Search for a command to run...
Ina recent article, New American Archaeology, Joseph R. Caldwell has pointed out shift in interests of American archaeology which, he feels, are bringing new kinds of understanding to field (Caldwell, 1959). Thus he speaks of earlier archaeology which was preoccupied with the description of archaeological sites and . . . of prehistoric cultures. . . .The emphasis was on archaeological data as things in themselves rather than on values offered by different ways of looking at them. Moreover, it was considered, in practice, as important to excavate a site meticulously and to record every scrap of evidence which might conceivably bear on any future problem as it was to have a reason for excavating site in first place (p. 303). However, the new archaeology in America is tending to be more concerned with culture process and less concerned with descriptive content of prehistoric cultures. . . Where formerly we were concerned with identification of things and of cultures . . . we have added an interest in identification of culture processes and situations (p. 304). It may seem strange that a paper which proposes to discuss and define field of ethnomusicology should begin with a quotation concerning American archaeology, and yet analogy between old and new archaeology and old and new comparative musicology or ethnomusicology presents such striking parallels that it is indeed apropos. More than this, what has happened in archaeology, and is happening in ethnomusicology, is but a reflection of what happens in almost every field of scientific endeavor as discipline grows, defines its terms more sharply, and begins, eventually, to develop away from more specific to broader and more general. What has been quoted for archaeology, then, could almost be re-quoted for ethnomusicology, and this is evident in increased concern in our field for an understanding of methods, history, and especially what we should study and why. Our awareness of history of ethnomusicology as a discipline has shown us a changing emphasis on what is considered to be our proper field of study, and, it is clear that like archaeology, we have been moving steadily toward a consideration of broader and broader problems, not so much of definition of music styles as of an understanding of music as a human phenomenon. In this we have perhaps not yet come so far as archaeology, but movement of our interests is inevitably in this direction. Thus we come to a point at which it seems wise to discuss and attempt to define field of our concern once again, and in broader terms than has characterized most such discussion in past. Without going into details of history of ethnomusicology, which has been subject of study elsewhere (Nettl, 1956: Kunst, 1955), it seems fair to say that earlier studies were marked by an emphasis upon analysis of melodic and pitch phenomena, including study of scales, intervals and tonal systems; such investigations dealt also with theories of origin of music which were thought to be observable in music of contemporary so-called primitive peoples. The emphasis on study of structure of music is, of course, perfectly understandable; to bring order out of a mass of data, taxonomy must be established. I should like to add here that this does not imply that early workers in field ignored problems other