ÇALGILARIN KÖKENİNE İLİŞKİN YENİ BİR YAKLAŞIM: MONOGENESIS, POLYGENESIS VE ÖTESİ İÇİN “SINEGENESIS” KAVRAMSAL ÖNERİSİ

Öz

Organoloji literatüründe çalgıların kökenine ilişkin açıklamaların büyük ölçüde monogenesis ve polygenesis kavramları etrafında yoğunlaştığı görülür. Bu kavramlar, “Herhangi bir çalgının kökeni nedir?” sorusuna verilen yanıtı soy zinciri ve coğrafi yayılım düzeyinde soyutlamaya çalışan kavramsal modeller olarak işlemektedir. Elektronik, dijital ve hibrit çalgıların ortaya çıkışıyla birlikte, bu iki modelin açıklayıcılık sınırları özellikle kökensel sürekliliğin zayıf olduğu çağdaş çalgı tasarımları karşısında belirginleşmektedir. Bu durum, organoloji alanında köken açıklamalarına dayanan mevcut paradigmaların yeniden değerlendirilmesini ve çağdaş çalgı üretim biçimlerinin farklı bir kavramsal düzlemde tartışılmasını gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu sorunun kavramsal temellerini saptayabilmek amacıyla organoloji literatürüne yönelik doküman incelemesi yapılmıştır. İnceleme bulguları, monogenesis ve polygenesis yaklaşımlarının, soy zinciri kurulabilen tarihsel örnekler için anlamlı olmakla birlikte, tasarım mantığı ve teknoloji ağları içinde geliştirilen birçok çağdaş çalgıyı köken ekseninde açıklamakta sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Özellikle kökeni tekil ya da çoklu tarihsel merkezlere bağlanamayan, buna karşılık özgün tasarım ilkeleri üzerinden tanımlanabilen çalgılar bu sınırlılığı görünür kılan örnekler olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, sinegenesis kavramını kökene ilişkin açıklamalarda monogenesis ve polygenesis’in yanına yerleşen, kapsamı daraltılmış ve tamamlayıcı bir kategori olarak önermektedir. Sinegenesis, köken bilgisinin soy zinciri düzeyinde kurulamadığı, tasarım ve teknolojik konfigürasyonların belirleyici olduğu çalgılar için kullanılması öngörülen kavramsal bir etikettir. Araştırma sonuçlarının, köken araştırmalarına yönelik metodolojik yaklaşımların çeşitlendirilmesine ve özellikle elektronik ve dijital çalgılara ilişkin organolojik veri tabanlarının yapılandırılmasında köken hanesinin daha esnek biçimde tanımlanmasına kuramsal düzeyde katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Organoloji
• çalgıların kökeni
• monogenesis
• polygenesis
• sinegenesis

A NEW APPROACH TO THE ORIGINS OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: A CONCEPTUAL PROPOSAL OF “SYNGENESIS” BEYOND MONOGENESIS AND POLYGENESIS

Abstract

Organological literature shows that explanations of the origins of musical instruments have largely been framed in terms of the concepts of monogenesis and polygenesis. These concepts operate as models that seek to abstract answers to the question “What is the origin of a given instrument?” at the levels of genealogical lineage and geographical diffusion. With the emergence of electronic, digital and hybrid instruments, however, the explanatory limits of these two models have become particularly evident in relation to contemporary instrument designs in which genealogical continuity is weak. This situation requires a re-evaluation of existing origin paradigms within organology and calls for contemporary modes of instrument production to be discussed on a different conceptual plane. In this study, a document analysis of the organological literature is conducted in order to identify the conceptual foundations of this problem. The findings indicate that, while monogenesis and polygenesis remain meaningful as explanatory models for historical cases in which a genealogical lineage can be reconstructed, they prove limited in accounting for many contemporary instruments whose production is embedded in design logics and technological networks. Instruments whose origins cannot be convincingly linked to single or multiple historical centres, yet can be defined through distinctive design principles, emerge as particularly salient examples of this limitation. In this context, the study proposes the concept of sinegenesis as a narrowly defined and complementary category that stands alongside monogenesis and polygenesis in origin-related explanations. Sinegenesis is envisaged as a conceptual label to be used for instruments whose origin cannot be established at the level of genealogical lineage and in which design and technological configurations are the primary determinants. The results of the research are expected to contribute, at a theoretical level, to the diversification of methodological approaches to origin studies and to a more flexible definition of the “origin” field in organological databases, particularly with regard to electronic and digital instruments.

