who asked the first question? - International Research Center For ...

212are universal for all European polyphonic traditions today. For example, most of thepolyphony of the East Slavs is not based on drone (it is rather based on different forms ofheterophonic singing). Besides, in some traditions of European polyphony (particularlylater styles) the main harmonic interval is not the sharp dissonant second, but rather thesoft consonant third. And still, the main characteristic of the older styles of traditionalpolyphony seems to fit well with the above-mentioned features (drone polyphony;dissonant intervals between the voices; singing of the melodic lines by individuals andthe drone – by the group of singers). This “case study” (which in fact unites two “casestudies” – (1) of the ancient European drone polyphony and (2) the Indo-Europeanelement in European polyphonic traditions) is fully dedicated to the discussion of thestratification of European polyphonic traditions in an historical perspective.Let us first of all have a good look at the distribution of vocal polyphonictraditions throughout Europe. As we may remember from the first part of this book,polyphonic traditions in Europe are scattered through very different regions, ranging fromIceland in the northwest to Mordva in the east and the Mediterranean islands in the south.The crucial question is whether there is a historical-genetic connection between thesesinging traditions, or whether these different peoples in different regions all startedsinging polyphonically independently, each on their own, following the common rules ofthe development of human musical culture. The prevailing opinion betweenethnomusicologists on this question is that there is a deep historical connectionbetween these scattered drone-secondal polyphonic traditions of Europe (see, forexample, Collaer, 1960, or Lomax, 1968). I fully agree with this opinion, and want todiscuss the puzzling distribution of polyphonic traditions in Europe in the context of theappearance of Indo-Europeans and Indo-European languages.For a discussion of these topics let us first of all recall the cartography of thepolyphonic regions in Europe.I remember very well that every time ethnomusicologists start discussing thedistribution of polyphonic traditions throughout Europe and try to discuss the possiblereasons for the emergence of choral singing, one of the most popular ideas amongethnomusicologists is the crucial importance of the “mountain factor”. “Look”,someone would say, “most of the European mountain ranges are populated by the carriersof the polyphonic tradition. There is something in this. Somehow mountains help tocreate polyphony”. If you have a look at the cartography again, it is hard to deny thatalmost all European mountain ranges are in fact populated by the peoples withpolyphonic singing traditions: Pyrenees, alps, Balkans, Caucasus (to mention only thefew major European mountain regions). But there is another very important peculiarity ofthe distribution of polyphonic traditions in Europe as well: besides the mountain regions,there are also very important non-mountain regions with traditions of vocal polyphony.For ex ample, Polessye, the border region between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is onesuch region. Polessye is very rich in forests (you may remember, “Polessye” in eastSlavic languages means “the region of forests”), but it is thousands of kilometers awayfrom a nearest mountain range. The same applies to theBaltic region – no mountainsaround. The same occurs with some of the islands of the Mediterranean Sea and NorthEurope – no major mountains. If you allow me to use the well-known German sayingabout one of the most important musical dynasties in the history of European music “Not