« הקודםהמשך »
Tongue, which is the true African language, and branded by the barbarians for a barbarous tongue.”
Marmol says that “ Barbary is so called either from Ber, a name given to that country before it was peopled, whence the inhabitants were afterwards called Bereberes, and are still possessed of a city called Barbara, and a large tract of lands in Genehoa and Zinque; or, as some will have it, this name must be derived from the Romans, who christened it so by reason of the barbarity of their language.” This seems to be also the opinion of Dr. Prichard. In another place the same old writer states that “the African authors assure us that Barbary and Numidia have been long inhabited, but they are not agreed upon the first inhabitants. Some say an Asiatic people, expelled their own country, and finding no security in Greece, went and peopled Barbary. Others allege that the people of Phænicia, in Palestine, being expelled their own country by the Assyrians, and coldly received by the Egyptians, passed on to the Deserts of Africa, where they settled.
“ But the African authors of the best note assure us that the first inhabitants of Barbary and Numidia, now called Barbarians, were five colonies or tribes of Sabeans that came thither along with Melec Ifrique, a prince of Arabia Felix mentioned above, to which six hundred families of Berebers, and the greatest lines of all Africa, owe their original. These tribes did first people the eastern parts of Barbary, and from whence they dispersed themselves over most of Africa, retaining the name of Berebers from Barbary, their first habitation; whereas the former inhabitants of Tingitana, Numidia, and Lybia, were called Chilohes. Though these five tribes lived first of all in tents of the fields, yet when they came to war with one another, those who were defeated and robbed of their flocks fled from the plains, where the conquerors remained, to the mountains, where, mixing with the ancient Africans and Getulians, they built houses to screen them selves from the weather.
“ This occasioned the difference between the Berebers that live in the fields, and those that dwell in houses; the former of which have the preference for riches and power; though both of them are equally zealous in keeping their ancient customs, and celebrating the honour of the original.” This division can be seen even at the present day, in the Kabyles who live in tents or mud houses in the open country, and rear cattle, while the Moors reside in towns, and follow trade, or are engaged in traffic or merchandise.
“ Besides these there was,” says Marmol, “a noted people in Africa, called Azuagues, who are now scattered up and down the provinces of Barbary and Numidia, and inost of them are shepherds, though they have some artizans among them that make linen and cloth,” in a manner similar to that in use among the ancient Egyptians. “ They live upon mountains and hills, and nestle in little holes and chinks; and, notwithstanding their extreme poverty, are commonly tributary to the kings, or Arabians. The
African authors say they are Phænicians, expelled by Joshua, the son of Nun; who, being denied admission by the Egyptians, passed on to Lybia, where they built Carthage, 1268 years before Christ. And a long time after that, if we credit Ibni-Abraquyq, a great stone was found there, with these words engraven upon it in the Punic language :- We fled hither from the presence of that notorious robber, Joshua, the son of Nun. Before the arrival of this people, Asclepius and Hercules had reigned in Africa; but after the destruction of Carthage, before it was rebuilt by Dido, this people retired to the west part of Barbary, under Hermon, their leader, and then built Liby-Phænician cities, in which they still continued when the Romans invaded Africa."
Dr. Prichard gives the following solution of the term Barbar :
“ The only way of explaining, with any degree of probability, so extensive a diffusion of the term Barbarii or Barbari, and, at the same time, its local application to the country and the people of the African coast, is the conjecture that Barbar was originally an Egyptian term or name given by the Egyptians to the maritime country on the Red Sea, or its inhabitants. The word might be derived, as Leo derives it, from Bar, a desert, were it not improbable that an Arabian name could have been adopted by the Egyptians—the people so named not being Arabians. The Coptic word Bspeßipa signifying hot, may be the etymon of the name, if it originally belonged to the country. Bogßsg, as well as BigBwg, means to cast out. Could the people be hence termed ' Outcasts? These southern borderers on Egypt, probably ferocious Nomades, as are the Beshari at present, being dreaded and hated by the Egyptians, and their name being equivalent to that of Savages, it is possible that it may have been borrowed by the Greeks from the Egyptians in this sense. The Hindoos used, as it seems, the same name in both its meanings—both as a national appellation, which was extended, however, from the natives of the Barbary coast to other crisp-haired Africans, and likewise in the sense of outcasts or barbarians.” This was also the opinion of Gibbon.
Dr. Shaw published a catalogue of Berber words; and, in later years, my esteemed friend, Mr. Hodgson, has given the most accurate account of the language of these people that has yet appeared.
“ The more,” says he, “I investigate the subject, the more I am satisfied that the idiom of the Berbers is not the remains of the ancient Punic, but that it is the same language which was spoken by the inhabitants of the northern coast of Africa, at the time of the foundation of Carthage, much corrupted, however, by the introduction of Arabic, and, perhaps, in this district at least, of Punic words and forms. The former are indeed so visible, that it is easy to perceive that they do not belong to the original language, from the peculiar structure of which they essentially differ. The latter, if any there he, it is not so easy to observe, as there are no remains of the Punic language sufficient to assist us in the inquiry. We inay, perhaps, discover hereafter some traces of it, by comparing the
Berber of what was called Africa Proper, with the dialects of those parts where Carthagenian colonization did not extend. If the Punic idiom was ever incorporated to any extent with the language of the Numidians, in the vicinity of Carthage, or in the countries under her dominion, it must have produced a marked difference between their dialects and those of the more distant tribes, which cannot escape the inquisitive eye of philologists." Speaking of the Berber language, Mr. H. continues, “ If these significant namcs extended east and west, from one end of the African continent to the other, and from its northern coast, south, even to the Desert of Saara, where no Phænician colony can be supposed to have existed, it would be clear, independently of the inferences that may be drawn from the different structure of the two languages, that our Berber could not be the Punic, as Marsden and others have supposed, but was the language of the Autochthones, or the ancient inhabitants of the country, which the Phænicians who founded Carthage, and their descendants, were obliged to learn and to speak in common with their own, and which procured for them the appellation of Tyrii bilingues.” And he concludes his most interesting memoir on this subject, by drawing a parallel between it and the ancient Egyptian. “At every step," says he, "of my investigations, new proofs accumulate in favour of my hypothesis, that the Berber is the original language of all North Africa, including Egypt and Abyssinia ; for, with the Coptic it has a positive affinity."— Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. iv. 1834.
This has opened a new and most inviting field for future investigation, which, it is to be hoped, will not be lost sight of, more particularly as the word Berber is found written in the hieroglyphic character on some of the very early Egyptian monuments; and we have every reason to believe that individuals of this people are figured in the ancient Egyptian paintings. The osteological characters of the skulls belonging to the Berber race, are but very imperfectly known. I do not think that the characters and appearance of this people, as related by M. M. De Spix and Martius, who made their observations at Gibraltar, are at all applicable. For, although many Moors and natives of Tangiers came across the straits daily to market, very few of the Kabyles or Berbers ever leave their own country. In colour, these people vary from a dark brown to a tawny yellow; have thin lips, long oval faces, strait black hair, narrow, but not very retreating foreheads, and scanty beards. Those of this race I had an opportunity of observing, were particularly lean and bony, dirty and ill-clad.
REMARKS UPON THE MODE OF SUCKING IN CETACE.
Like all mammalia, the Cetaceæ suckle their young at the breast; but, by this latter term, we are not to suppose that they have mammary glands upon the pectoral portion of the body. These long thin flat substances are placed on the inferior and lateral parts of the abdomen, in order, as Hunter well described, that they may not vary the shape, nor interfere with the motions of the animal, and for other reasons to be explained hereafter. The lactiferous ducts are simple cæcal tubes, as in the ornithorhynchus, opening into a long duct or receptacle, which proceeds through the gland to the nipple, and bears a striking analogy to the pancreatic duct in man. Some years ago, Müller published a beautiful plate of this gland, in the Balænoptera Rostrata, and it was accurately described by Hunter, in 1787. The form and position of the nipples, however, require attention. They are two in number—not protuberant from the animal, like the teats of other mammiferæ : but lodged in the bottom of deep sulci or fissures, which, when closed, and the organs are not called upon to exercise their peculiar functions, completely hide them. Thus far we are acquainted with the anatomy of the parts, (at least sufficiently acquainted for the object of this inquiry, or the bearing of a work like this); but a very serious and interesting question here presents itself, viz :-In what manner do the young Cetaceæ suck? Do they respire during that process ?
how are these two functions performed under water ? On this subject, John Hunter made the following observations :
“ The mode in which these animals must suck, would appear to be very inconvenient for respiration, as either the mother or young one will be prevented from breathing at the time, their nostrils being in opposite directions, therefore the nose of one must be under water, and the time of sucking can only be between each respiration. The act of sucking must likewise be different from that of land animals; as in them it is performed by the lungs drawing the air from the mouth backwards into themselves, which the fluid follows, by being forced into the mouth, from the pressure of the external air on its surface; but, in this tribe, the lungs having no connection with the mouth, sucking must be performed by some action of the mouth itself, and by its having the power of expansion.”
Ever since Hunter's day, the mode of sucking has been a stumblingblock to zoologists. A short time ago, Geoffroy St. Hilaire, the celebrated French naturalist, endeavoured to explain it by asserting that he had discovered a certain sac or reservoir into which all the lactiferous tubes
and if so,
poured their contents, and that a quantity of milk being already contained in this, the young animal had only to apply its mouth to the teat, and immediately certain muscles in the neighbourhood acted both on the gland and on the receptacle, and poured a quantity of milk (often several gallons in the larger species) into the young animal's mouth. This theory seemed plausible, and was generally adopted at the time.
At the meeting of the British Association in Dublin, in 1835, Dr. Arthur Jacob read a paper, calling in question the views promulgated by the French physiologist ; and since then, Frederick Cuvier, in his article on the Cetaceæ, in the Cyclopædia of Anatomy and Physiology, has laboured to refute them. In the first place, as to the sac or reservoir, it was long ago described by Hunter. “ The trunk of this tube is large, and appears to serve voir for the milk.” Again, concerning the muscle said to act upon the reservoir, a mistake seems to have crept in amongst the anatomists of this country, who have confounded with it the subcutaneous muscle that envelopes the animal. This latter is a kind of dartos, or collection of muscular fibres, mixed with a dense fibro-cellular texture, and spread generally beneath the blubber of the animal-in fact, a panniculus carnosus. I can perfectly agree with those who deny that this acts in circumscribed portions, and I believe that it can exercise but little power over the mammary gland; but that the muscle described by St. Hilaire does exist, there can be no doubt. I have dissected it in the Delphinus Dephis and Phocæna Communis, several of which I had an opportunity of examining in the Mediterranean; and I have the authority of several eminent anatomists, who have likewise satisfied themselves upon the point. It is attached to the pelvic bone, and spreads over the gland in an oblique direction, backwards and upwards towards the spine. But that it exercises this peculiar power of compressing, at will, the gland and its receptacle, I cannot take upon me to say Independent of it, or any other muscular mechanism, the great pressure of the surrounding medium on the gland, would, as soon as the nipple was grasped, force out the fluid contained within ; and the very great extent of this gland in Cetaceæ may be to forward so useful and beautiful a purpose.
In order to explain the subject more fully, it would be necessary to enter into a description of the beautiful mechanism of the parts connected with sucking in the human infant-an office that may be termed the birth of instinct, and one of the very first efforts at voluntary motion; but as this sketch is intended more for those already acquainted with such subjects, it would be unnecessary.
In Cetaceæ, the mouth, when opened, presents a purse-like cavity, similar to that of a crocodile; with this difference, that the mouth in the Cetaceans has no connection with the respiratory function, which is exclusively confined to the blow-hole, on the fore-part of the head. The glottis stands above the level of the roof of the mouth and soft palate ;