326 The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the Hornbostel-Sachs Classification System Agastya Rama Listya Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Indonesia Submitted: 2022-08-15. Revised: 2022-10-21. Accepted: 2022-11-05 Abstract This article aims to propose a classification of Rotenese traditional musical instruments based on the Hornbostel-Sachs (the H-S) method. The author conducted this ethnographic field research on the island of Rote, East Nusa Tenggara Province, from 2015 to 2016. The seven existing Rotenese traditional musical instruments analyzed in this article are: 1) meko ai or the meko o (the wooden or the bamboo xylophone); 2) the meko besik or the meko lilok (the hanging iron or brass gongs); 3) the meko besik or the meko lilok (the iron or brass metallophone); 4) the labu kici or the labu so’e (the single-headed, bowl-shaped drum); 5) the tambur or the labu (the single-headed, long cylindrical drum); 6) the bitala (the crash cymbals); and 7) the sasandu (the heterochord tube-zither). The only Rotenese traditional musical instrument that is not discussed in this article is kianuk, the two- holed bamboo flute, approximately ten centimeters long. This instrument does not exist anymore. The four aspects discussed in this article are 1) the construction, 2) the materials, 3) the ways of playing, and 4) the size of the instruments. Information was gathered from interviews with some key persons and through photography and video recording. This research acknowledges some limitations; for instance, providing exact information is challenging and limiting in the absence of a standard for meko tuning and making. Therefore, the information given here about the size, the material, the tuning, and the note intervals is an approximation. Keywords: organology, the Hornbostel-Sach classification system, Rotenese traditional musical instruments How to Cite: Listya, A. R. (2022). The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the Hornbostel-Sachs Classification System. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education, 22(2), 326-336 Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022), 326-336 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/harmonia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/harmonia.v22i2.38218 me of his treatise De Organographia (Dour- non, 1992, p. 245). Organology is considered as a quite popular topic among researchers, particu- larly in Indonesia. For instance, Agustinus Irwanto Siwe et al. (2022) discuss the orga- nology of foi doa, a double-pipe flute from Ngada, along with its playing techniques, materials, dimensions, and its making. Gusti Muhamad Ilham et. al. (2018) study the organology of beruas, a membranopho- ne from North Pontianak used to accompa- INTRODUCTION The word “organology” was first used to classify musical instruments based on their physical features. Mantle Hood (1971) calls it “organography.” Later, or- ganology shifted from studying the phy- sical features of instruments to studying musical instruments in their social context (Dournon, 1992, p. 247). This word was coined by a German musicologist, Michael Praetorius (1571-1621), in the second volu- Corresponding author: E-mail: agastya.listya@uksw.edu p-ISSN 2541-1683|e-ISSN 2541-2426 Agastya Rama Listya, The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the 327 ny Zapin dance. M. Abdi Baha et al. (2020) investigate the organology of selober, a mouth harp from East Lombok. Uswatul Hakim et al. (2022) examine the organo- logy of a West Lampung bamboo flute, serdam. Sigit Setiawan and Aris Setyoko (2022) investigate Javanese kendhang’s organology and sound. Ilham Maulana et al. (2022) explore the organology of canang ceureukeh, its production concept, process, and materials. Xaverius Pala et al. (2022) survey the organology, origin, and the ma- king of a xylophone from Ngada, known as Ga’a li. Along with research on the or- ganology of musical instruments based on its physical features, there have been some research on the ethnomusicology of musi- cal instruments, e.g., Suharto and Aesijah (2014) studied the social function of lesung (mortar for pounding rice). Hidayatullah Panakajaya (2017) investigates that the change in social conditions in Situbondo has been affected by the change in strékan music (music for welcoming guests in Si- tubondo). Irfanda Rizki Harmono Sejati (2012) discusses: a) the historical backg- round of Gandrung (one of Banyuwangi’s traditional performances); b) the playing techniques of violin in gandrung; and c) the functions of violin in gandrung ensemble. Recently, there has been a research article written by Deborah Lee (2019) on the H-S Classification of Musical Instruments. This article analyzes the scheme’s context, background, versions and impacts. Un- fortunately, none of these aforementioned studies investigate the organology of Rote- nese traditional musical instruments. The- refore, research on the organology of Ro- tenese classification of traditional musical instruments is to fill the gap. The Rotenese traditional musical instruments analyzed in this article only those which still exist. This article discusses the construc- tion, materials, size, and ways of playing Rotenese musical instruments according to the Hornbostel-Sachs (H-S) classificati- on system of musical instruments. Rote is an island of 1278 square kilometers in size (Rote-Ndao, 2017) located to the South of the more oversized island of Timor in East Nusa Tenggara Province. The seven Rotenese musical instru- ments discussed in this article are: 1) the meko ai or the meko o (the wooden or the bamboo xylophone); 2) the meko besik or the meko lilok (the hanging iron or brass gongs); 3) the meko besik or the meko lilok (the iron or brass metallophone); 4) the labu kici or the labu so’e (the single-headed, bowl-shaped drum); 5) the tambur or the labu (the single-headed, long cylindrical drum); 6) the bitala (the crash cymbals); and 7) the sasandu (the heterochord tube- zither). These instruments are included in the discussion because they are still used and part of meko playing. There are two reasons for choosing the H-S classification system: 1) it is used worldwide, and 2) it uses the Dewey De- cimal System (DDS). In the DDS, the first number refers to the main category, and the following numbers classify the instru- ment in detail. For instance, instruments represented by numbers such as 1.1.1 in- directly struck idiophones. The DDS is be- neficial because it uses figures to replace the combination of numbers, letters, and double letters. Adding a new figure to the right end of the row will subdivide further the classification (von Hornbostel & Sachs, 1961, p. 10). Another benefit of the DDS, it allows us to pursue the specification of any musical instrument without manipulating the numbers. The position of the last figure shows the ranking of a given term with the system (von Hornbostel & Sachs, 1961, p. 10). Although Jaap Kunst (Dournon, 1992, p. 252) criticizes the H-S classifica- tion system for the lack of consistent cri- teria for its subdivisions, it remains the most popular classification system of mu- sical instruments among museologists, organologists, musicologists, ethnomusi- cologists, and ethnologists all around the world (Knight, 2017, p. 1). For instance, certain scholars have developed the H-S classification system in more varied ways, e.g., Hans Heinz Dräger (1948) developed micro-taxonomical organology. Mantle Hood (1971) devises an organology that Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022): 326-336328 enables the readers a visual description of musical instruments in their functional de- tails. René T.A. Lyloff and Jim Matson de- velop a non-hierarchical taxonomy (1985). Kurt Reinhard (1960) bases his taxonomy on two principal categories: the number of sounding bodies and pitch adjustment. Tetsuo Sakurai (1980) developed his sys- tem based on seven major divisions: solid, membrane, reed, air, string, combination, and oscillator-vibrating instruments. As there is little research to date on the music and the musical instruments of Rotenese people, this research offers a classification of Rotenese traditional mu- sical instruments based on the Western perspective proposed by Hornbostel and Sachs. This research’s novelty lies in the proposed classification system of Rotenese traditional musical instruments based on the H-S classification system. METHOD This research applies ethnographic methods, in which the researcher attempts to describe the whole aspects of a studied community, e.g., economically, socially, and culturally (Hennink et al., 2011, p. 46). James P. Spradley (1980, p. 3) regards eth- nography as “hallmark of cultural anthro- pology.” The H-S classification system of musical instruments is adopted to analy- ze the qualitative data. Primary data was collected through interviews with some research participants, i.e., Yusuf Mesah, the manager of Deta Hitu (meaning “seven strings”) music and dance studio; Jonas Mooy, the manager of Dolu Inggu (mea- ning “peace that surrounds the village”) music and dance studio; and Chornelis Tuy, the chief of fetor tribe. The author also collected data from photography and vi- deo recordings during the research. This data was first triangulated with the only available reference on Rotenese musical instruments, Sasandu: Alat Musik Tradisio- nal Masyarakat Rote Ndao by P.A. Haning. Second, it was analyzed according to the H-S classification system based on four aspects, i.e., 1) the construction, 2) the ma- terials, 3) the ways of playing, and 4) the size of the instruments. Finally, the analy- zed data was interpreted and reported as seven tables representing the organology of Rotenese musical instruments. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Meko Ai/O The word ‘meko’ initially referred to a wooden or bamboo xylophone, which looks very similar to the kulintang a kayo from the Philippines. Nitende (Rhizophora sp), kula (Vitex parviflora), and bina (Mallo- tus repandus) are the most common woods used in meko ai production. Among these three, kula is the most preferred by meko manufacturers for its resistance to fungus, termite, and lyctus beetle attacks (Orwa et al., 2009). To date, kula wood is also used for shipbuilding. The meko ai/o is a xylophone compri- sing nine tuned bars made of wood or bamboo arranged from the lowest to the highest: E3-G3-A3-C4-D4-E4-G4-A4-C5. These bars are strung horizontally on a wooden frame called hako. The term ‘hako’ literally means ‘cattle trough.’ Although wooden frame has replaced the cattle trough, the term ‘hako’ is still to date. The dimensions of a meko ai range from about ninety to one hundred and ten centimeters long, from forty to sixty centi- meters wide, and from forty to fifty centi- meters high. Figure 1. A meko ai (source: Yandri Yapi Ishak Sine 2012) The meko ai/o is usually played by two performers, with each performer hol- ding one or two mangrove mallets. The first player (see Figure 2) plays the five lowest notes (E3 to D4), while the second Agastya Rama Listya, The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the 329 plays the last four highest notes (E4 to C5). In case when the meko is played by three performers, the second performer shares with the third. The second performer plays the first three notes, and the third plays the highest one (see Figure 3). The performers usually sit on chairs/small tools or squat on the ground face-to-face. Figure 2. The seating arrangement for two meko ai/o performers (illustration: Galih Aulia 2018) Figure 3. The seating arrangement for three meko ai/o performers (illustration: Galih Aulia 2018) According to the H-S system, the meko ai/o is classified as an idiophone with a set of percussion sticks in a range of dif- ferent pitches combined into one instru- ment (111.212). Table 1. The H-S classification number for the meko ai/o The Dewey Deci- mal System Description 1 Idiophones 1 Struck Idiophones 1 Idiophones Struck Directly 2 Percussion Idiophones 1 Percussion Sticks 2 Sets of Percussion Sticks The Meko Besik/Lilok The meko besik (iron gong) or the meko lilok (brass gong) is another type of meko. The meko besik/lilok consists of two types: 1) the tuned knobbed metal bars suspen- ded horizontally on a wooden frame; and 2) the hanging tuned knobbed metal gongs, which are suspended vertically on a wooden frame. Like the meko ai/o, the meko besik/lilok also comprises nine tuned metal bars or gongs. A set of nipple gongs may range from approximately fifteen centime- ters (i.e., the meko ana, the smallest gong) to around thirty centimeters (i.e., the meko ina makamu, the largest) in diameter. Figure 4. A set of suspended meko besik (source: Agastya Rama Listya 2015) The dimensions of the meko besik/li- lok are similar to those of the meko ai/o, as well as its playing technique. Following the H-S classification sys- tem, this metallophone (Table 2) falls into the idiophone category, more precisely, a set of percussion plaques (111.222). Table 2. The H-S classification number for the hanging meko besik/lilok The Dewey Decimal System Description 1 Idiophones 1 Struck Idiophones 1 Idiophones Struck Directly 2 Percussion Idio-phones 2 Percussion Plaques 2 Sets of Percussion Plaques Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022): 326-336330 The tuned knobbed metal gongs are similar to a Philippine gandingan, but the number of gong pieces. The gandingan comes with four pieces of gongs, whereas the meko besik has nine pieces of gongs. Both instruments are suspended vertical- ly on a solid