Japan

Precolumbian South America offers a rich subject of investigation of cultural macroevolution, given the multiple innovations and transformations that document unique or parallel patterns to those of other parts of the world. One can thus examine the relation of cultural phenomena to language groups and population history, and issues such as trans-pacific diffusion or exchange among major areas (e.g., Andes, Amazon). Comparative musicology of songs has greatly developed – we extend this to the study of material culture. We examined organological data, extracted from archaeological and ethnographic sources, and produced new continental databases (e.g., matrix of 57 aerophones, membranophones and idiophones in 145 societies based largely on Izikowitz’ work) and analysed them. South Americans developed a high diversity of wind instruments and drums, while lacking chordophones. Our network analysis of panpipe features identified four clusters: two each in the Tropical Forest and Andean regions. About forty percent of the instruments in the standard organological classification are present in the archaeological, but not in the ethnographic record. The archaeological record comes mostly from the central Andean region, reflecting both preservational biases and research efforts, but we report on records from other areas. Our work represents the first analysis of cultural artifacts at a continental scale, and outline possible evolutionary paths by linking the instruments to the populations who produced them. This effort can be further developed by curating and standardizing resources from catalogues and museum collections, a task in great need of development in South American institutions.

Cultural Evolution Society 2021

Cultural macroevolution of musical instruments in South America

### Conference Welcome

Welcome to the third Cultural Evolution Society Conference, CES2021. In the conference, which will be held from June 9-11, 2021, about 180 researchers from East Asia, Oceania, Middle East, Europe, North and South America give presentations on their latest research advancing the evolutionary understanding of human and nonhuman animal culture.

### Schedule and Program

[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/1ef06ffd05f80957b4a5b685f63ee3ba.png)](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/fullprogram.pdf)
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/12285eb22580949635121d15d5b46325.png)](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/abstracts.pdf)

**Program-at-glance**

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/c0d0d4c8fcdad49d12631574fd966ae8.png)

### About the conference 
 
**Help-desk:** 
Please first visit [Help-desk](https://underline.io/events/120/help-desk) where you can find the instructions and manuals for exploring the conference site. 

**Plenary sessions:**
Five leading researchers give a live talk. It is like a TV show. The audience can submit a question from the chat window. Chat messages are immediately delivered to speakers and moderators.

**Q&A sessions (parallel):**
Each presenter first gives a 2-minute live lightning talk followed by an 8-minute live discussion with the audience. It uses Zoom.

**Discussion sessions:** 
The audience can approach presenters and discuss their research. The sessions are held in a dedicated room in Gathertown.
 
**Gathertown:**
It is a platform dedicated to live virtual interactions.
Gather Town is available for all participants 24 hours during the conference.
You can meet and talk with anybody at a lounge or at a table in Gathertown.
Further Gather Town instruction and how to use short keys please find in our [Help desk page](https://underline.io/events/120/help-desk). 

**Videos and slides:**

* Plenary sessions and the Q&A sessions will be recorded and uploaded after the sessions.
* All the videos and slides are available for 60 days after the conference but only to registered ones. 

**Text-based chatting with the speakers:** 
You can chat with any speaker in the Q&A and discussion sessions. A chat window is available on each speaker’s page, and you can leave your questions there. 

**Announcement to the other participants:**
If you want to make an announcement to the other participants (e.g., “Hey, let’s meet at the lounge in Gathertown from 9pm CEST!), please use twitter (#CESConf2021).



### Code of conduct

See the full details of [the code of conduct](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/code-of-conduct/).
&nbsp; 
 CES is dedicated to providing a welcoming and harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, nationality, or the presence of or care for dependents. 
We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference at the discretion of the conference organizers.

