Kinyras: The Divine Lyre

  Franklin, John Curtis. 2016. Kinyras: The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies Series 70. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

3. The Knr

The Mesopotamian material, together with the Divine Kinnaru of Ugarit and further evidence from the Hurro-Hittite world, indicates that the divinization of instruments was one facet of an ‘international’ music culture operative in the BA Near East. Fortunately, the latter enormous subject need not be exhausted here. We may simply focus on the knr, for which there is relatively abundant textual evidence and associated iconography. To be sure, this multiform word/instrument does offer an instructive sample of a ‘global economy’ of music. But it is also the very soul of Kinnaru. So a detailed examination of the instrument’s geographical diffusion and cultural position, both practical and symbolic, will illuminate the larger environment from which, I shall argue, Kinyras sailed for Cyprus.

Jubal: Looking Back from Israel

The knr was long known best from Heb. kinnōr, the famous ‘harp’—actually lyre (see below)—of David, with more than forty occurrences in the canonical Old Testament, and many further mentions in the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Rabbinic literature. [1] The prestigious position which this suggests is paralleled by a wide range of performance contexts, often exalted: sacred psalms, royal praise poetry, triumphal processions and other revelry, musical exorcism, ecstatic prophecy, and even lyric plaints. [2]

franklin fig3

Figure 3. ‘Asiatic’ troupe with lyrist, tomb-painting, Beni-Hassan, Twelfth Dynasty, ca. 1900. Drawn from Shedid 1994 fig. 20.

Identifying the knr

The Bible’s memory of an ancient kinnōr is confirmed by relatively abundant lexical and iconographic evidence from the wider NE.

franklin fig4

Figure 4. Distribution map of Bronze Age lyres (after DCPIL). Individual images drawn by Bo Lawergren and numbered according to DCPIL figs. 1, 3–5, 8 (used with permission). Other drawings by Glynnis Fawkes are preceded by “Figure,” referring to their position in this book.

franklin fig5

Figure 5. Distribution map of Iron Age lyres (after DCPIL). Individual images drawn by Bo Lawergren and numbered according to DCPIL figs. 1, 3–5, 8 (used with permission).

Lawergren rightly noted that the earliest attestations of the word knr (see below) are roughly coterminous with the distribution of thin/small lyres. Linguistic and organological evidence thus unite for a secure identification of knr as ‘lyre.’

The Early Lexical Evidence

The foregoing survey outlines the main historical and cultural milieux to be examined. The relevant sources provide generous information about the musical and ritual contexts in which the knr was used, as well as its symbolic potency. It is a likely guess that the Divine Knr embodied this total environment, in various regional incarnations potentially coterminous with the instrument itself. This I believe is reflected in the multiformity of traditions connecting Kinyras with Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, and Cyprus. The BA especially will emerge as the time of the Divine Lyre’s greatest potency, thanks to the palace and temple systems that supported the divinization of instruments and other cultic tools.

The Problems of Stringing and Tuning

All in all, though the question is anything but irrelevant, we may remain agnostic as to the stringing of Jewish and other early lyres, since the knr’s attested performance contexts and related ideology are the more urgent evidence for understanding the Divine Kinnaru and Kinyras.

Limits of the Investigation

I hope that the present study will provide a useful foundation for the pursuit of all this further material.


[ back ] 1. Sendrey 1969:266–278; Sendrey 1974:169–172; Polin 1974:67–68; MGG 1:1516–1517 (Braun); MAIP:16–17.

[ back ] 2. For lyric lamentation, see Chapter 12.

[ back ] 3. Phoenician/Canaanite contexts: Isaiah 14:10–11 (Rephaim, see further p146–147), 23:15–16 and Ezekiel 26.13 (Tyre). Aramaean (Laban story): Gen. 25:20, 31:20, 27; cf. Polin 1974, 16–17. The precise relationship between the Biblical Aramaeans and their historical counterpart is somewhat cloudy. See the recent synthesis of Younger 2007. Aram, their eponymous ancestor in the Table of Nations, is an eighth-generation great uncle of Abraham: Gen. 10:22–31, 11:11–26.

[ back ] 4. Still useful is the discussion of Baethgen 1888:149–151; North 1964:378–383.

[ back ] 5. Gen. 4:19–22. For ‘ūghābh here see Cassuto 1961 1:236, cf. 235, suggesting a folk etymology connecting ‘Cain’ (Qayin), suffixed to the name of Tubal and referring originally to ‘smith’ (< qyn, ‘forge’; cf. YGC:41; North 1964:378), and qīnā (‘poetic composition’ > ‘dirge’); cf. Sellers 1941:40–41. Perhaps a similar association implicated qyn and kin nōr, contributing to the development of a musician-craftsman mytheme; for this wider Syro-Levantine pattern, along with symptomatic variants in the reception of Lamech’s family, see Chapter 18.

[ back ] 6. Cf. North 1964:380, who derives Jubal, Jabal, and Tubal alike from Heb. yabal, ‘bring in procession’, and notes the idea’s relevance to both psalmody and caravaneering.

[ back ] 7. See Newberry 1893:41–72, especially 69, and pl. XXX–XXXI; Shedid 1994:53–65 and fig. 20. Comparison with Jubal and Tubal: Albright 1956:98, 200n7; Ribichini 1981:51 (also noting Kinyras’ metallurgical connections); Bayer 1982:32; Staubli 1991:30–35 and fig. 15a; MAIP:77–79; Collon 2006:13.

[ back ] 8. In the words of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi (ca. 860–940 CE): SOM 1:9.

[ back ] 9. See p453–455.

[ back ] 10. See p446.

[ back ] 11. Cf. AOM:289 (Kraeling and Mowry); Cassuto 1961:235–236; PIW 2:80. This is also how Theodore Bar Koni (fl. ca. 800) understood the passage (Liber scholiorum, Mimrā 2.97: Hespel and Draguet 1981–1982 1:116), although his reference to troops of ‘Cainite’ musical exorcists may be based merely on deduction from e.g. 1 Samuel 10:5–6.

[ back ] 12. See with sources LJ 5:147–148n45; Utley 1941:422, 445 et passim; Patai 1964:305–307; Scholem 1974:322, 326, 357–358.

[ back ] 13. See further Chapters 7 and 11.

[ back ] 14. See inter al. Engel 1870; Guillemin and Duchesne 1935; Galpin 1936; HMI; Sachs 1943; Wegner 1950; Stauder 1957; Stauder 1961; Aign 1963; Stauder 1973; Rimmer 1969; Duchesne-Guillemin 1969; Schmidt-Colinet 1981; RlA 6:571–576 (Kilmer, *Leier A); Rashid 1995; AMEL; Braun 1997, with further literature; DCPIL; Duchesne-Guillemin 1999; Dumbrill 2000; MAIP. The quality of these works varies: some are inevitably dated, but even some recent works must be used with caution. Several excellent recent studies bring hope for the future: HKm; Shehata 2006b; Mirelman 2010; Mirelman 2014; Gabbay 2014; Heimpel 2014; PHG:84–154.

[ back ] 15. As named from the kind of wood typically used in its construction: Behn 1954:54; Brown 1981:401–402. As onomatopoeic: Kapera 1971:134.

[ back ] 16. For the organological distinction, see p3n14.

[ back ] 17. Krauss 1910–1912 3:85; Sellers 1941:36–37. The LXX’s alternative renderings ὄργανον and ψαλτήριον pose no problem, although the latter attests a distinction of performance technique, since ψάλλειν implies plucking strings with one’s fingers, rather than the πλῆκτρον of Greek tradition. But this was not absolute: see p58, 170, 540.

[ back ] 18. Suda, Hesykhios, Photios Lexicon, Anecdota Graeca (Bachmann 1828–1829) 1:278, Anecdota Graeca (Cramer 1839–1841) 4:36.20: κινύρα· ὄργανον μουσικόν, κιθάρα, vel sim.

[ back ] 19. Cf. Josephus’ portrait of Jewish Alexandrians as well integrated into the larger Hellenistic culture: Against Apion 2.38–42. For the intimate and productive adjacency of Jews and Hellenes in Palestine, see the illuminating discussions of Lieberman 1942; Bowersock 2000:159–174 (especially 165–172).

[ back ] 20. Its relevance to knr long recognized (e.g. Nougayrol 1968:59; Brown 1981:387), the iconographic evidence is most fully collected and analyzed by Lawergren 1993:67–71; AMEL; DCPIL; see also Vorreiter 1972/1973; Eichmann 2001.

[ back ] 21. DCPIL:51–57; MAIP:xxxii–xxxvi, 18. Representations of Mesopotamian-style upright harps from LBA Cyprus, Alalakh, Egypt, and the Hittite world are only exceptions proving the rule, being explicable in terms of elite displays of cosmopolitanism through imported status symbols: see p90–92, 392. I leave aside the controversial identification of the Megiddo etching (ca. 3300–3000) as a harp rather than early lyre: see e.g. DCPIL fig. 8a; MAIP:58–65, fig. II.6a–7b; SAM:152 no. 116.

[ back ] 22. DCPIL.

[ back ] 23. Numbering of individual images follows DCPIL, q.v. for further bibliography and information about each item, if not otherwise given here (also in AMEL). Those labeled “Figure” refer to the same numbered figure in this book.

[ back ] 24. DCPIL:57–59.

[ back ] 25. See p90.

[ back ] 26. DCPIL:43, 55–56. For the nēbel problem and sources, see Bayer 1968; cf. NG 3:528–529 (Braun); SAM:170. For a lyric identification, note especially Hesykhios s.v. νάβλα· εἶδος ὀργάνου μουσικοῦ. ἢ ψαλτήριον. ἢ κιθάρα. The status of the nbl at Ugarit has been uncertain (Sanmartín 1980:339; Caubet 1994:132; Koitabashi 1998:374; DUL s.v. nbl), but now probably does appear in the phrase “by the sound of the nbl” in the new Astarte song RIH 98/02 (describing praise of the goddess): see Pardee 2007:31–32; cf. Caubet 2014:176–177.

[ back ] 27. See p104–111.

[ back ] 28. Cf. DCPIL:43, “It is hardly a simple Mesopotamian derivative, nor is it uniquely Anatolian.”

[ back ] 29. DCPIL:43–45.

[ back ] 30. For this proposed revision, RlA 6:581 (Collon, *Leier B); DCPIL:47. Note especially an OAkk. cylinder seal which shows a smaller lyre of rather Syro-Levantine shape, adorned by the slightest of bull-heads: MgB 2/2:64 and fig. 43; SAM:68 no. 22; my Figure 4.1g.

[ back ] 31. For this view, once standard, see e.g. Hickmann 1961:32–35; MAIP:72–76.

[ back ] 32. See Figure 4.8a; for further references, p47n21.

[ back ] 33. One may compare the many subspecies of ‘guitar’ in modern times, noting of course that this word is itself, along with ‘zither’, ‘cithern’, etc., but a development of Greek κιθάρα.

[ back ] 34. Various subsets of the evidence to be considered here were assembled by Spycket 1972:190–191; RlA 6:572–574 (Kilmer, *Leier A); von Soden 1988; Tonietti 1988:119; AMEL:86–87; RlA 8:483 (Tonietti, *Musik A II); Koitabashi 1998:373–374; DCPIL:58–59; Ivanov 1999; MAIP:16–17; HKm:97–98.

[ back ] 35. Ebla Vocabulary §572: Pettinato 1982:264; cf. Fronzaroli 1980:37n6; Krebernik 1983:21; Fronzaroli 1984:141; RlA 6:573 (Kilmer, *Leier A); von Soden 1988; Conti 1990:160; Sanmartín 1991:190; RlA 8:482–483 (Tonietti, *Musik A II).

[ back ] 36. See Chapter 2, and Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” Section 1a and 4d.

[ back ] 37. Civil 2010:210 (Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary B2 = MS 2340+ 22:20’), cf. Civil 2008:99 (suggesting Umma as the tablet’s source); Michalowski 2010b:119–120, 122; Heimpel, “Balang-Gods,” 4c.

[ back ] 38. See generally Harris 1939:32–33; ICGSL:96–98 §12.71–72; Sivan 1984:124; SL:280 §33.16; cf. DCPIL:59 and 61n35.

[ back ] 39. CEWAL:229 (Huehnergard and Woods).

[ back ] 40. ICGSL:18 §6.2; Sivan 2001:12.

[ back ] 41. Mari: ki-in-na-ra-tim = kinnārātim (genitive plural), ARM 13 no. 20, lines 5, 7, 11, 16 (cf. p76). Emar: ki-in-na-ru: Arnaud 1987 no. 545, line 392’ (cf. p78). Alalakh: ki-in-na-ru-ḫu-li = kinnāruḫuli, AT 172.7 (cf. p98). For the Anastasi Papyrus, p106. Cf. Huehnergard 2008:138; van Soldt 1991:304.

[ back ] 42. Caubet 1987:733; von Soden 1988; Koitabashi 1998:373; DCPIL:47; Pentiuc 2001:98.

[ back ] 43. Diakonoff 1990:29; SL §4.2, 5.2. For Archi 2006:100–101, Eblaite and Akkadian represent two points in a ‘Northeast Semitic’ dialect continuum.

[ back ] 44. This seems to be the view of Archi 1987:9; cf. RlA 8:483 (Tonietti, *Musik A II); TR:311n119. Note that one does find Akk. and Ebl. cognates for ‘pipes’, respectively embūbu and na-bu-bù-um, presumably < P-S *nbb: Conti 1988:45–46 (Ebla Vocabulary §218); Catagnoti 1989:179n135; Conti 1990:99; RlA 8:482 (Tonietti, *Musik A II).

[ back ] 45. As a substrate or culture-word, cf. already Ellenbogen 1962:116–117 (writing without knowledge of the Eblaite example); Tischler et al. 1977:578 (rejecting an etymology via Sum. gišNAR, with determinative realized phonetically, i.e. gišnar > kinnārum).

[ back ] 46. For this issue, see further p78–79, 89–92, 99. ‘Zannāru’ is the convenient normalization adopted by Michalowski 2010b:122.

[ back ] 47. See p89–104.

[ back ] 48. The Masoretic pointing also indicates gemination of n by a diacritical dot (dagesh) within the nun.

[ back ] 49. See generally Harris 1939:43 §17; ICGSL:48–49, 51 (§8.74, 77, 83); Friedrich and Röllig 1970:§71; Sivan 1984:25–34; Garr 1985:30–32; SL:161–162 (§21.9, 12). For a possible ‘Phoenician Shift’ of ō > ū, see p273.

[ back ] 50. See e.g. Edwards 1979:94–98.

[ back ] 51. Of the examples given by Sivan 1984:25–34, EA 101.25, 114.13, 116.11, 138.6 are from Byblos.

[ back ] 52. An early second-millennium date, argued tentatively by Gelb 1961:44, and treated cautiously by Sivan 1984:34n1, is endorsed by SL:162 §21.12, noting the vocalization of ‘Anat’ as Ḫa-nu-ta (/‘Anōt/) in a theophoric name (versus Ḫa-na-at at Mari and A-na-tu/ti/te at Ugarit).

[ back ] 53. Tropper 1994, with review by Pardee 1997:375; Gordon 1997; Pardee 2008:5, 10. Some PNs and DNs attested at Ugarit which do show the ā > ō shift “reflect dialects other than that represented by the syllabic transcriptions of actual Ugaritic words”: Huehnergard 2008:257n188.

[ back ] 54. Both in the syllabic cuneiform of the Amarna letters (in which Akkadian was used for international correspondence, including with many Canaanite client-states) and the ‘syllabic orthography’ described below.

[ back ] 55. Papyrus Anastasi IV: Gardiner 1937:47–48 no. 18, line 12; Caminos 1954:187; Helck 1971:496; the scene is well interpreted by Teeter 1993:88–89. The vignette is reminiscent of a debauched scoundrel in a Sumerian morality tale: Roth 1983; RlA 8:469 (Kilmer *Musik A I).

[ back ] 56. Albright 1934, especially 12–13 §22–33 (quotation 1); the overall reliability of Albright’s method has been upheld by Helck 1989 (with intervening literature in 121n1).

[ back ] 57. Already Burchardt 1909–1910 2:51 sensibly adduced ‘Greek’ κιννύρα (sic) as the best parallel for this “Old Canaanite foreign-word.” The sign-group represented here as was used to transcribe //, //, and intermediate sounds: Albright 1934:6 (§10), 27n99. Hoch 1994:324n44 reasonably gives kinnōru. Albright 1964:171n47 vocalized as kennūra with reference to a Phoenician Shift of ō > ū (but see p273). Although the first syllable lacks phonetic complement, the general agreement of other forms urges ki-, ke-, or ke-. Thus Helck 1971:523 (no. 253) rendered as kin-nù-rú. Note that, while Sivan and Cochavi-Rainey 1992:9, 28 (followed by DUL:451) have ka-n-nù-rú, in the updated system of Helck 1989 most signs of the form C+a “can also stand for vowel-less consonants.” Earlier transcriptions which did not recognize the ‘syllabic orthography’ will also be found, perpetuated especially in musicological discussions; cf. DCPIL:61n33, with contribution of O. Goelet.

[ back ] 58. Van den Branden 1956:91–92, proposed reading ‘lyre-players’ (knrm) in a fourth-century Phoenician inscription from Kition (Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977 C1, at B7); cf. van den Branden 1968:31 no. 109; followed by Brown 1981:387n13. But this reading was disproven by reexamination of the stone: Peckham 1968:322n4; Masson and Sznycer 1972 ad loc.; Amadasi and Karageorghis 1977:123n3. For the inscription, see also p113. The sequence KNR occurs in several PNs on neo-Punic inscriptions, but these have been interpreted as Libyan/Numidian: see p452n60.

[ back ] 59. For the symposium bowls, see p258–272. The Canaanite/Phoenician dialects lost their final case-endings around the end of the second-millennium: see p197n56.

[ back ] 60. See p194–204.

[ back ] 61. See Chapters 19 and 20.

[ back ] 62. Owuor 1983:26–27, 31.

[ back ] 63. See now Hagel 2009.

[ back ] 64. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 7.306: ἡ μὲν κινύρα δέκα χορδαῖς ἐξημμένη τύπτεται πλήκτρῳ, ἡ δὲ νάβλα δώδεκα φθόγγους ἔχουσα τοῖς δακτύλοις κρούεται; varied slightly by Zonaras Epitome historiarum 1.116.3.

[ back ] 65. Note that in Ethiopic tradition it is the begena, a sacred lyre associated with David by tradition (see p62n101, 167), which has ten strings; by contrast the krar (< *kenar), used in profane contexts, typically (n.b.) has five or six. See Kebede 1977; MgB 1/10:64–65, 106–109.

[ back ] 66. 1 Samuel 16:23. This is also implied when the kinnōr is rendered as ψαλτήριον in the LXX; note especially Psalms 151:2 (LXX): αἱ χεῖρές μου ἐποίησαν ὄργανον, / οἱ δάκτυλοί μου ἥρμοσαν ψαλτήριον.

[ back ] 67. Psalms 144:9 and 33:2.

[ back ] 68. 1Q33 4:5; Vermes 2011:169.

[ back ] 69. ‘Arakin 13b = BT 16:73–74; also Midrash Rabbah Numbers, 15.11 (Freedman and Simon 1983 6:651); cf. LJ 6:262n81.

[ back ] 70. See e.g. AGM:63–64.

[ back ] 71. See recently the papers in Martinelli et al. 2009; for the astonishing complexity of Hellenistic art music, see now Hagel 2009, especially 256–285 for harmonic observations on the Hellenistic musical documents.

[ back ] 72. See p180–181.

[ back ] 73. See p40.

[ back ] 74. Michalowski 2010a.

[ back ] 75. See below and further p97.

[ back ] 76. Franklin forthcoming, revising Franklin 2002c.

[ back ] 77. For this idea and term, Franklin 2002b; Franklin 2002c:92, 111.

[ back ] 78. See p180–181 and Figure 14.

[ back ] 79. See p126 and Figure 11 = 4.1p.

[ back ] 80. See above.

[ back ] 81. I know of no single study devoted to this question, though much material and useful observations can be found in Schott 1934, 459–461 with references there; cf. Hickmann 1954a; AEMI:80, 107–109 s.v. Animals > heads, Decoration > heads, and Deities. I am grateful to A. von Lieven for initial discussion and references (Sept. 9, 2009).

[ back ] 82. Bayer 1982:31; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:210–248; DCPIL:55; CS 2 no. 47 with references; Dever 2005:160–167; MAIP:151–154; Burgh 2004:90–91.

[ back ] 83. See further HKm:73–74 and pl. 14 no. 45, with bibliography.

[ back ] 84. Coptic: Burchardt 1909–1910 2:51n1; Albright 1927; Albright 1934:47; AOM:273 (Farmer).

[ back ] 85. Syriac: SOM 2:389 (festive kennara in Isaac of Antioch, died ca. 460 CE); Brockelmann 1966:335; Hoch 1994:324; Köhler and Baumgartner 1994–2000:484; DUL s.v. knr.

[ back ] 86. Palmyrene: Levy 1864:105; Farmer 1928:516; Farmer 1929:5; AOM:425 (Farmer); SOM 1:155.

[ back ] 87. Mandaic: Nöldeke 1875:§104; Brown et al. 1962:490; Brown 1981:387n14.

[ back ] 88. Nabataean: the Persian Ibn Ḫurdāḏbih (died ca. 912), cited by al-Mas‘ûdî (died ca. 956), may have attributed the *kinnāra to the Nabataeans (which he says was played like a lute); but the text is corrupt: Farmer 1928:512, 515–516; MgB 3/2:24; cf. p543n32.

[ back ] 89. Pahlavi: AOM:425 (Farmer); SOM 1:155–6; Dahood 1966–1970:287; Ivanov 1999:587n15. Kennar was used of the Greek constellation Lyra in a lost Pahlavi translation of an astrological work known as the Liber de stellis beibeniis (its title in an eventual Latin version); this can be deduced from the ninth-century Arabic translation by Abū Ma‘shar, and another in Hebrew: see Bos et al. 2001:85 (Arabic), 118 and 125 (Hebrew). I thank A. Hicks for this reference.

[ back ] 90. Arabic: AOM:273 (Farmer); Brown et al. 1962:490; Hickmann 1970:63–64, noting oscillation between lute and drum (!); Hava 1964:667; Hoch 1994:324; Köhler and Baumgartner 1994–2000:484.

[ back ] 91. Armenian: Tischler et al. 1977:578 (as Hittite loanword); Ivanov 1999:587n15.

[ back ] 92. Ethiopic: krar, seemingly dissimilated from *kenar: Ivanov 1999:587 (cf. SL §17.6: in western Gurage dialects of Ethiopic “non-geminated n becomes r in non-initial position”).

[ back ] 93. Indic: Mayrhofer 1956–1976 1:209 (Sanskrit, Tamil; deriving Dravidian forms thence); AOM:224 (Bake); Tischler et al. 1977:577–578; Brown 1981:387n17. These are too early to be Arabic imports. The Kinnara gods of Hindu mythology (celestial musicians and choristers) should also be relevant: see e.g. Stutley and Stutley 1977, s.v. Kinnara(s); the interpretation as ‘what man?’ (kim + nar-) is a folk etymology (M. Schwartz, communication, April 17, 2014).

[ back ] 94. Ivanov 1999:587. Note the early (third/second-millennium) archaeological evidence for Caucasian lyre-culture: Kushnareva 2000:103–104, 107–109 pl. I.1, II.2, III.

[ back ] 95. For Ephraim, see for now Palmer 1993 (an excellent beginning). Bardaisan: Drijvers 1966; Ramelli 2009.

[ back ] 96. The “lyre of lust” (kinar šiha) is found in Ginzā yamīna 113:6, 187:18: Drower and Macuch 1963:214 s.v. kinar, kinara; Rudolf 1965:390 line 20. For the Egyptian evidence see further p105–111.

[ back ] 97. Farmer 1929:7 and n9; SOM 1:586.

[ back ] 98. See SOM 1:7–8 for further references, and 9–33 for the Unique Necklace of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi (ca. 860–940 CE), which responds to the controversy with a more moderate stance.

[ back ] 99. For the simsimiyyah and ṭambūrah, Shiloah 1972; Shiloah 1995:147, 162; Braune 1997:48–50, 138; L. A. Urkevich in GMO s.v. Saudi Arabia.

[ back ] 100. Kebede 1968; Jenkins 1969; MGG 5:1042–1046 (G. Kubik); Plumley 1976; Kebede 1977; MgB 1/10, 64–65, 106–109; Owuor 1983; U. Wegner in GMO s.v. Lyres. 3. Modern Africa, with further bibliography. See also p167, 456n81.

[ back ] 101. Mekouria 1994.