wooden frame, tree trunks, or sometimes between two house posts using a cord. The largest three gongs (i.e., the meko ina makamu, meko ina taladak, and the meko ina tataik) and the medium (i.e., the meko nggasa laik and the meko nggasa daek) are usually suspended vertically on a frame or a cord (Figure 5). The rest of the gongs are held in the performers’ hands. Since the playing may take several hours, players prefer to sit while playing their instruments. Figure 5. A set of hanging meko besik (Source: Agastya Rama Listya) According to the H-S classification system, the tuned, knobbed metal gongs are registered under number 111.241.2 (sets of gongs [gong chimes]). Table 3. The H-S classification number for a set of hanging meko besik The Dewey Deci- mal System Description 1 Idiophones 1 Struck Idiophones 1 Idiophones Struck Directly 2 Percussion Idio-phones 4 Percussion Vessels 1 Gongs 2 Sets of Gongs The Labu Kici and the Tambur There are two kinds of stick percus- sion instruments acknowledged by the Rotenese to provide a rhythmic accom- paniment for meko and sasandu playing: 1) the labu kici (small labu) or the labu so’e (see Figure 6); and 2) the tambur or the labu (see Figure 7). The labu kici is usually to accom- pany sasandu playing, while the latter is used to accompany meko playing. Figure 6. A labu kici (illustration: Galih Aulia 2018) Figure 7. A tambur (source: Agastya Rama Listya 2015) The labu kici is a coconut-shell drum played with two wooden sticks called labu aik. The labu kici ranges from about 20 to 25 centimeters, while the labu aik is about 1,5 centimeters with 25 centimeters in length. In the past, labu’s drumhead (bamba bau ro) was made of bat skin and later has been replaced by goatskin (bamba bau bibi- ru)(Mooy, 2015). The drumhead of the labu kici is stretched on leather strings, which can be adjusted to change the pitch. The labu kici is held between the knees when played. The rhythms played on the labu kici Agastya Rama Listya, The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the 331 are similar to those played on the tambur. According to the H-S classification system, the labu kici is categorized as a di- rectly-struck single-headed drum in which the drum’s body is bowl-shaped (211.11). Table 4. The H-S classification number for the labu kici The Dewey Deci- mal System Description 2 Membraphones 1 Struck Membra-phones 1 Directly Struck Membraphones 1 The Body of the Drum is Bowl- Shaped 1 Single Instruments The tambur is a single-headed, long cylindrical drum played with a pair of wooden sticks similar to that of the labu kici. The tambur body was initially made of hollow coconut tree trunks approximately forty to fifty centimeters high. In recent de- cades, fishing net floats have supplanted the coconut tree trunks. Recently, two- legged musical instrument stands made of metal have been installed on the body of the tambur. The drumhead uses the skin of a baby water buffalo, pony, pig, or deer (Mesah, 2015). Doeskin is preferred over other skins because of its thickness and durability (cf. Haning & Adu, 2009; Lido, 2015; Tuy, 2015). The diameter of the tam- bur ranges from about twenty to thirty cen- timeters. Similar to the playing of the labu kici, the tambur is held between the player’s knees and always played in a sitting posi- tion. According to the H-S classification system, the tambur is classified as an indi- vidual single-skin cylindrical drum under number 211.211.1. Table 5. The H-S classification number for the tambur/la’bu so’e The Dewey Deci- mal System Description 2 Membraphones 1 Struck Drums 1 Drums Struck Directly 2 Tubular Drums 1 Cylindrical Drums 1 Single-Skin Cylin-drical Drums 1 Open Cylindrical Drums The Bitala or the Kringtingan The bitala or the kringtingan are a pair of small bossed, crash cymbals ranging from about 5 to 7 centimeters in diameter (see Figure 8). This instrument is made of iron and is considered a non-pitched per- cussion. Each cymbal comes with a fin- ger strap, which is grasped between the player’s thumb and first finger. The use of the bitala in meko playing is optional. If played, the bitala’s rhythm usually follows the rhythm of the tambur. Figure 8. A bitala/kringtingan (source: Agastya Rama Listya 2015) Based on the H-S classification sys- tem, the bitala falls under the subcatego- ry of vessel clappers with everted rims (111.142). Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022): 326-336332 Table 6. The H-S classification number for the bitala/kringtingan The Dewey Decimal System Description 1 Idiophones 1 Struck Idiophones 1 Idiophones Struck Directly 1 Concussion Idio-phones or Clappers 4 Concussion Vessels or Vessel Clappers 2 Cymbals The Sasandu ‘Sandu’ or ‘sanu’ means ‘to vibrate.’ The sasandu or the sandu is a short form of the sandu-sandu or the sanu-sanu, mea- ning ‘to vibrate repeatedly.’ The sasandu used to be called ‘depo hitu’ (seven strings). This name appears in a poetic saying: “Sari Sandu la dei depo hitu la dei” (to vibrate the instrument’s strings by scrubbing the fin- gers and picking the seven-stringed instru- ment by pressing the fingers on the strings (Haning & Adu, 2009, p. 14). The sasandu is a Rotenese tube zither with a resonator made of lontar (Boraissus sundaicus) or palmyra palm leaves (haik). Its tube (aon, sandu milak) is made of a hol- low piece of bamboo with a half-round lid or head called langga and a foot called mea or sandu iko (the tail). The sasandu ranges from about 6 to 8 centimeters in diameter and 45 to 60 centimeters in height. Both the langga and the mea are made of wood. The sasandu’s strings are stretched from the tuning pegs (aidipo, ndikodon) on the langga to the nails on the mea. Once the aidipo was made of wood but later was replaced by metal sc- rews. Each stretched string is supported by a movable wooden bridge (senda) pla- ced on the surface of the aon. If the sasan- du player desires to tune the pitch slight- ly higher or lower, the senda can serve as another tuner. Adding a unique resonator known as haik distinguishes the sasandu from its counterparts (e.g., the Malagasy valiha, the Cambodian kong rla or the Philippine koli- tong). Formerly, the sasandu strings were made of the roots of the banyan tree (Ficus benjamina), but later were replaced by civet cat stomach (Haning & Adu, 2009, p. 11; Kartomi, 2001, p. 54). Recently, motorcycle coupling wire strands and metal guitar strings have become the most widely used materials for the sasandu strings because of their availability on the island. There are two kinds of sasandus: 1) traditional (see Figure 9); and 2) modern (see Figure 10). The traditional sasandu, known as the sasandu gong, is typically a solo instrument that accompanies Rotene- se traditional songs (the sodak), e.g., Mai Fali E, Mana Lolo Banda, and Ofa Langga. As a pentatonic instrument, the tuning of the traditional sasandu follows the tuning of the meko’s scale, i.e., E3 (the meko ina makamu)-G3 (the meko ina taladak)-A3 (the meko ina tataik)-C4 (the meko nggasa lai)-D4 (the meko nggasa dae)-E4 (the meko leko)-G4 (the meko paiseli)-A4 (the meko paimali)-C5 (the meko ana). Figure 9. A sasandu gong (source: Agastya Rama Listya 2015) Figure 10 A sasandu biola (source: Agastya Rama Listya 2015) Agastya Rama Listya, The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the 333 The modern sasandu comes with two names, i.e., sasandu biola (popular among the Rotenese of the island) and sasando (known among those who live in Ku- pang, West Timor). The term ‘biola’ (violin) denotes that the instrument is tuned accor- ding to the Western diatonic system. The sasandu biola’s strings may vary in number from 22 to 40. The number of strings is closely related to the number of notes altered. In other words, the more the number of strings, the more the number of notes altered. The 22-stringed sasandu consists of G3–C4–D4–E4–F4–G4–A4–B4–C5–D5–E5– F5–F#5–G5–A5–B5–C6–D6–E6–F6–G6– A6. F#5 becomes the only note altered by an accidental one. The 28-stringed sasandu biola compri- ses G3–C4–D4–E4–F4–G4–A4–B4–C5–D5– E5–F5–G5–A5–Bb5–B5–C6–D6–E6–F6– F#6–G6–A6–Bb6–B6–C7–D7–E7. Here we can see three notes altered by accidentals, i.e., Bb5, F#6, and Bb6. The 32-stringed sasandu biola is com- posed of: G3–C4–D4–E4–F4–G4–A4–B4– C5–D5–E5–F5–F#5–G5–G#5–A5–Bb5– B 5 – C 6 – C # 6 – D 6 – E 6 – F 6 – F # 6 – G 6 – G # 6 A6–Bb6–C7–D7–E7. In the 32-stringed sasandu biola, four more notes are altered than the 28-stringed, i.e., F#5, G#5, Bb5, C#6, F#6, G#6, and Bb6. In the modern sasandu, a neck strap made of lontar or, more recently, cloth or nylon has been added to help the player control the movement of the instrument. One end of the strap goes around the player’s neck, while the other is attached to the langga. Using a solid metal stand for the instrument has enabled the performer to be less encumbered, and the amplificati- on has enabled the music to be heard more clearly when played outdoor. The strings are plucked using the player’s hands. These two hands play si- multaneously with the same intensity and degree of