&nbsp;
**Harassment can occur in-person or virtually, and includes, but is not limited to:**
* Comments (verbal, text, etc.) that reinforce social structures of domination related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, nationality
* Sexual images in public spaces (physical or virtual)
* Deliberate intimidation, stalking, or following
* Harassing photography or recording (including sharing of presentation materials without consent)
* Sustained disruption of talks or other events (including “Zoombombing”)
* Inappropriate physical contact or unwelcome sexual attention
* Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behaviour 

&nbsp;
 **Inclusiveness Committee**:
&nbsp;
 To facilitate implementing the code of conduct and foster a climate of inclusion, we have developed an inclusiveness committee. Below is their contact information:
 **Hiromi Matsumae**:	matsumae.hiromi.g@tokai.ac.jp
 **Patrick Savage**:	psavage@sfc.keio.ac.jp
 **Sarah Mathew**:	Sarah.Mathew@asu.edu
 **Gmail:** inclusivenessCES2021@gmail.com
 See [more details about reporting the harassment.](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/code-of-conduct/)

### Organizing committee

**Honorary Conference Organizer:** [Kenichi Aoki (Meiji University)](https://sites.google.com/site/kenichi1aoki/home) 

**Chair:** [Masanori Takezawa (Hokkaido University)](https://lalalarakko.github.io)

**Scientific Committee:** [Kenichi Aoki (Meiji University)](https://sites.google.com/site/kenichi1aoki/home), [Yasuo Ihara (the University of Tokyo)](https://researchmap.jp/read0209180?lang=en), [Hiromi Matsumae (Tokai University)](https://sites.google.com/site/hiromimatsumae/eng), [Naoko Matsumoto (Okayama University)](https://researchmap.jp/nmatsumoto_okayama-u), [Masako Myowa (Kyoto University)](https://myowa.educ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en), [Hisashi Nakao (Nanzan University)](https://www.hisashinakao.com/), [Patrick E. Savage (Keio University)](https://sites.google.com/view/comp-music-lab/home)

**Local Organizing Committee:** [Yutaka Horita (Teikyo University)](https://sites.google.com/site/yhoritapage/), [Masanori Takezawa (Hokkaido University)](https://lalalarakko.github.io/), [Ayaka Takimoto (Hokkaido University)](https://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/~takimoto/), [Kohei Tamura (Tohoku University)](https://researchmap.jp/7000017854)

**Inclusiveness Committee:** [Sarah Mathew (Arizona State University)](https://www.sarahmathew.net/), [Hiromi Matsumae (Tokai University)](https://sites.google.com/site/hiromimatsumae/eng), [Patrick E. Savage (Keio University)](https://sites.google.com/view/comp-music-lab/home)


![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/967110a00d200a6b20d6f4fa6556ba13.png)

For attending the conference, you first need to register and pay fees from [the link here](https://www.chain.hokudai.ac.jp/CES2020/registration/). After the payment of the registration fees, you will receive a ticket, which is necessary for accessing the conference site. After the payment of the registration fees, you will receive a ticket, which is necessary for accessing the conference site

Registration fee

technical paper

I will highlight a funding scheme that I am running on behalf of the Cultural Evolution Society. The scheme will address issues that will transform the important, yet underfunded, field of cultural evolution. How our cultures evolve (including how information is transmitted, how people make decisions, and the interaction with our biology) is a pressing issue in a world in which our cultural activities are causing rapid, and drastic, social and physical changes. Through 16 research projects, 5 applied working groups, 5 workshops, 1 landmark conference, 3 capacity building training courses, and public engagement activities, the grant aims to tackle early career obstacles, western-centrism, traditional disciplinary divides, and division of scientists and public policy makers. Join me for more information, videos on specifics, and open discussions. In the meantime further details can be found on the cultural evolution society website.

Transforming the Field of Cultural Evolution and Its Application to Global Human Futures

Previous research has sought to explain the rise of right-wing populist leaders in terms of the evolutionary framework of dominance and prestige. In this framework, dominance is defined as high social rank acquired via coercion and fear, and prestige is defined as high social rank acquired via competence and admiration. Previous studies have shown that right-wing populist leaders are rated as more dominant than non-populist leaders, and right-wing populist/dominant leaders are favoured in times of economic uncertainty and intergroup conflict. In this paper, we explore and critique this application of dominance–prestige to politics. First, we argue that the dominance–prestige framework, originally developed to explain inter-personal relationships within small-scale societies characterised by face-to-face interaction, does not straightforwardly extend to large-scale democratic societies which have frequent anonymous interaction and complex ingroup–outgroup dynamics. Second, we show that economic uncertainty and intergroup conflict predict a preference not only for dominant leaders, but also for prestigious leaders. Third, we show that perceptions of leaders as dominant or prestigious are not fixed, and depend on the political ideology of the perceiver: people view leaders who share their ideology as prestigious, and those who oppose their ideology as dominant, whether that ideology is liberal or conservative. Fourth, we show that political ideology is a stronger predictor than economic uncertainty of preference for Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election, contradicting previous findings that link Trump's success to economic uncertainty. We conclude by suggesting that, if economic uncertainty does not directly affect preferences for right-wing populist leaders, other features of their discourse such as higher emotionality might explain their success.

When do people prefer dominant over prestigious political leaders?

A feedback loop between human self-domestication and dog domestication contributing to language evolution?

Seeing nonhuman animals as cultural beings depends on perspectives and assumptions in theoretical frameworks and empirical methodologies. (Mis)recognizing animal culture comes down to what counts as teaching, imitation or cultural social transmission of information. My model of culture shifts the focus to social ontology.
Culture is a real social kind, meaning ‘culture’ can both do explanatory work and be explained in virtue of the causal and constitutive properties of social practices. Culture is dynamic meaning-making processes; ways of being wherein behaviours, objects, and places have salience/significance for social agents in virtue of their social practices (i.e., social meaning). Cultural phenomena are imbued with and carry information, knowledge and value that go beyond biological function and mere means to ends. I argue that some animals engage in meaning-making practices that are co-created, re-created (re)enacted, embedded, and transmitted in actions, interactions and relationships within social matrices; all of which constitutes culture.
At stake, is our epistemic access to animal culture and implications for conservation. How can we know there is social meaning? Heyes (2019) states we are a “long way from knowing how to integrate explanation and understanding, information and meaning, science and the humanities” (p.43). Inherent in her perspective are dichotomous relations of object(ive)/subject(ive). Consider information (objective) and meaning (subjective). Information is not a vacuous form awaiting content but rather meaning is always already immanent. Social information/meaning arises from intersubjectivity (even distally) and is always already objective/subjective. Epistemic access (explanation/understanding) requires science/humanities interaction to interrogate partial perspectives and situate objective knowledge.

Nonhuman Animal Culture: Meaning in Practice

Nobody doubts that human kinship has something to do with biology and reproduction and, at the same time, biology and reproduction are clearly insufficient to explain it. The unexplained part of human kinship by the biology of human reproduction is what anthropologists call ‘social’ kinship. Whereas the biology of human kinship does not seem to differ in any significant way from that of any sexually reproducing species, it is unclear how that social kinship should be ac-counted for, specifically, how it should be related with its biological counterpart. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a possible solution to this time-honored theoretical controversy in anthropology. My proposal shall be that it is the concept of sameness that which makes both biological and social kinship amenable to the same type of analysis.

On the Cultural Evolution of Kinship Systems

Models used in the study of cultural evolution have increasingly been recognized as formally similar and in some cases equivalent to agent-based models(ABM). ABM was developed originally as a computational method for social science. As cultural evolution authors occasionally claim to provide a formal, evolutionary method that current social science lacks, i investigate to what extent this common formal framework may provide a way of realizing such an ambition. Focusing on models used in social learning field studies, and the popular ABM-application of opinion dynamics (OD), i survey what currently is and is not possible with these models, and argue that in some ways they can solve each others problems. I end on discussing what an actual social science application of such "CE+OD" models would look like, considering two possible examples of such an application.

Agent-based models in cultural evolution and in opinion dynamics: a path toward CE social science?

In this study, we used three years of house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) song recordings spanning four decades in the introduced eastern range to assess how individual-level cultural transmission mechanisms drive population-level changes in birdsong. First, we developed an agent-based model (available as a new R package called TransmissionBias) that simulates the cultural transmission of house finch song given different parameters related to transmission biases, or biases in social learning that modify the probability of adoption of particular cultural variants. Next, we used approximate Bayesian computation and machine learning to estimate what parameter values likely generated the temporal changes in diversity in our observed data. We found evidence that strong content bias, likely targeted towards syllable complexity, plays a central role in the cultural evolution of house finch song in western Long Island. Frequency and demonstrator biases appear to be neutral or absent. Additionally, we estimated that house finch song is transmitted with extremely high fidelity. Future studies should use our simulation framework to better understand how cultural transmission and population declines influence song diversity in wild populations.

Content bias in the cultural evolution of house finch song

Human culture is considered to be different from animal culture due to its communicative and interactive nature built on shared intentionality and cognitive flexibility. Here, we investigated whether chimpanzees use communication and show behavioral indications of their joint commitment to engage in cultural practices by analyzing grooming handclasp (GHC) interactions – a socio-cultural behavior for which coordination is required. In a GHC two apes engage in a joint action leading to a symmetrical postural configuration in which each of the partners extends an arm overhead and clasps the other's wrist or hand. Previous accounts attributed the enactment of GHC to behavioral shaping whereby the initiator physically molds the arm of the partner into the GHC posture. Using frame-by-frame analysis and matched-control methodology, we find that chimpanzees use gestural communication to entice group members into GHC. The use of communication instead of physical shaping to initiate GHC requires an active and highly synchronized response from the partner, which showcases a behavioral expression of joint commitment to engage in this shared cultural practice. Moreover, we show that GHC initiators used a variety of initiation strategies, which attests to their situation-contingent interactional flexibility. We conclude that chimpanzees can be jointly committed to a cultural practice, which suggests that culture predicated on shared intentionality and flexible communication may not be unique to the human species.

Chimpanzees communicate to coordinate a cultural practice

Music, dance, and other performing arts are cultural universals that are found in all societies but that vary within and between them. The lack of standardized cross-cultural databases has impeded scientific understanding of global variation in the arts. We introduce the Global Jukebox (theglobaljukebox.org) as a resource for comparative and cross-cultural study of the performing arts and culture. Its core is the Cantometrics dataset, encompassing standardized codings on 37 aspects of musical style for 5,783 traditional songs from 991 societies. The Cantometrics dataset has been thoroughly cleaned and checked for reliability and accuracy. Eight additional datasets code elements of instrumentation, conversation, popular music and other aspects of expressive culture. For the first time, all digitized Global Jukebox data is being made available in open-access, machine-readable format, linked with streaming audiovisual files to the maximum extent allowed while respecting copyright and the wishes of culture-bearers. The data is cross-indexed with two leading cross-cultural databases: the Database of Peoples, Languages, and Cultures (D-PLACE) and eHRAF World Cultures. This allows researchers to test hypotheses about worldwide aesthetic patterns and traditions. We will use modern phylogenetic comparative methods to reanalyze the original proposals by Alan Lomax and his research team regarding coevolutionary relationships between the performing arts, social structure, and human history. The Global Jukebox adds a large and detailed global database of the performing arts to enrich our understanding of the science of human cultural diversity.

The Global Jukebox: A Public Database of Performing Arts and Culture

Music - like language - is a human cultural universal that displays considerable cross-cultural variation and historical continuity. But while hypotheses about language (co)evolution have been tested against large cross-cultural databases, hypotheses about music have not, principally because no such databases have been publicly available. We take advantage of a new public database of 5,783 songs from 991 societies coded for 37 “Cantometric'' features of musical style (theglobaljukebox.org; cf. Wood et al., this conference) to test three sets of pre-registered hypotheses about music-culture coevolution: 

1) What is the primary determinant of musical style: song structure or social context?
2) What is the primary determinant of musical distribution: genetic history, language history, or geography?
3) What is the primary social determinant of musical style: economic subsistence or kinship intensity?

Each set of hypotheses helps us paint a more complete picture of music's role in the cultural past of human evolution. We will test these competing hypotheses using latent variable modelling and phylogeographic methods, combining the Global Jukebox database of music codings with language phylogeny, genetic distances (GeLaTo), and social structure (Ethnographic Atlas; D-PLACE.org). By tying these strands of evidence together we will present a comprehensive and quantitative understanding of global music diversity and its role in the history of human society.

Premium content

Cultural macroevolution of musical instruments in South America

Downloads

Next from Cultural Evolution Society 2021

Transforming the Field of Cultural Evolution and Its Application to Global Human Futures

Similar lecture

Reliability of Human and Automated Transcriptions of Global Songs

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES