Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T14:12:55.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward inclusive theories of the evolution of musicality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Patrick E. Savage
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environment and Information Studies, Keio University, Fujisawa 252-0882, Japan psavage@sfc.keio.ac.jp, http://PatrickESavage.com
Psyche Loui
Affiliation:
College of Arts, Media and Design, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA p.loui@northeastern.edu, http://www.psycheloui.com
Bronwyn Tarr
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PN, UK bronwyn.tarr@anthro.ox.ac.uk, bronwyntarr01@gmail.com, https://www.anthro.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-bronwyn-tarr
Adena Schachner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA schachner@ucsd.edu, https://madlab.ucsd.edu
Luke Glowacki
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA glowacki@fas.harvard.edu, https://www.hsb-lab.org/
Steven Mithen
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AB, UK s.j.mithen@reading.ac.uk, http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/s-j-mithen.aspx
W. Tecumseh Fitch
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral and Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria. tecumseh.fitch@univie.ac.at, https://homepage.univie.ac.at/tecumseh.fitch/

Abstract

We compare and contrast the 60 commentaries by 109 authors on the pair of target articles by Mehr et al. and ourselves. The commentators largely reject Mehr et al.'s fundamental definition of music and their attempts to refute (1) our social bonding hypothesis, (2) byproduct hypotheses, and (3) sexual selection hypotheses for the evolution of musicality. Instead, the commentators generally support our more inclusive proposal that social bonding and credible signaling mechanisms complement one another in explaining cooperation within and competition between groups in a coevolutionary framework (albeit with some confusion regarding terminologies such as “byproduct” and “exaptation”). We discuss the proposed criticisms and extensions, with a focus on moving beyond adaptation/byproduct dichotomies and toward testing of cross-species, cross-cultural, and other empirical predictions.

Information

Type
Authors’ Response
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable