![\"Placeholder\"](\"http:\/\/www.gildedserpent.com\/art53\/graphics53\/zillsagat.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Have you ever picked up a set of Egyptian finger cymbals? They don\u2019t look or sound like the zills we play in the West, do they? They\u2019re bigger and heavier and don\u2019t ring as loud or for as long. And they only have one hole for elastic (instead of two slots) so you have to hold them differently – otherwise they wobble. But Egyptian finger cymbals, or sagat, are made that way for a reason \u2013 Middle Eastern audiences prefer the sound they make. They would much rather hear \u201cchink-chink\u201d and \u201cclack-clack\u201d than ringing in their ears. <\/p>\n
Nevertheless, many dancers outside the Middle East still think the only difference between zills and sagat is semantics \u2013 \u201ctwo words for the same instrument.\u201d If you\u2019ve played both – correctly – I doubt you would agree.<\/p>\n
So what exactly makes them different? The most obvious distinctions are tonal clarity and ring-times. Sagat only ring for a second or two (or clack like wooden castanets) while zills reverberate for four to eight seconds after they are struck. This is partly due to how thick their walls are and the way they are manufactured. Sagat are thicker because they are cast. Zills are hammered or stamped which makes them thinner. Zills are also tempered, a heating process that permits metal to vibrate longer. <\/p>\n
In a nutshell, zills weigh less and ring more than sagat.<\/p>\n
Sagat are also shaped differently than zills. They have relatively small domes and wide rims that clack when struck together. Zills have thin rims and high domes, along with two holes for threading elastic. This helps anchor them onto the fingers without touching them directly. Otherwise, they won\u2019t ring. This is not the case for sagat. Sagat make noise even when you hold them. This is important because their single-holed design is so unsteady that a special \u201cclam-shell\u201d grip was developed to control them. It entails keeping the thumb sagat stationary (by pushing them into the palms), while the finger sagat do the striking.<\/p>\n
So how far back do these differences go? Archeological evidence indicates that hand-held metal discs were played in the Middle East from 1500 BC onward, even though paired hand-held percussive instruments appeared much earlier. Wood and ivory clappers were found that date to Egypt\u2019s pre-dynastic era, circa 3300 BC. Compared to them, cymbals are a recent invention. And what was the shape of these early cymbals? They all had wide rims, one hole and relatively thick walls.<\/p>\n
During the Greek era (starting about 500 BC), bronze cymbals spread around the Mediterranean with the worship of Cybele and later Dionysus. By the Roman Empire cymbals had become commonplace; bronze was easier to obtain. The Empire shipped large quantities of northern tin south for smelting with copper from Turkey, Sinai and Cyprus. Cymbals uncovered from this period also resemble sagat. Only during the Middle Ages, with the increased use of brass (copper and zinc) over bronze, did cymbal design began to differentiate according to regional preferences – bell-like tones for the Greeks and Turks, while the Egyptians remained faithful to their ancient clacking sounds.<\/p>\n
There are advantages and disadvantages to each type. Certainly, zills are easier to control and are definitely louder. Sagat, on the other hand, change pitch. <\/p>\n