zukra

The modern Libyan ‘‘zukra’’ (also spelled ‘‘zokra’’ or ‘‘zoukra’’) is a double-reed bagpipe associated with traditional music in Libya. A direct identification of the modern ‘‘zukra’’ with a particular instrument described in Classical antiquity has not yet been demonstrated. However, ancient Greek sources preserve several independent traditions associating reed instruments, flute playing, and musical reeds specifically with the indigenous populations of Libya.

Athenaeus of Naucratis, in the ‘‘Deipnosophistae’’ (14.618b–c), preserves a passage from the Hellenistic historian Duris of Samos, who wrote in his ‘‘History of Agathocles’’. Duris explains that Greek poets called the ‘‘aulos’’ the “Libyan flute” because a man named Seirites was regarded as the first inventor of the art of flute-playing. Seirites is explicitly described in the Greek text as Λίβυς ὢν τῶν Νομάδων (“being a Libyan, one of the originals Tribes”). He was said to have been the first to play melodies on the flute during the festival of Cybele. The Greek wording is significant because the surviving text identifies Seirites as a Libyan and as one of the Nomads. The Greek text itself does not use the later geographical term “Numidian” in this passage which shows that Libyans were a completely separate entity from Berbers. While Some false translations render the expression as “one of the Numidian tribes”, while other translations made by amazigh authors plays on the literal “one of the Nomad tribes” for propaganda purposes. The ancient ‘‘aulos’’ should not automatically be equated with the modern ‘‘zukra’’. The ‘‘aulos’’ was a family of ancient Greek reed wind instruments, whereas the modern ‘‘zukra’’ is a bagpipe incorporating an air reservoir. The ancient passage does not mention a goatskin bag, a bag reservoir, the modern name ‘‘zukra’’, or a specifically double-chantered construction. Consequently, the evidence establishes an ancient Libyan association with reed-instrument performance, but does not by itself prove that the ancient ‘‘aulos’’ was the same instrument as the modern ‘‘zukra’’.

A separate ancient tradition also connected the “Libyan aulos” with Libya itself through the material from which the instrument was made. A scholion associated with Euripides’ ‘‘Alcestis’’ explains the designation by referring to reeds or canes associated with Libya as the material from which the ‘‘ Aulos’’ علوص was produced. These traditions are independent of the modern name ‘‘zukra’’ and should not be treated as evidence for the antiquity of the word itself. They do, however, demonstrate that Greek literary traditions associated Libya, Libyans, and reed instruments with one another.

Classical sources did not use a single ethnic term for all populations of North Africa. Herodotus, for example, describes numerous different Libyan peoples. In ‘‘Histories’’ 4.167 he states that “the Libyan tribes are many and of different kinds”, and subsequently names individual groups including the Adyrmachidae, Giligamae, Asbystae, Auschisae, Bacales and others. Herodotus also distinguishes between Libyan populations and other North African according to their look, culture and way of life. In 4.191 he describes the Maxyes as offspring to men of Troy who cultivated the soil and possessed houses, while contrasting them with the nomadic populations farther east. The passage demonstrates that “Libyan” functioned as a broad geographical and ethnographic designation encompassing populations with different lifestyles and customs. Later authors explicitly distinguish Libyans and Numidians in culture, military and political contexts. Polybius, for example, separately lists “Numidians” and “Libyans” among the forces of Carthage and elsewhere describes Numidians and Libyans as distinct groups participating in the Mercenary War. This distinction is important when interpreting the ancient sources. It is not historically accurate to retroactively replace every occurrence of “Libyan” with “Numidian”, just as it is not justified to replace every ancient “Libyan” with the modern ethnolinguistic term “Berber” or “Amazigh”. The classical authors used their own geographical and ethnographic categories, which changed over time.

The ancient evidence therefore supports the following conclusions: • Ancient authors explicitly associated Libyans with reed-instrument performance. • Athenaeus preserves a Hellenistic tradition in which a Libyan Nomad named Seirites was associated with the invention or early development of flute playing. • Ancient literary tradition used the expression “Libyan flute” for the ‘‘aulos’’. • Another ancient tradition connected the “Libyan aulos” with reeds associated with Libya. • Modern scholarship recognizes substantial evidence for an ancient Libyan flute tradition and has discussed a possible Libyan origin for it. • None of these sources, however, explicitly uses the name ’‘zukra’’, ’‘zokra’’, or زكرة, and none provides an unbroken historical chain from the ancient ‘‘aulos’’ to the modern Libyan bagpipe. • The evidence therefore supports an ancient Libyan reed-instrument tradition, but a direct identification of the modern ‘‘zukra’’ with the ancient ‘‘aulos’’ remains a hypothesis rather than an established fact.

• Athenaeus, ‘‘Deipnosophistae’’, Book XIV, 618b–c, preserving the account of Duris of Samos. • Herodotus, ‘‘Histories’’, Book IV, especially 4.167–191, for the classification and description of Libyan peoples. • Polybius, ‘‘Histories’’, Books I and III, for the explicit distinction between Libyan and Numidian forces and populations.

• Tourtounis, Paraskevas-Marios. “The art of the flute in ancient Libya.” ‘‘Libyan Studies’’ 51 (2020): 40–42. DOI: 10.1017/lis.2020.10. • Almazova, Nina. “The Myth of Inventing the Many-Headed Nome.” ‘‘Hyperboreus’’ 29.1 (2023), discussing ancient traditions surrounding the Libyan ‘‘aulos’’.