difficulty. The right hand—usu- ally plays the bass and chords—covers the lower notes, while the left hand usu- ally plays the main melody. In the sasandu gong, the right-hand plays the first half of the scale starting from the bottom to the top (i.e., E3-G3-A3-C4-D4-E5), and the left- hand plays the rest of the scale, moving from the top down to the bottom (i.e., E4- G4-A4-C5-D5-E5). Thus, the notes are ar- ranged in circular order, starting from the bottom right of the circle, and proceeding counterclockwise (see Figure 11). This ar- rangement reminds us of the kora, a West African harp lute. Figure 11. The pitching order of the sasandu gong In contrast, the left hand of the sasan- du biola moves in two different directions. The first three notes (i.e., F5, G5, and A5) are played downward, while the rest of the notes (i.e., Bb5 to E7) are played in the op- posite direction (see Figure 12). Figure 12. The pitching order of the 28-stringed sasandu biola According to the H-S classification system, the sasandu falls in the chordopho- ne category (string instrument) and is subclassified as a heterochord tube zither with an attached resonator (haik). The sa- sandu is classified under number 312.122. The first three numbers refer to the sour- ce of the sound, the instrument type, and the strings’ arrangement. The last three numbers refer to the type of tube used, the Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022): 326-336334 strings played, and the use of an extra re- sonator. Table 7. The H-S classification number for the sasandu The Dewey Decimal System Description 3 Chordophones 1 Simple Chordo-phones or Zithers 2 Tube Zithers 1 Whole Tube Zithers 2 Heterochord Tube Zithers 2 With Extra Resona-tor CONCLUSION This classification is purely made to fill the gap, particularly in the absence of Rotenese traditional musical instruments. Besides, this proposed classification of mu- sical instruments will help the readers to understand how Rotenese traditional mu- sical instruments are classified according to the Western perspective. As this article only discusses the physical aspects and the way of playing of Rotenese traditional musical instruments, it opens an oppor- tunity for the future research to study on the social context of these instruments, or borrowing Jeremy Montagu’s (2003) term “ethno-organology”, meaning a study of musical instruments in connection with their cultural meaning in a researched community. According to the H-S classificati- on system of musical instrument, the se- ven existing Rotenese traditional musical instruments [i.e., meko ai/o, meko besik/lilok (xylophone and metallophone), the labu kici/so’e, the tambur/labu, the bitala, and the sasandu] can be classified as follows: 1) the wooden or bamboo xylophone consisting of nine tuned wooden or bamboo slabs is classified as a set of percussion sticks in a range of different pitches combined into one instrument under number 111.212; 2) the metallophone consisting of nine tune knobbed metal bars is classified as a set of percussion plaques of different pitches are combined to form a single instrument un- der number 111.222; 3) the hanging gongs consisting of nine tuned knobbed gong pieces is classified as a set of bossed gongs with metal circular discs under number 111.241.2); 4) the small crash cymbal is classified as vessel clappers with everted rims under number 111.142; 5) the small, single-headed and bowl-shaped drum is classified under number 211.11; 6) the long, single-headed and cylindrical drum is classified under number 211.211.1; and 7) the tube zither with an attached resona- tor made of palm leaf is classified as a hete- rochord tube zither with an extra resonator under number 312.122. This article does not cover the dis- cussion of the Rotenese classification sys- tem of musical instruments following the social-cultural meaning of Rotenese musi- cal instruments (i.e., the significance and function of Rotenese musical instruments). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to acknowled- ge those who have contributed to this re- search, primarily to the government of the Rote-Ndao regency and the author’s rese- arch participants involved in this research, i.e., Ibrahim Lido, Yusuf Mesah, Jonas Mooy, and Chornelis Thuy. Without their support, this research will not be possible. REFERENCES Baha, M. A., Murcahyanto, H., & Imtihan, Y. (2020). Organologi Selober pada Sanggar Selober Pejenengan Desa Pengadangan Pringgasela Lombok Timur. Tamumatra: Jurnal Seni Per- tunjukan, 2(2). Dournon, G. (1992). Organology. In H. My- ers (Ed.), The New Grove Handbooks in Music, Ethnomusicology: An Introduc- tion. Norton. Dräger, H. H. (1948). Prinzip einer Systema- tik der Musikinstrumente.