When I was studying for my D.Phil which formed the basis of my book: “Gondar’s Child”, I was allocated two supervisors: one for cultural anthropology, the second to whom my book is partly dedicated, for ethnomusicology. I thought my study incorporated both fields, or perhaps that the two fields were the same, or ought to be!

It was really when approaching ethnomusicology publishers that I realised that apart from one reader (I find it noteworthy that the only reader who supported the publication of my book under the aegis of an ethnomusicology series [in this case, a US series] was a woman), the readers didn’t seem to know what to do with the anthropology in my work. Another reader criticized my manuscript for not comprising a complete study of the whole of Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jewish) music in all its genres, and all its aspects – something which I specified was outside the scope of my work. It seemed this reader grossly underestimated the music of this ethnic group which had migrated from Ethiopia to Israel. Would he have criticized a study focused on contemporary English folk music for failing to include all other genres and traditions found in England? The Beta Israel were divided along the lines of language (Amharic, Tigrinya) which in itself was strongly reflected in the distinct music and dance of the two language groups; their music was divided into various genres according to social context; whether it was secular, liturgical; and so forth. (One of the first things one learns, or should learn, upon embarking on a university education is to delineate the scope of your work! That is not to say that the delineation needs to be fixed. As Dr PTW Baxter advised me when I set out on my fieldwork: “Tell yourself: ‘I will study what comes to me!'” Although I very much had to go out to find it in the first place!))

An editor and reader of a UK ethnomusicology series did in fact find something to do with my manuscript, if not to publish it! Having turned it down for publication while declining to give a reason or submit a report, my manuscript was returned loose-leafed and removed from its spiral spine, while he, evidently having kept a photocopy, drew on my work when giving talks about Ethiopian Jews during Black History month (since it wasn’t by any means his field). Years later, once my book was published, he attended a talk I gave about it and purchased a copy.

One of the (main?) things that apparently distinguishes ethnomusicology from anthropology is the tradition of fieldwork in social and cultural anthropology. This was originally not clear to me as a defining factor, since many ethnomusicologists carry out fieldwork. But it seems that in anthropology, there is much tradition, history, debate, and theory relating to the concept and practice of fieldwork.

Another thing that distinguishes anthropology from ethnomuscology as a discipline is the discursive element in anthopology. From its inception, it seems to have been continuously reflecting on its own nature. It started out viewing itself as, and trying (but always failing) to be, a science. As time went on, many different manifestations of the discipline appeared – in some of which it perhaps started to resemble an art.

I noted that a historian, responding to a journal article about a work of his, stated that he thought one should never miss an opportunity to explain one’s work. I’m not sure I agree with the “never” in his statement. Nevertheless, although this was some years ago, it does come back to visit me now and again. For example, now!

There is one ethnomusicologist in particular who reviewed my book, “Gondar’s Child” who belittled my discussion of my fieldwork methods and explanation of my methodology in my introduction as having a place in a dissertation, rather than a published book (in fact, an ethnographic monograph, in the anthropological tradition) and I wrote to him personally in response. So I didn’t miss the opportunity to explain my work to him. But since his review is publicly available, I feel that my response should be as well.

The text below is from my response to Professor Edwin Seroussi in my email to him dated 9th September 2013:

“Dear Professor Seroussi,

“I hope you are well, and I would like to thank you for reviewing my book.  

“I am very pleased that you are satisfied with my treatment of the music of the people among whom I conducted fieldwork.  I would just like to respond to a couple of other matters you mention:

“While there are some “armchair” anthropologists, social anthropology is very strongly characterised by fieldwork as a research method – the “founding father” of the fieldwork method being Malinowski.  My introduction shows my research methods and methodology, and in doing so, discusses  a number of issues relating to fieldwork which will be of interest to anthropologists, such as the concept of “the field”, the matter of being a single woman in the field, the matter of being in the field in a war zone; on finding your field, and how one is choosing to define one’s field.  In addition, my introduction sets out my conceptual framework.  Therefore, I am afraid I have to disagree with you about my introduction not having a place in my book, as opposed to my thesis.

“With regard to the pertinence of my book, since it was published so long after fieldwork:  it is always the case with anthropological monographs based on fieldwork that even as soon as you sit down to write them, the material becomes historical rather than current….and of course, the more time that passes, the more historical they become!  I have left it to a new generation of academics (eg. Ilana Webster-Kogen) to study the new generation of Beta Israel and their music.  My book documents, and is significant as a reference point of, Beta Israel society and a particular genre of their music at that specific, very eventful, period of time.  

“In fact, my book was with publishers for more than ten – maybe even eleven – years, before it finally  came out.  If it had been published immediately by the first publishers I submitted it to, it would have been around before the new generation grew up!  I did do some further revision before my book went to press:  in dealing with Aklilu Seyoum, and showing his place in the historical and social spectrum of Ethiopian music – drawing largely on the work of Falceto.

[….In this paragraph, I explained to Professor Seroussi why I chose not to include certain works in my bibliography, which he felt should have been included.]

“I hope this satisfactorily answers the issues you raised, and once again, I am grateful for your feedback on my book in your review.

With kind regards”

It is interesting in fact that ethnomusicologist Kay Kaufman Shelemay conducts fieldwork among the Beta Israel in Ethiopia in her research of their liturgical music. She starts as a single woman in the field, but then marries. Her fieldwork is interrupted by the Revolution, when her entire approach changes course. This is detailed in her book: “A Song of Longing: An Ethiopian Journey” which I reviewed in the British Journal of Ethnomusicology Vol. 5 (1996). I devote discussion to this subject in relation to her work: “Music, Ritual and Falasha History” in my D.Phil Thesis: “Songs, Honour and Identity, Bet Israel (Ethiopian Jews) in Israel”, 1994, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

It is a habit of many academics to dip into books rather than necessarily read them from cover to cover. I will often read the introduction last. With Gondar’s Child, however, it is important to read the introduction first in order to really understand how I have chosen to present my research.

(To be continued.)