Part 30

On the frontier there were boundary marks, called _Arae Philaenorum_. The tradition about them was as follows:—Once the Cyreneans and Carthaginians being involved in a dispute about their frontiers, determined to send out men from the two extreme towns of their countries at the same moment, agreeing that the point of their meeting should be the frontier. This tradition is probably an invention, like so many other things which Sallust relates from Punic authorities. The SYRTES are generally described by the ancients, especially by the earlier Greeks, as one only. The Syrtis, they say, has tides, and is a bay full of sand-banks, which are sometimes sufficiently covered with water and sometimes rise above the water like lagoons. The existence of tides in the Mediterranean has, until recently, been denied, and all the statements of the ancients regarding them have been rejected, as in general ancient geography, about thirty or forty years ago, was treated with extreme recklessness. Tides do exist beyond all doubt, but they occur in a very irregular and unaccountable manner. They are very unequal: at Venice you may see it every day, and during a spring tide, the water rises as much as one foot and a half; it also exists in the Archipelago and in the Euripus near Chalcis, where it comes from the north, which has given rise to the story about the death of Aristotle.[76] It is said, that at Naples the tides are not perceptible, but that at Antium they are, especially when there is a spring tide. The peculiarity of the Syrtes, which the ancients asserted, and which moderns have denied, is that a current runs into the Syrtes and thus throws vessels on the sand-banks. This arises from the meetings of two currents, one of which comes from the Adriatic and the other from the Aegean; the one coming from the Euxine encounters that coming from the Ionian sea, and moves round in a curve, as in general all currents of the sea move in curves. We cannot wonder, therefore, that during a north-west wind, ships, sailing from Sicily to the Archipelago, were thrown into the Syrtes: the danger was, of course, much greater for the ancients than for us. The countries round the Syrtes are the most wretched and melancholy districts of all the inhabited parts of the earth; they are worse than the desert itself, except that water is not wanting for so long a period as in the desert. The caravans dig wells, but the water is bad.

The whole of the western part of the north coast of Africa, of which Carthage is the central point, was once under the dominion of Carthage, from the Syrtes to the straits of Gibraltar, though that dominion was not the same everywhere. The modern Algiers and Morocco contain no traces of Carthaginian colonies; there existed in those parts nothing but Carthaginian forts and factories for commercial purposes; but Tunis and Tripoli, that is, the whole coast from Hippo to Leptis, was covered with Punic towns. Some of them were more ancient than Carthage (which was for this reason called “New Town”); Utica, Hippo, Leptis, and perhaps also Hadrumetum, and others whose names can no longer be ascertained, were, like Gades, direct colonies of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia, and had been founded at the time when so many Phoenician settlements were formed on the coasts of Greece, in the islands of the Archipelago, and in Cyprus. It was during that period of the greatness of Phoenicia, which lies beyond our history, that numerous colonies were established on the coast of Africa. We do not know what circumstances directed the attention to those parts, for the Libyans were a great people. The nature of the country is very different in different parts: Tripoli (which is inhabitable from the head of the lesser to the greater Syrtis), is the foreland of the desert, while Tunis is much more fertile. Here the northern chain of mount Atlas terminates; and the western part of Tunis is a mountainous, beautiful, and fertile country. One range of the mountain extends as far as the sea, forming a hilly country, with the beautiful promontory and the bay of Carthage. The territory from this promontory as far as the Syrtes is, according to all descriptions, one of the most fertile countries, though the district in which Carthage was situated was less healthy and of a less agreeable climate. _Byzacene_, or the eastern coast of Tunis, on the other hand, is very healthy, and has no overpowering heat, except in rare cases when the poisonous wind blows from the desert this wind is much more frequent at Carthage and it neighbourhood.

This coast, then, was thickly studded with towns, the more ancient ones were Tyrian, and the more recent ones Carthaginian settlements. The inhabitants of the latter are called _Libyphoenices_, whence, from their very name, we cannot suppose that they were of pure Punic blood: they were Punians who had admitted Africans among them, and their language was a corrupt Punic. The Carthaginians were greatly inclined to mix with, and admit other tribes, which accounts for the fact of their language being so widely spread: all the civilisation adopted by the Africans was Punic. The Carthaginians had a peculiar Libyan alphabet, and when the writing of the Tuariks is once discovered, I hope the Carthaginian inscriptions also will be deciphered. Their literature, however, was Punic. The Romans gave the library of Carthage as a present to the kings of Numidia; that library contained the native historical records of Africa, from which such singular statements were extracted by Sallust in composing his Jugurtha, and the key to which must still be discovered: they did not contain real history, but we can see from them in what light those nations regarded their history.

The language of the original inhabitants of northern Africa was perhaps more widely spread than any other: this is the language of the Berbers, which was once spoken from the Canary islands in the west to the cataracts of the Nile, and in some parts it is spoken even at the present day. It is singular that the nation speaking that language embraced tribes of quite different physical characters, whites as well as blacks (though not negroes); the ancients, in fact, distinguish between Gaetulians and Melanogaetulians, though they regard them as one nation. Harsh rudeness was a generally prevailing characteristic of the nation, but in proportion to the extent of country occupied by it, it was not numerous; at present their descendants occur only in the oases of the desert, while formerly they extended from the Mediterranean to the banks of the Niger; on the coast they have nearly everywhere been displaced by the Arabs, who are still gaining ground, so that now they are found only in some parts of Algiers and Morocco. The Romans called them _Afri_, and the Greeks, Λίβυες; it has been supposed that the latter name is connected with that of Levante or Leguante. The name by which the nation designates itself, viz., Amazirgh, Mazirgh, or Mzirgh, is found, according to an observation of Castiglione, even in Herodotus, who speaks of Μάσυες; this is the correct form occurring in the MSS., instead of which the printed editions erroneously give Μάξυες. The name _Massaesyli_, which was given to the western Libyans between the lesser Syrtis and the Ocean, also is nothing but Mazirgh Shilha, for they also call themselves Shilhas. The eastern tribes are called _Massyli_, which is the same as Μάσυες, for the termination _yli_ seems to be the common Italian one, which we find in _Aequuli_ for _Aequi_. The Carthaginians probably called them by this name. The bilingual inscriptions, which exist in considerable numbers, would throw more light upon the language of those countries, if they were deciphered, and they may possibly contain the key by which the Punic inscriptions also are to be explained.

It is singular that the Romans called those nations _Numidae_, which is not a proper name, but a common noun. The Greek form was νομάδες, and from this the Romans made _Numidae_, a circumstance which shows to what extent Greek words were in common use among the Romans. Afterwards _Numida_ and _Numidia_ became names of the nation and the country, so that, no doubt, Masinissa called himself king of Numidia. These tribes extended from the boundary of the Carthaginian territory to the river Molochath (Mulucha), which still may be regarded as the frontier of Algiers. We must not, however, suppose that the country beyond that river was occupied by a different race, for it was only another tribe of the same stock. These latter were called _Mauri_ (Μαυροὶ, Blacks, in the Alexandrian dialect), a name which became as firmly established for the western tribes as Numidae was for the eastern ones. The country in the south, between Mount Atlas and the Sahara, as far as the Niger, was inhabited by the _Gaetuli_ and _Melanogaetuli_, the modern Tuariks. The Melanogaetuli were unquestionably of the same race as the Gaetuli, but had no doubt arisen from a mixture with the Aethiopians, who dwelt there. They were accordingly a dark mixed race like that at present in Darfoor. We do not know by what name they called themselves.

The _Garamantes_ are placed too far to the south-east in our maps; they were the inhabitants of the modern Fezzan, and the present town of Germa was their capital, where Roman inscriptions are still found among the ruins. The dominion of the Romans in those parts, about which nothing is said by ancient geographers, belongs to the second century, when they extended their power in different directions, for under Trajan they entered far into the interior of Arabia, and in Nubia they advanced as far as Dongola, the surrounding tribes being too weak to offer effectual resistance. The distance between Tripoli and Fezzan is about forty days’ journey. The town of _Augila_, mentioned by Herodotus, in the country of the Nasamones, is called to this day Audyeelah or Eudyeelah; the name of the Nasamones themselves has not yet been re-discovered. Count Castiglione has written a very beautiful essay on those countries in the form of an appendix to his work entitled “Les Monnaies des Arabes frappées en Afrique.”

Herodotus divides Africa into four parts, the agricultural, the mountainous, the country of beasts of prey, and the desert. Beyond the river, Nigritae also are mentioned, but we must not imagine that either this name or that of the river Niger has anything to do with _niger_, black; it is the Punic _nahar_ which signifies “a river,” and shows the intercourse of the Carthaginians with those countries. The same fact has also been confirmed by the discovery of balls and staves of glass of exquisite beauty in those parts. The art of treating glass in such a manner as to include in a white glass a number of flowers, balls, and other objects, without injuring the outlines, is assuredly of Phoenician origin, and at present quite unknown. Some specimens of such glass are found in Italy, where it was partly employed to ornament rooms, and quite a similar piece of glasswork has been discovered in the tomb of a negro king in Guinea, whither it had evidently been exported from Carthage. Such pieces are said to have been used as ornaments for victors, and there is even a tradition among the negroes, that these glass ornaments have from time immemorial belonged to their sceptres. Servius states, that the Romans gave to the chiefs of the Berbers ornamented sticks instead of sceptres; the same custom still exists, but the sticks are not adorned with silver.

The name _Marmarica_ is derived from _mar_, salt, with a reduplication very frequent in those languages.

Among all the settlements on that Coast, CARTHAGE is by far the most illustrious. The situation and greatness of the city are described in the later excerpts from Diodorus of Sicily, in Strabo, and in Appian’s Punica. One point, however, must not be lost sight of in these descriptions, viz., the ancients assume that Carthage covered the peninsula which was connected with the mainland by the isthmus, and that the isthmus was cut off by means of a wall. But the fact is, that the whole of the peninsula was not occupied by the city, which, in that case, would have been immensely large. M. Humbert, a Dutch lieutenant, who was long engaged in the service of the pasha of Tunis, and was a good observer, discovered during his excavations, some years ago, the ruins of ancient Carthage and the walls by which it was surrounded. He made an excellent ground plan of those remains, which, however, has never been published, but exists only in MS. According to this plan, the peninsula contained two towns, the ancient Punic Carthage on the south side, perhaps not occupying one-half of the peninsula, and Roman Carthage on the other side towards Rome, which had been built by J. Caesar: lying under the curse of Scipio, the site of the ancient city could not be occupied by a new town. The remains of Roman Carthage are far more numerous than those of the more ancient city; the little that is to be seen of the latter consists of gigantic works about the harbour (Cothon).

Ancient Carthage consisted of two parts, viz., the city called _Bozra_ (the Greeks call it Βύρσα), and the suburb _Megara_, the Punic name of which was probably Magal. The remaining part of the peninsula may have been included under this name. These suburban districts were protected against the attacks of the barbarous Libyans by walls across the isthmus.[77] We must not imagine that there was a separate acra besides Byrsa, the elevation of which is insignificant, only the point containing the temple of Aesculapius may perhaps be compared to a real acra. According to Timaeus, Carthage was built thirty-seven[78] years before the commencement of the Olympiads; this may be regarded as a settled date, as we see from the work of Josephus against Apion, for the Phoenician authorities, which he followed, are thoroughly trustworthy, and perfectly agree with the books of Samuel and Kings in the Old Testament. The books of Judges are of later origin, and contain chronological impossibilities; but from the time of David we have contemporary and quite trustworthy history; some few erroneous dates are probably mere slips in writing. In the reigns of Manasseh and Amon there are a few incorrect statements, and I have shown where the mistake of from twenty to thirty years is probably concealed,[79] but I cannot say how the text is to be emended. After the first three centuries, Carthage had already acquired many possessions in Byzacene, that is, the country from the headland on the bay to the lesser Syrtis; in Sardinia, too, it exercised a powerful influence, and some Punic settlements already existed in Spain. But not long before that time, Carthage was still engaged in deadly war with the Libyans, and its rule certainly did not extend to the interior of Africa. The real greatness of the city lasted about 150 years, from about the close of the Peloponnesian to the commencement of the first Punic war.

UTICA (Atica, the Old Town, as opposed to Carthage, or New Town) was situated not far from Carthage. The simplicity and constant repetition of the Phoenician names show the want of poetry in that nation; the Greeks have an endless variety of names. _Utica_ and _Hippo_ are the two old towns on that coast; they were more ancient than Carthage, and independent of it, being sometimes even allied with it on equal terms. This honour they retained until the second Punic war; they also concluded treaties with full independence, but were virtually subject to Carthage. Hence in the war of Agathocles, both declared in his favour, and in the same manner they acted in the war of the mercenaries, until, in the end, they separated themselves entirely and joined the Romans, whence, notwithstanding their Punic origin, they remained _civitates foederatae_. It is interesting to observe, how easily Greek culture was engrafted upon those Punians; the Carthaginian senate, on one occasion, found it necessary to enact a law against it,[80] and at times Utica had a theatre, in which Greek plays, translated into Punic, were performed. Both St. Augustin and Apuleius (the latter was a native of Madaura in the interior) spoke Punic as their mother tongue, whence we see that the people throughout the province of Carthage spoke Punic, and that the language of the Amazirghs had become extinct. In some parts of the coast, Latin was spoken. When the Arabs conquered the country, the inhabitants still employed the Punic language, and the adoption of the Arabic was facilitated by the kindred nature of the two languages. The foreign elements in the languages of Tunis and Malta are probably derived from that of the Amazirghs; Latin also is mixed up with them.

The coast of _Byzacene_ is one of the most fertile in the world: the olive-tree, which is one of the richest blessings of the temperate zone, was, strange to say, not introduced into those parts until a late period, and that district is the only one in which the palm and the olive-tree grow side by side. In the earlier times, Carthage obtained its oil from Greece and Italy. The coast was studded with towns, just like the country of Cyrene. Notwithstanding the destruction of Carthage, those countries were perhaps never so well cultivated and so thickly peopled as under the Roman emperors, especially in the reign of Severus, as is attested by Tertullian, a contemporary writer, and by the immense number of ruins in the territory of Tunis.

_Zeugitana_ is the basin of the bay of Tunis. The southern part of the eastern coast of Tunis was called _Byzacion_, _Byzacene_ or _Byzacitis_. _Tunis_ deserves to be mentioned among the provincial towns on account of its subsequent importance, of which antiquity knows nothing.

The greater part of the Carthaginian territory was given by the Romans to Masinissa, who, by the most shameless usurpation, and by the support of the most faithless policy on the part of the Romans, endeavoured to make himself master of it; for after the second Punic war, the Carthaginians still possessed an extensive territory. Even before, Numidia had received nearly all the districts which had been conquered in war, such as Zama, and other places.

The Numidian kings resided at CIRTA, that is, “the town,” in the Punic language, which is another proof of the poverty of its nomenclature. This town rose to greatness under Masinissa, and still more under Micipsa, who drew into it a Greek colony, just as in the time of Louis XIV, French colonies were established in the north of Germany. The time of that colony belongs to the period in which Corinth was destroyed and the whole of Greece was devastated, and when the poor Greeks were scattered all over the earth. Under Constantine the Great, its name was changed into _Constantina_, and large Roman ruins still exist there. It was a Roman colony founded by P. Sitius of Nuceria, who assembled an army of Roman fugitives and Gauls that had served under the African princes, and received Cirta from Julius Caesar, after the conquest of Juba, as a place to settle in. It is, therefore, a colony of quite a peculiar kind, differing essentially from all other colonies.

AETHIOPIA, AEGYPTUS.

The Ethiopians, with the earliest Greeks, are the black people in the south-east and south-west, whence Indians and Ethiopians are synonymous, the southern Indians being black. I believe that the Indian peninsula was conquered by the Indians, and that the black race was subdued by them. Ethiopia, with the Greeks, is only a vague name for Africa. Its derivation from αἴθω is erroneous, but it is doubtful whether the nation had any special name by which it designated itself. We must, however, distinguish the _Leucaethiopes_, that is, the Fellatahs, or Fellahs, whom Ptolemy distinctly places on the Senegal, to which locality they are also assigned by the great D’Anville. The name Ethiopians was afterwards limited to the Abyssinian race and the tribes belonging to them, and these latter nations still call their country Ithopya, though we can hardly suppose the name to be of native origin. The excerpts from Agatharchides of Cnidos, a most excellent writer of the seventh century of Rome, who for a long time resided in Egypt, but does not call the nations by their own names, but only by appellatives, are very obscure, and have been entirely neglected. He gives information about nations which are found at present only in the innermost parts of Africa: he describes, e.g., the Hottentots and Bushmen, whom he calls Acridophagi, that is, eaters of grasshoppers, so that even those living in the distant south were noticed by him. The Hottentots cut out one of their testicles, a fact with which he was acquainted.