developed cognitive capacities. The degree
to which these specific factors (sociality and cognitive dexterity) contributed to the
hominid evolutionary trajectory must be placed in the context of an understanding
of the prospective contribution of raw altricialisation processes. Unfortunately,
the effects of the level of altriciality in a (generic) population remain largely
unexplored. It seems important to try to address this issue as a precondition for
even thinking about a role for altriciality in human musicality, as it appears
necessary to clarify exactly what the impact of altriciality on a populations
survival potential might be before considering how the specific dynamics of
human altriciality might have functioned in human evolution and in the
emergence of human musicality.
In order to clarify this impact, it would be necessary to define a structure within
which the effects of altriciality can be clearly demarcated. This appears to be
impossible within any natural population, as the effects of altriciality on population size and growth are inevitably confounded with effects of other populationor species-specific factors. However, it would seem feasible to explore altriciality
in the dynamics of artificial populations (for computer simulation of social process
in evolutionary context see the work by Conte 2000), and it should be possible to
identify parameters and dynamics that would enable the triangulation of the
effects of altriciality, and might eventually allow inter-relationships between these
and other music-like factors to be investigated. In itself, a model of altriciality
would have little to do directly with music. However, it would seem necessary to
explore phenomena of this level of generality in order to arrive at a framework
within which to articulate an integrated view of music as both a cultural and a
biological phenomenon, if the definition of music offered at the outset of this paper
reflects anything of the bio-cultural roots of musicality.

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 88 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

88

Ian Cross

References
Aiello, L. (1996) Hominine preadaptations for language and cognition. In Modelling the Early Human
Mind, ed. Paul Mellars and Kathleen Gibson, pp. 8089. Cambridge: Macdonald Institute Monograph
Series.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995), Mindblindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bjorklund, D .F. (1997) The role of immaturity in human development. Psychological Bulletin 122(2),
153169.
Blacking, J. (1995) Music, Culture and Experience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bohlman, S. (1999) Ontologies of music. In Rethinking Music, ed. N. Cook and M. Everist, pp. 1734.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, S. (2000) The musilanguage model of music evolution. In The Origins of Music, ed. Nils
Wallin, Bjorn Merker and Steven Brown, pp. 271300. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buckley, C. and Steele, J. (2002) Evolutionary ecology of spoken language: co-evolutionary hypotheses
are testable. World Archaeology 34(1), 2646.
Conte, R. (2000) Memes through (social) minds. In Darwinizing Culture, ed. Robert Auger, pp. 83119.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cross, I. (1999) Is music the most important thing we ever did? Music, development and evolution,
In Music, Mind and Science, ed. Suk Won Yi, pp. 1039. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
Cross, I. (2001), Music, cognition, culture and evolution. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
930, 2842.
Cross, I. (2003a) Music and biocultural evolution. In The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction, ed. Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert and Richard Middleton, pp. 1930. London: Routledge.
Cross, I. (2003b) Music as biocultural phenomenon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: The
Neurosciences and Music 999, 16.
Cross, I. and Morley, I. (2002) Music and evolution: the nature of the evidence. In Proceedings of the
7th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition, ed. Catherine Stevens, Denis Burnham,
Gary McPherson, Emory Schubert and James Renwick, pp. 416419. Sydney, Australia.
Damasio, A. (1995) Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. London: Picador.
Dean, C., Leakey, M. V., Reid, D., Schrenk, F., Schwartzk, G. T., Stringer, C. and Walker, A. (2001)
Growth processes in teeth distinguish modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominids.
Nature 414(6), 628631.
Dissanayake, E. (2000) Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-infant interactions. In The
Origins of Music, ed. Nils Wallin, Bjorn Merker and Steven Brown, pp. 389407. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Falk, D. (forthcoming) Prelinguistic evolution in early hominins: whence motherese?. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences.
Foley, R. A. (1995) Humans Before Humanity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foley, R. A. and Lee, P. C. (1991) Ecology and energetics of encephalization in hominid evolution.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological Sciences 334, 223232.
Gourlay, K. A. (1984) The non-universality of music and the universality of non-music. World of Music
26(2), 2536.
Gratier, M. (1999) Expressions of belonging: the effect of acculturation on the rhythm and harmony
of mother-infant interaction. Musicae Scientiae Special Issue, 93122.
Hahn, J. and Mnzel, S. (1995) Knochenflten aus dem Aurignacien des Geissenklsterle bei
Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis Fundberichte aus Baden-Wrttemberg 20, 112.
Hauser, M. and Carey, S. (1998) Building a cognitive creature from a set of primitives. In The Evolution
of Mind, ed. Denise D. Cummins and Colin Allen, pp. 51106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W.T. (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and
how did it evolve?. Science 298, 15691579.
Henshilwood, C. S., dErrico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G. A. T., Mercier, N., Sealy, J. C.,
Valladas, H., Watts, I. and Wintle, A. G. (2002) Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone
Age engravings from South Africa. Science 295(15), 12781280.
Joffe, T.H. (1997) Social pressures have selected for an extended juvenile period in primates. Journal
of Human Evolution 32(6), 593605.
Karmiloff, K. and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2001) Pathways to Language: From Foetus to Adolescent.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Magrini, T. (2000) From music-makers to virtual singers: new musics and puzzled scholars. In
Musicology & Sister Disciplines, ed. David Greer, pp. 320330. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

08 GMCR22-3 Cross (JB/D).fm Page 89 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:04 PM

Music and Evolution

89

Marler, P. (2000) Origins of music and speech: insights from animals. In The Origins of Music, ed. Nils
Wallin, Bjorn Merker and Steven Brown, pp. 3148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Merker, B. (2002) The primacy of the musical pulse. Paper presented to the 17th International
Congress of the International Musicological Society, Louvain, Belgium, 17 July.
Messinger, D. S. and Fogel, A. (1998) Give and take: the development of conventional infant gestures.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 44, 566590.
Morley, I. (2002) Evolution of the physical and neurological capacities for music. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(2), 195216.
Papousek, H. (1996a) Musicality in infancy research: biological and cultural origins of early musicality. In Musical Beginnings, ed. Irne Delige and John Sloboda, pp. 88112. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Papousek, M. (1996b) Intuitive parenting: a hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In
Musical Beginnings, ed. Irne Delige and John Sloboda, pp. 3755. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinker, S. (1997) How the Mind Works. London: Allen Lane.
Povinelli, D. J. and Eddy, T. J. (1996) Reconstructing the evolution of psychological development.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 61(3), 1154.
Ristau, C. (1996) Animal language and cognition projects. In Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution,
ed. Andrew Lock and Charles R. Peters, pp. 644685. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spelke, E. (1999) Infant cognition. In MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, ed. Robert A. Wilson
and Frank C. Keil, pp. 402404. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stern, D. (1991) Diary of a Baby. New York: Basic Books.
Stringer, C. (2003) Out of Ethiopia. Nature 423, 693695.
Stringer, C. and Gamble, C. (1993) In Search of the Neanderthals. London: Thames & Hudson.
Tomasello, M. (1999) The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Tomasello, M. and Camaioni, L. (1997) A comparison of the gestural communication of apes and
human infants. Human Development 40, 724.
Trevarthen, C. (1999) Musicality and the intrinsic motive pulse: evidence from human psychobiology
and infant communication. Musicae Scientiae Special Issue, 155215.
White, T. D., Asfaw, B., Degusta, D., Gilbert, H., Richards, G. D., Suwa, G. and Howell, F. C. (2003)
Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature 423, 742747.
Zatorre, R. and Peretz, I. (eds) (2003) The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.