Keywords

• Organology
• origins of musical instruments
• monogenesis
• polygenesis
• sinegenesis

References

1. Balfour, H. (1905). Musical instruments of South Africa. W. Flint & J. D. F. Gilchrist (Ed.), Science in South Africa: A handbook and review içinde (s. 155–173). T. Maskew Miller.
2. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. New York: Hill and Wang.
3. Barthes, R. (1964). Elements de Sémiologie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
4. Bell, E. (2021). Cybernetics, listening, and sound-studio phenomenotechnique in Abraham Moles’s Théorie de l’information et perception esthétique (1958). Resonance: The Journal of Sound and Culture (ön baskı). https://doi.org/10.1093/ml/gcx052.
5. Blacking, J. (1974). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press.
6. Both, A. A. (2009). Music archaeology: Some methodological and theoretical considerations. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 41, 1–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25735475.
7. Charest, J. P. (2019). The long necked lute's eternal return: Mythology, morphology, iconography of the Tanbür lute family from ancient Mesopotamia to Ottoman Albania [Doktora tezi, Cardiff University].
8. Conard, N. J., Malina, M. ve Münzel, S. C. (2009). New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany. Nature, 460(7256), 737–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08169.

9. Dobrian, C. (2001). Aesthetic considerations in the use of "virtual" music instruments. Journal of the Society for Electro-Acoustic Music in the United States, 16(2), 23–33.
10. Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11. Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Indiana University Press.
12. Ferrer, R., & Eerola, T. (2011). Semantic structures of timbre emerging from social and acoustic descriptions of music. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 2011(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-4722-2011-11.
13. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.
14. Hickmann, E. (2003). Musikarchäologie – Forschungsgrundlagen und Ziele. Berlin: Staatliches Institut für Musikforschung.
15. Kartomi, M. J. (1990). On concepts and classifications of musical instruments. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition, enlarged). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Lawergren, B. (1988). The origin of musical instruments and sounds. Anthropos, 83(1–3), 31–45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40461485.
18. List, G. (1978). The distribution of a melodic formula: Diffusion or polygenesis? Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, 10, 33–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/767346.
19. Magnusson, T. (2019). Sonic writing: Technologies of material, symbolic, and signal inscriptions. Bloomsbury Academic.
20. McClary, S. (2002). Feminine endings: Music, gender, and sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
21. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
22. Miner, A. (1993). Sitar and sarod in the 18th and 19th centuries. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
23. Miranda, E. R. ve Wanderley, M. M. (2006). New digital musical instruments: Control and interaction beyond the keyboard. Middleton, WI: A-R Editions.
24. Moles, A. A. (1968). The theory of informations and the new aesthetics. Bit International, 1, 3–10. Zagreb: Galerija suvremene umjetnosti.
25. Nattiez, J.-J. (1990). Music and discourse: Toward a semiology of music (C. Abbate, Çev.). Princeton University Press.
26. Nettl, B. (2005). The study of ethnomusicology: Thirty-one issues and concepts (2nd ed.). Urbana ve Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
27. Obeidat, M. A., Nehad, M., Mahafzah, K. A. ve Mansour, A. M. (2023). A comprehensive design of audio-modulated dual resonant solid-state Tesla coil: Mechanical and electrical aspects. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 10(1), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.100119.
28. Quartier, L., Meurisse, T., Colmars, J., Frelat, J. ve Vaiedelich, S. (2014). Intensity key of the Ondes Martenot: An early mechanical haptic device. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 100(3), 420-429. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918739.
29. Rice, T. (2014). Ethnomusicology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Skeldon, K. D., Reid, L. M., McInally, V., Dougan, B. ve Fulton, C. (1998). Physics of the Theremin. American Journal of Physics, 66(11), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19004.
31. Stockmann, E. (1971). The diffusion of musical instruments as an interethnic process of communication. Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, 3, 128–137.
32. Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F. G. (2021). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (8. bs.). Ankara: Arı Yayıncılık.
33. Tanaka, A. (2010). Mapping out instruments, affordances, and mobiles. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME 2010), 88–93. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computing Machinery.
34. Teraguchi, N. ve Minami, M. (2019). Development of musical solid-state Tesla coil based on pulse repetition frequency method. Electronics and Communications in Japan, 102(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecj.12196.
35. Turino, T. (2000). Nationalists, cosmopolitans, and popular music in Zimbabwe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Weisser, S. ve Quanten, M. (2011). Rethinking musical instrument classification: Towards a modular approach to the Hornbostel–Sachs system. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 43, 122–146. https://doi.org/10.5921/yeartradmusi.43.0122.
37. Zhang, J., Xiao, X. ve Lee, Y. K. (2004). The early development of music: Analysis of the Jiahu bone flutes. Antiquity, 78(302), 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00113432.
38. Redhead, L. (2021). Materiality as a creative practice of musical instruments: Makers’ perspectives. Research Catalogue. (Erişim adresi: https://www.researchcatalogue.net/view/3774420/3774421), (Erişim Tarihi: 19.10.2025).
39. Zeusaphone. (t.y.). Vikipedi. Erişim tarihi: [Bugünün Tarihini Buraya Ekleyin], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeusaphone.