Santoor or Santur? Which is which?

[Dick Glasgow]

Santoor or Santur?



So which is which & where are they from?

Well Wikipedia has this to say about the Santoor & the Santur:

The santur is a Persian hammered dulcimer similar to the Indian santoor.
The santoor is a trapezoid-shaped hammered dulcimer often made of walnut, with seventy strings.
The special-shaped mallets (mezrab) are lightweight and are held between the index and middle fingers.
A typical santoor has two sets of bridges, providing a range of three octaves.
The santoor is a hammered dulcimer, derived from the Persian santur (which is believed to be the first instrument of its type), and related to similar instruments in Iraq, Pakistan, India, Armenia, Turkey, and other parts of Asia.
It is related to the shata-tantri veena of earlier times.
The Kashmiri santoor is more rectangular and can have more strings than the original Persian counterpart, which generally has 72 strings.

Wikipedia - Santoor

Many instruments around the world at least in part derive from the santur.
Similar forms of the santur have been present in neighboring cultures like Armenia and Turkey for centuries.
The Indian santoor is thicker, more rectangular, and can have more strings.
Its corresponding mallets are also held differently.

Wikipedia - Santur

Meanwhile, on another site they say this:

Santoor is a stringed instrument, originally known as 'Shata-tantri-veena', or 'hundred stringed lute'.

For ages it has been used in the valley of Kashmir as a folk instrument.

Santoor is played with a pair of curved mallets fashioned out of walnut wood and the resultant melodies are reminiscent of the music on the piano, harp or the harpsichord.

Earlier it was not accepted as a complete classical instrument.

But Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma-the renowned Santoor player-initiated and brought into use innovative structural changes that have given the Santoor a much wider range of expressiveness and appeal, and it is now accepted as a classical instrument in its own right.

Santoor - Music of India

So, it looks like they call it a Santur in the Middle East & a Santoor in India!

But is it as simple as that?

If you think so, you might like to check out this Chiff & Fipple discussion I had on the subject:

Chiff & Fipple Santoor/Santur discussion

[ceadach]

Hey Ptar,
You are right, it isn't as simple as it appears!

With all due respect to the valuble research into the origins and history of this instrument by people far more learned than I, I'm tempted to believe the truth of the history of the dulcimer, (or any past human endeavor really) is more complex than we will ever know.

Questions about the history of the santoor/santur came up when I was studying Indian santoor back at University and brings up a bone I have to pick with western ethnomusicology.

First my teacher explained that Pt. ShivKumar Sharmaji's father, Pt. Uma Dutt Sharmaji was totally convinced that he found solid evidence in the Rig Veda and other sacred texts for the existence of an early version of the dulcimer in ancient India. and That was good enough for many Indians.

A couple things to keep in mind; first there are many devout Hindus that still treat the Vedas literally, (i.e. just as many Christians treat still the Bible). A reference to an instrument in one of the Vedas, one matter how oblique, was too be taken very seriously. Regardless of what had really happened historically, there were going to be people who took this story from the Vedas as dogma.

Some western academics have been extremely insensitve to this facet of Indian culture, insisting on that the Indians need to come up with better documentation, regarding oral traditions as worthless or rejecting such ancient histories out of hand as myth.

Persian Classical musicians assume that the santur is so old that nearly any thing is possible to its origins. Some believe that either the Sufis invented it, that it and all instruments were given to humanity by Angels or spirits or the like. Like their Indian counterparts they a aren't overly fond of westerners telling them what their traditions are little more than fables.

Such attitudes are not only flawed but are in themselves contrary to the spirit of sound research. Joseph Campbell oft pointed out that in all mythology there are underlying truths. Scholars hotly debate events that happened mere decades ago that were amply documented! We should tread lightly in posiblily hollowed ground!

In practical musical matters the modern Hindustani santoor and the present day Persian santur are designed around very different ideas.

A great site on the Hindustani santoor is: www.santoor.com/#

Wikipedia has a nice article on the Persian Santur: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santur

Chad

[Dick Glasgow]

Aye Chad, I reckoned I was treading on eggshells with this topic, that's why I carefully simply quoted others & gave the links to their sites, knowing that they are obviously far more knowledgeable on the subject.

I read lots of things on the net, but take it all, especially when they're talking speculatively about historical matters, with a large doze of Salt.

The way I look at it, it doesn't really matter now, where these instruments actually started out, i.e. which countries craftsmen invented the first H-D. I have no doubt it was a very gradual process anyway, before we ended up with the wonderful instruments we now play, with no one person producing the finished article that we recognize today, from scratch.

I like to think that it is far more important to concentrate on the instruments as we find them today, to see & study which countrie's people adopted them & took them to their hearts & helped preserve them for us to enjoy, today.

For example, I think it's fairly safe to say that Harps probably started out in Africa, but there is no denying that the Irish have nurtured & treasured these instruments. In any case, the instruments the Irish play today are very, very different from the old C Harps of the African continent, so those folks who over the years constantly developed & improved the instruments deserve as much & perhaps even more credit, than the original maker of the very first bow to be twanged! So surely is it likewise with the Dulcimer?

It's all about as daft as trying to speculate as to which instrument is better? or which music is more wonderful?

You would laugh if you heard some of the many farcical notions on the history of this place & its people, that are banded around Ulster as truths today!

Believe me, I won't have a sleepless night knowing that the folks in India believe that the Santoor came first, while the folks in Iran believe that the Santur came first.
What's really important is the wonderful instruments that have been produced in both countries & the beautiful music each country has produced. I'll leave the historians to waste a lot of hot air as they argue, pontificate & quite frankly guess away to their little hearts content!

Good Links Chad, I already have them here, somewhere ...

Cheers
Dick

[ceadach]

No worries Ptar! No eggshells broken....You actually more directly put what I getting at. It is important to know how others feel in addition to the history one can document of a place.

As one fiddler said in defence of the dulcimer " what does it matter where it came from if you can play the tunes on it!" For example, no one cares that the modern violin probably originated in Italy!

One of the things I like about David Kettlewell's research in particular, is a while he presents hard factual material he does speak of the folklore in far more respectful tone than many other writers. He carefully touches on the dangers of folklore too, that it can mislead one from reality. Moreover, one can tell that David truly loves the instrument and doesn't have any other agenda than celebrating the dulcimer!!!

[Dick Glasgow]

Aye, who knows where the Violin started out, but I do think it is important to recognise that the Italian makers perfected the modern instrument, so they deserve much credit for that.

I would agree too that the Folklore which surrounds an instrument must surely be part of its history. The Folklore itself does exist, but whether it is fact or fiction is of course another matter, but it does often add much colour to an instruments pedigree & as we all know, most of us tradies are suckers for a bit of good Folklore!
What is it they say .. "Never let the truth get in the way of a godd story"! ;D

I must say I like that expresion you used "celebrating the Dulcimer".
I like to think that's what we're doing here, on this forum, too.

Cheers
Dick

[Dick Glasgow]

Here's a link to another interesting site { thanks talasiga } which looks at these instruments:

Santur

It says:

One must not confuse the Indian santur with the Persian santur.

The Indian santur is box-like while the Persian version is much wider.

Then goes on to say:

The origin of the instrument is clear.

The name, structure, and technique point solidly to the Middle East.
Yet, there are those who attempt to trace its origins to an ancient Indian harp like instrument known as "Vana Veena".
There is absolutely no evidence for this latter view.
If we are to accept this proposition, then how are we to explain its 2000 year disappearance, followed by a miraculous reappearance in a form and usage that, by mere coincidence, is similar to the middle eastern santur?
It is clear that attempts to link the santur with this Vedic instrument are mere wishful thinking.
There are many people who cannot accept the concept of something great developing outside of India.

Oh, if only there had been reliable witnesses around in those ancient times, like our modern day newspaper writers, to tell us the truth of the matter, eh?

[ceadach]

"I must say I like that expresion you used "celebrating the Dulcimer". I like to think that's what we're doing here, on this forum, too. "

Indeed it is!!!
Chad

[Dick Glasgow]

SANTOOR, SANTUR or SANTOUR?

OK Just in case anyone is wondering why I am a little confused, here are a few of the sites I have looked at on this subject:

Wikipeda says:

The santur is a Persian hammered dulcimer similar to the Indian santoor.
The santoor is a trapezoid-shaped hammered dulcimer often made of walnut, with seventy strings.
The special-shaped mallets (mezrab) are lightweight and are held between the index and middle fingers.
A typical santoor has two sets of bridges, providing a range of three octaves.
The santoor is a hammered dulcimer, derived from the Persian santur (which is believed to be the first instrument of its type), and related to similar instruments in Iraq, Pakistan, India, Armenia, Turkey, and other parts of Asia.
It is related to the shata-tantri veena of earlier times.
The Kashmiri santoor is more rectangular and can have more strings than the original Persian counterpart, which generally has 72 strings.

Wikipedia - Santoor

Wikipeda also says:

Many instruments around the world at least in part derive from the santur.
Similar forms of the santur have been present in neighboring cultures like Armenia and Turkey for centuries.
The Indian santoor is thicker, more rectangular, and can have more strings.
Its corresponding mallets are also held differently.

Wikipedia - Santur

Pars Bazar says:

“This Our regularly featured Santoor we have posted this santoor on international Auctions”

Pars Bazar

Nandkishor Muley in India says:

acoustic santur, the exquisite hammer dulcimer of South Asia”

This beauty has a name: the Santur, an 87- to 100-stringed hammered dulcimer, plays all three requirements of India's classical tradition: drone, rhythm and melody.

An ancestor of the Mesopotamian Psantir, the Santur came to India via trade routes.

Played in temple and during ceremony, both traditionally and by the religious sects of Sufis and Sadhus, the Santur has gained immense popularity

Nandkishor Muley

Pandit Shivkumar Sharma's Santoor Site says:

Santoor is a Persian word , and it means a hundred strains.

Popular by the similar name Santour in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, it is a 72 stringed instrument.

Although the santoor was a part of the classical music repertoire in Persia and Arabia, in India it was only heard in the hills and valleys of Kashmir.

Conventional wisdom says that the santour is the dulcimer's ancestor, opinions might vary on this issue.
The word "santour" is very old, deriving from the Aramaic "psantrin" (and Greek "psalterion"), but what exactly that instrument was is a good question.

The earliest Persian miniatures (16th century A.D.) show a plucked instrument.
By the 17th century, however, the modern santur was in use as a court instrument in Turkey, Iran, and presumably Iraq.

Somehow the old santour disappeared in Turkey, to be replaced by the newer type with fixed bridges.

Pandit Shivkumar Sharma

Chandra & David's site says:

Santur is an instrument indigenous to Kashmir, but nowadays played throughout the North.

“One must not confuse the Indian santur with the Persian santur.”

Chandra & David

IndoBase: Music of India says:

The santoor is a trapezoid-shaped musical instrument.

Santoor is usually made of walnut, with numerous strings and is said to be related to the shata-tantri veena of earlier times.

Chandra & David

Art Asia says:

The santoor is an instrument with approximately 100 strings which originated in the Himalayan Valley of Kashmir. Originally known as the Shata Tantri Veena (Sanskrit for one hundred strings)

Art Asia

Masters of the Persian Santoor.

This page advertises three CDs which are called the “MASTERS OF THE PERSIAN SANTOOR”.

3 Persian Santoor CDs

This last site refers to all three names & appears to have it just about right, when it says:

The term Santour has been recorded by different spellings in various sources such as Sontour, or Santir (Arabic) or Santour. In fact this is a peaceful and soothing word and was employed by the Jewish tribe also. In the beginning of the middle ages the Santour became popular and was renamed according to the tribal and linguistic behaviors. As of 1400 A.D. Santour was christened dulcimer (or dalcimer) in the English literature.

Santoor

[Dick Glasgow]

Well, I'm a bit further forward tonight because I was very fortunate to receive an E-mail from that great authority on the Hammered Dulcimer, Paul Gifford, in which he says the following:

It's all the same word. It's just that the Indians like to write "oo"
instead of "u." In Iran, they write it in their alphabet, of course,
but in India, a lot write in our alphabet and use "oo."

Thanks Paul.

So it looks like, although it is the same word "oo" tends to be used more often in India while in Iran "u" is used more often. So I'm not too far wrong when using those two spellings to distinguish between the instruments, on this site.

Obviously the instruments look the same, but just as the Fiddle looks the same in Scotland & in Ireland but the music is very different, so the music of Iran & India is very different too!

With any luck, we might be lucky enough, at some stage, to have a Santoor &/or a Santur player get actively involved in this site & explain how the music differs - fingers crossed!

Cheers
Dick

[Dick Glasgow]

Our good MySpace friend Najmah had this to say on the subject of what to call an Indian or an Iranian Santoor/Santur:

Mine is a trapezoid with 18 bridges and 72 strings, and the word is still a transliteration from another alphabet no matter how they spell it in latin letters in various parts of the world.
Najmah

So there you have it.

A lot of fuss about nothing I hear some of you say!

Yes I know, sorry folks, I'm a bit like a Terrier once I get my teeth into a subject, but I felt it necessary, for the sake of this forum, that I check out this apparent anomaly, in order that I might better understand why there appeared to be some confusion when it came to naming these Hammered Dulcimers in different countries, on the various websites some of the readers might visit, if they followed the links I had posted here.

One last thought. If you are interested in the linguistic aspects of this, you might like to read what a member ( Talagasi) of the Chiff & Fipple Forum wrote in answer to my questions on this:

Yes, do you really think that Farsi, Turkish, Hindi, Punjabi etc are written in English Roman script (alphabet)? In the script used in each of these languages, the word is consistently written one way. The difficulty occurs in transcribing from how it is written in the languages' script to writing it in a script (the Roman script) used in English or in the Franco Roman script.

This is because the Roman script is NOT a universally phonetic script and graphemes (letters) have different phonemic (sound) values depending on which language it is being used for. For example, look at the application of 'j' in the various languages.

I don't know about Farsi and Turkish but I do know Hindi (my mother tongue) and that language, like Sanskrit, its mother, uses the Devanagiri script. The script for Hindi has 51 specific letters in its alphabet, EACH one exclusively for one of the 51 spounds used in the language.

Also, in HIndi, you don't get a situation like you do in English, where one letter can stand for more than one sound. Typical example: the "u' in put compared with must, nuclear, pruning etc

So what happens when you transcribe from a foreign language script to English Roman script is that you have so many choices as to how you can do that because in English
*different letters and groups of letters can represent the SAME sound
*the same letter or the same group of letters can represent DIFFERENT sounds.

So when a South Asian transcriber or a Westerner (familiar with the indic)
writes the second syllable of the instrument in question as "toor", he or she means to represent the vowel in it that is like the vowel in "room"
which is the same as first vowel in "pruning". This means that the transcriber may choose to write that syllable as "tur" just as well. That is not then meant to be taken as the "u" in "must". Now if you look at the Devanagari, it has a specific letter for the "oo" sound as in room. So these ambiguities do not arise in it.

After all this, I think perhaps Najmah had the best idea of the lot, when, in her last E-mail to me, she wrote:

Well, what do I know. I just play it.

So to conclude, I'd just like to thanks everyone who has helped me try to solve this mystery & my sincere appologies to everyone who I have managed to annoy in the process