-Kassel & Basel: Bärenreiter-Verl.(1948). 49 S. 8° Agastya Rama Listya, The Organology of Rotenese Musical Instruments According to the 335 (Issue 3). Bärenreiter. Hakim, U., Sari, A. M., & Hidayat, H. A. (2022). Serdam Sebagai Alat Musik Tiup Bambu Lampung Barat: Kajian Organologi. Jurnal Sendratasik, 11(3), 347–360. Haning, P. A., & Adu, A. A. (2009). Sasan- du: Alat Musik Tradisional Masyarakat Rote Ndao. CV Kairos. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). No Title (1st editio). Sage Publica- tions Inc. Hidayatullah, P. (2017). The dynamic phe- nomena of strékan music from colo- nial to contemporary era in Situbon- do. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education, 17(1), 1–12. Hood, M. (1971). The Ethnomusicologist. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Ilham, G. M., Ismunandar, I., & Silaban, C. Y. (2018). Studi Organologi Alat Musik Beruas di Kelurahan Siantan Tengah Kecamatan Pontianak Utara Kota Pontianak. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran Khatulistiwa, 8(3). Kartomi, M. (2001). The Classification of Musical Instruments: Changing Trends in Research from the Late Nineteenth Century, With Special Reference to the 1990s. Ethnomusicol- ogy, 45(2), 283–314. Knight, R. C. (2017). The Knight Revision of Hornbostel-Sachs: A New Look at Musi- cal Instrument Classification. Oberlin College . http://www2.oberlin.edu. ezproxy.otago.ac.nz/faculty/rk- night/Organology/KnightRev2015. pdf Lee, D. (2019). Hornbostel-Sachs classifica- tion of musical instruments. Knowl- edge Organization, 47(1), 72–91. Lido, I. (2015). Interview of Ibrahim Lido, in- terview by Agastya Rama Listya, June 18 (A. R. Listya (ed.)). Lysloff, R. T. A., & Matson, J. (1985). A New Approach to the Classification of Sound-Producing Instruments. Ethnomusicology, 213–236. Maulana, I., Budiwati, D. S., & Karwati, U. (2022). Kajian Organologi Alat Musik Tradisional Canang Ceureukeh. SI- WAYANG Journal: Publikasi Ilmiah Bidang Pariwisata, Kebudayaan, Dan Antropologi, 1(4), 163–178. Mesah, Y. (2015). Interview of Yusuf Me- sah, interview by Agastya Rama Listya, March 21 (A. R. Listya (ed.)). Montagu, J. (2003). Organology Again: This Time, Ethno-Organology. His- toric Brass Society Journal, 15, 1–5. Mooy, J. (2015). Interview of Jonas Mooy, in- terview by Agastya Rama Listya, March 12 (A. R. Listya (ed.)). Orwa, Mutua, A., R., K., R., J., & Antho- ny, S. (2009). Agroforestree Database: A Tree Reference and Selection Guide Version 4.0 . http://www.worldag- roforestry.org/treedb/AFTPDFS/ Vitex_parviflora.PDF Pala, F. X., Samino, S. R. I., & Dopo, F. (2022). Kajian Organologi Alat Musik Ga’a Li di Sanggar Muri Masa Keca- matan Aimere Kabupaten Ngada. Jurnal Citra Pendidikan, 2(2), 421–435. Reinhard, K. (1960). Beitrag zu einer neuen Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Die Musikforschung, 160–164. Rote-Ndao, B. P. S. K. (2017). Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Rote-Ndao. Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Rote-Nd- ao. https://rotendaokab.bps.go.id/ index.php Sakurai, T. (1980). Gakki Bunrui-ho Saiko (An Outline of New Systematic Clas- sification of Musical Instruments). Ongakugaku, 25(1), 11–21. Sejati, I. R. H. (2012). Biola dalam seni per- tunjukan Gandrung Banyuwangi. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education, 12(1). Setiawan, S., & Setyoko, A. (2022). Organ- ologi dan Bunyi Kendang Jawa. Jur- nal Mebang, 2(2), 75–90. Siwe, A. I., Dopo, F., & Dopo, F. B. (2022). Kajian Organologi dan Teknik Me- mainkan Alat Musik Tradisional Foi Doa di Sanggar Persadam Keca- matan Golewa Kabupaten Ngada. Jurnal Citra Pendidikan, 2(2), 373–387. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observa- tion. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Col- lege Publishers. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 22 (2) (2022): 326-336336 Suharto, S., & Aesijah, S. (2014). The Lesung Music in the Village of Ledok Blora Regency. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education, 14(1), 65–71. Tuy, C. (2015). Interview of Chornelis Tuy, interview by Agastya Rama Listya, June 10 (A. R. Listya (ed.)). von Hornbostel, E. M., & Sachs, C. (1961). Classification of Musical Instru- ments: Translated from the Origi- nal German by Anthony Baines and Klaus P. Wachsmann. The Galpin So- ciety Journal, 3–29.