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

245For a further discussion of this topic let us have a look at the already discussedhistorical stratification of European polyphonic, monophonic and mixed singing styles ina “Case Study”, dedicated to drone polyphony and the migrations of Indo-Europeans. Inthe “conclusions” I outlined four different groups of the European polyphonic traditions,most of them showing signs of external influences. These groups were:(1) No external influences. Ancient European drone polyphony without majorexternal influences;(2) Mixture of two styles (A). Ancient European drone polyphony with theinfluence of West Asian melismatic monophony;(3) Mixture of two styles (B). Ancient European drone polyphony with theinfluence of European professional polyphony;(4) Mixture of three styles: ancient drone polyphony with the double externalinfluence from West Asian melismatic melody and from late European classicalpolyphony;Amazingly, Nuristan vocal polyphony best fits the first category, the group ofcultures of ancient European drone polyphony without major external influences.Now to another aspect of the comparative study of Nuristan polyphony. ThreepartNuristan polyphony with the drone in the middle of the polyphonic texture and theabundance of secondal dissonances shows particularly close parallels to the twoEuropean polyphonic traditions (both of them are “members” of the group of ancientEuropean drone polyphonic traditions that does not show any major external influences).These two traditions are (1) Laberi polyphony from Albania, and (2) three-part Latviandrone polyphony, recorded by Yurian at the end of the 19 th century.In all these three polyphonic traditions (Nuristan, Laberi Albanian and Latvianthree-part polyphonic singing) the drone is in the middle of the polyphonic texture,surrounded from both sides by the melodic parts, actively clashing with the drone insecondal dissonances. This closeness is so obvious that the Laberi polyphonic style, forexample, is typologically closer to Latvian three-part polyphony and Nuristan polyphony,than to the neighbouring Chameri polyphony, or to the other Balkan singing styles. In thesame way Latvian three-part polyphony shows much closer typological parallels toLaberi and Nuristan polyphony, than to any other styles of polyphony, recorded in theBaltic region (Lithuanian secondal, heterophonic or drone sutartines, or Setu polyphony).Two explanations are possible:(1) Three-part drone singing with the drone in the middle of the texture,and with the secondal dissonances from both sides of the drone waspart of the ancient European drone polyphony. This tradition was lostin many regions and survived only in the high mountains of Hindukushand the Balkans, or,(2) Ancient European drone polyphony was based on two-part dronesinging with clashing secondal dissonances. Three-part singing waslater developed (independently from each other) from two-part singingby Laberi Albanians, Latvians and Nuristanians.