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

383(Jordania, 1989:240), believing that vocal polyphony and monophony were developingsimultaneously in eastern and western areas of human evolution (eastern – East Asiansand Australians, western – European and African populations). Later, with theaccumulation of new information, understanding the crucial importance of the socialfactor in vocal polyphony, and maybe most importantly, accumulation of the cases of thedisappearance of vocal polyphony from different regions of the world convinced my thatKharlap suggestion about the chronological primacy of vocal polyphony was correct. It ispity that I had a different view when myself and late Kharlap met, only once, for thelunch at the Moscow restaurant, together with Izaly Zemtsovsky, in the mid 1980s.Kharlap was already in his 70s. We discussed my article that was going to be publishedin the series “Music of Asia and Africa” (Kharlap wrote a peer review on my article), andof course, talked about the origins of vocal polyphony. We both had an opinion that vocalpolyphony was an extremely ancient phenomenon, although our understanding of thevery beginnings of vocal polyphony was different. It is still very different, as Kharlapwas not proposing evolutionary links of the origins of choral polyphony with humanintelligence, language and speech. For him music was secondary to language and hebelieved that as a phenomenon, music (singing) developed from speech intonations, orprosodic features (in this Kharlap was close to Spencer’s and Steven Pinker’s ideas). Theearliest and the most archaic forms of traditional singing according to Kharlap wereheterophony and drone. Despite all the obvious differences of Kharlap’s ideas to themodel suggested in this book, I must say, that Kharlap was the first who suggested thatvocal polyphony did not come as a new higher stage of the development of musicalthought, and that monophony came later that polyphony. I think it would be fair if themodel of the origins of vocal polyphony, suggested in this book, is referred as “Kharlap-Jordania Model”.Let us go back to the moral and ethical problems that were haunting MariusSchneider’s conclusions. Marius Schneider’s conclusion about only some racesdeveloping vocal polyphony is rejected in this book, as the facts of gradual disappearanceof vocal polyphony in different regions of the world contradict his conclusions. But thereare new ethic challenges for our model I want to discuss. According to this model, thereare at least three moral-ethical controversies:(1) Some populations shifted to articulated speech earlier than others,(2) Some populations have more genetic inclination towards stuttering anddyslexia, and(3) The development of phonological system in children of different populationshappens in different time frames.From the very first moment, when the idea of the asynchronous shift to thearticulated speech was born in discussion with Valeri Alexeev, I understood the possibleethic implications of the conclusions I was coming in my research.Hewes wrote in his survey of language origins theories: ” if language, on the otherhand, had multiple origins,they would hardly have been simultaneous, and polygenic