(9) A post-Cretaceous eruption through the Red Sandstone and Limestone series of a multitude of dykes of amygdaloid basalt, the age of which is uncertain.

The more recent changes commence with:—

(10) The formation of gigantic boulder-beds flanking the northern escarpment of the Atlas plateau, and spreading down in great mounds and undulating ridges from a height of 3,900 feet to the borders of the plain, 1,900 feet above the sea, with a range in vertical height of about 2,000 feet, and extending up the entrances of several of the lateral valleys, as well-defined and symmetrical moraines.

(11) The formation of moraines at the heads of the Atlas valleys, commencing at a height of 5,800 feet, and spreading up to the cliffs of the Atlas ridge, to a height of between 7,000 and 8,000 feet, with a terminal angle of repose 850 feet in vertical height.

(12) The formation of a plain of shingle behind the moraines, at a height of about 6,700 feet, which seems to be the bed of a small lake.

(13) The recession and extinction of glaciers in the Atlas range, on which there is now not even perpetual snow.

(14) An elevation of the coast-line of at least 70 feet, represented by the height of the raised beaches of concrete sand at Mogador and other parts of the coast, which may possibly be contemporaneous with the elevation of similar raised beaches on the coasts of Spain and Portugal, and with the raised beaches of our south-western coast.

(15) A slight subsidence of the coast-line, now going on, with an accumulation of extensive deposits of blown sand at Mogador.

(16) The formation of a tufaceous surface-crust over almost the entire plain of Marocco, due to the drawing up to the surface, by rapid evaporation, of water from the subjacent calcareous strata, depositing, layer by layer, laminated carbonate of lime.

---

APPENDIX I.

MOORISH STORIES AND FABLES.

From much information that has been kindly furnished to us by Mr. Freeman Rogers, a gentleman who was several years resident in Marocco, and had become familiar with the people and their language and manners, the following extracts have been taken for the sake of the light which they throw on the condition of the country. It being the main object of this volume to relate our personal experiences, we have not been able to avail ourselves of much information supplied to us by Mr. Rogers, and other competent witnesses; but it has appeared to us that the extracts here given form a useful supplement to the facts which came to our knowledge during our short stay in Marocco, and will help the reader to form a truer conception of its present condition.

The stories, which may be said to have a political character, furnished to us by Mr. F. Rogers, all refer to events that have occurred during the last twenty-five years, and are precisely similar in character to others which were passing at the time of our visit. They are accepted as substantially accurate by our informant, and we see no reason to refuse them credence. They certainly tally with the universal belief of the natives as to the conduct of their rulers. Any one who is familiar with the chronicles of the Middle Ages, who has marvelled at the deeds of ferocious cruelty recorded of German petty rulers, or the more refined atrocities of Italian princes, must sometimes have felt a wish to know what manner of men they were who committed these deeds. To satisfy such a curiosity, he cannot do better than pay a visit to the interior of Marocco. If duly commended to their good offices, he will be received by men of stately and courteous manners, prompt to display a lavish hospitality, who will inevitably send him away with a favourable impression; but before he has been many weeks in the country, he will become aware that these amiable hosts are habitually guilty of deeds of combined ferocity and treachery that equal, if they do not surpass, those of the dark periods of European history.

The popular fables, which were taken down from the mouth of an old Moorish story-teller, and literally translated by Mr. Rogers, complete the impression derived from the fragments of contemporary history. They all turn upon the success of fraud and force in the affair’s of life. The moral, so to speak, of all is ‘woe to the weak and the confiding;’ but admiration is mainly given to those who supply the place of strength by successful perfidy.

Abd el Saddock, Kaïd of Mogador, Duquallah, Abda, and Sous.[1]

On one occasion this Kaïd was sent to Sous by the Sultan to reduce some provinces to submission. When arrived there, a grand entertainment was given to him by the refractory Sheiks, and immense quantities of provisions sent in to supply the guests, among which was a large quantity of a particular dish of which the Kaïd was known to be very fond, and this was all poisoned. The Kaïd, suspecting from the Sheiks’ importunity for him to eat of it that it was poisoned, ordered his soldiers to guard the doors and let no one escape, and then called upon the Sheiks one by one to partake of the dish. Most of the Sheiks refused to eat, and some few came cheerfully forward at the Kaïd’s call; those who refused were compelled to eat, and those who came cheerfully forward were not allowed to eat; and so the Kaïd in one day not only got rid of his enemies, but saved his friends, whom he rewarded by putting them in the place of those who fell by their own treachery.

Kaïd Boh Djemma.

Some short time after the news of the foregoing had spread over the country, a revolt took place at Shedma, and many of the Sheiks made themselves conspicuous by their opposition to the Kaïd, who determined to get rid of all his enemies at one blow; he therefore made peace with them, and all seemed well and tranquil for some time. At last came the holiday l’ashora, or the day of the Sultan’s tenthing, when an invitation was issued by the Kaïd to all his Sheiks to appear at his entertainment; none dare refuse, and so all went. The Kaïd had, in the meantime, prepared a large room, into which he sent the Sheiks known to be his enemies, and another into which he sent those known to be his friends. When all had feasted until they could eat no more, the Kaïd quietly ordered the windows and doors to be closed, the men to be bound, burning charcoal to be placed in the room, and the doors then to be built up, and all left to their fate. Nine days afterwards, when the room was opened, nothing remained of all those men, some twenty-two or twenty-three, but bones, attesting the fatal effects of burning charcoal and the daring ferocity of the rats; except one man whom the Kaïd pardoned, believing him to be innocent, as his life seemed to be so miraculously preserved.

What the Sultan means when he bestows a Wife.

The Kaïd of Shedmah, Boh Djemma, had distinguished himself against some rebels who had risen against the Sultan, and the praise bestowed upon him openly by his enemies in the hearing of the Sultan, excited the suspicious sovereign’s anger and jealousy to such an extent that he was determined to get rid of such a dangerous enemy; in order to which he called for the Kaïd and praised his exploits in the presence of all his great men, ordered him a suit of his own royal clothing and a favourite horse, and promised him a wife out of his own seraglio. The Kaïd rejoiced, and his enemies too: the Kaïd, because he regarded himself as a favourite; and his enemies, who were older and knew better, because that he was doomed. In a few days the Kaïd was sent home and his new wife along with him in great state, and in ten days more the Kaïd was carried to the grave, he having died suddenly (poisoned by the Sultan’s female executioner) in the night.

A similar occurrence took place with the Kaïd of Haha; but he had a watchful and wise mother, who watched the new wife until she saw her prepare a dish for her son, when she presented herself before him, charged the new wife with her intended crime, and dared her to eat of her own dish. The Kaïd’s eyes were opened, and he compelled the Sultan’s lady, his new wife, to eat of the dish which she had prepared for him, when she immediately died from the effects of her own poison. This Kaïd ever after kept away from the Sultan until, a few years ago, his evil genius prevailed on him to obey the Sultan’s call, when he died within an hour after taking supper with the Sultan.

Abd el Saddock, Kaïd of Mogador, Duquallah, Abda, and Sous, and his False Friend.

Some years since, the Kaïd of Mogador[2] (father of the Kaïd Hadj Amara who entertained you when there) ruled over the provinces of Duquallah, Sous, and Abda, and made a great deal of money during his administration, and secured the love of all good Moors by his making the Jews acknowledge their inferiority to the Moors. But suspecting that his time to be squeezed by the Sultan had nearly arrived, he determined to prepare for it, and so outwit a false friend, who was an enemy of his, and the Sultan at the same time; in order to which, he called upon his false friend, and invited him to dine with him that evening in private as he had something to tell him. After dinner the Kaïd told his guest that he was getting afraid of the Sultan seizing him in order to get his money. ‘Now,’ said he, ‘I have a favour to ask of you, which is that you will carefully preserve the treasure which I will show you, and when I am seized upon take the keys of my house, but do not live in it, and when my son Hamara knows how to use my money, then tell him of the box and give him the keys; and further, I want you to swear that you will never tell where I have hid my treasure, and that you will not tell any one of what has passed this night.’ The false friend took the oath with mental reservations, as would appear from the sequel. The Kaïd then ordered four slaves to attend upon him, and all descended to the cellar, where the money was concealed in a large strong wooden box, buried in the ground. The box was then opened and was seen to be full of silver and gold, &c. The Kaïd then had the box covered up, and the false friend took his departure. After he went away, the Kaïd returned with his slaves and had the money, but not the box, removed to a really secure place, and had the box filled with bits of stones and broken pottery and recovered over in the same manner as it was before, when seen by the Kaïd’s false confidant; he then had his slaves carried off to prison and put to death on some pretext or other. The next day when the Kaïd’s confidant heard of the slaves being dead, he knew it was to prevent their telling, and concluded that it was the secret which he possessed which the Kaïd wanted to guard, and that he alone knew of the secret of the Kaïd’s wealth and its hiding place. In some short time afterwards, an order came from the Sultan ordering Abd el Saddock up to Marocco; upon which the Kaïd told his confidant of his trouble and begged him to be true to his oath, blessed him, kissed him, and then went to wait upon the Sultan. The Sultan upon seeing him ordered his arrest and torture, accusing him of robbing him and his people, &c.; upon which the Kaïd was carried off to the torture, when he kept denying having any money, and being guilty of the charges brought against him. At last the Sultan, losing all patience, sent him word that he had received information, so the Kaïd had better speak the truth at once, for such a one (the false friend) had declared that he had a large box full of treasure, but was sworn not to tell of its whereabouts. The Kaïd, therefore, must either tell or suffer death by torture. At this the Kaïd pretended to be much alarmed, and declared that nothing could be concealed from Seedna, so he would confess the whole truth, and that what such a one said was true and that it was concealed in such a place, and put there in presence of such a one (the informer, the Kaïd’s confidant), and that if the Sultan sent for it he would have it all. The Kaïd was then put in prison, and notaries and soldiers sent for the money under the guidance of the informer who was in great glee, thinking that now his fortune was made and his favour with the Sultan secure; but upon arriving at the cellar and the box being opened, nothing but stones and broken pottery was found where there had been gold and silver. Imagine the wretch’s horror as the notaries said he himself must inform the Sultan, as they dare not do so; however, as there was no use in lamenting, they returned to Marocco, and the informer had to tell Seedna that there was nothing in the box but rubbish; upon which the Sultan ordered the Kaïd to be brought before him and demanded the meaning of such a thing. The Kaïd answered, ‘True, our lord, it is that I did not oppress your people, and the money hidden in that box was made by lawful means, and I reposed confidence in my friend here, and left the money for my son; and so I told your majesty truly that I had nothing, because it then became by my gift my son’s money, and this, my false friend, has broken his trust, robbed my son and Seedna, and then to cover his knavery, sought my life by trying to turn our lord against me. I therefore beg that our lord will make him confess what he has done with Seedna’s money.’ The Sultan thought the informer simply wanted to make him a fool to cover his knavery, and at once, in a passion, ordered him to be flogged until he confessed. But as he could not confess that he had taken the money and had none of his own to replace it, the lash was continued until the wretch died under it. The Kaïd was set free and restored to Mogador, and the informer’s son is now assistant weigher at the Custom House, Mogador.

SIX MOORISH FABLES.

1. Fable of a Hedgehog and a Fox.

Once upon a time a fox accidentally meeting a hedgehog addressed him as follows, ‘I am much oppressed with thirst;’ to which the hedgehog replied, ‘So am I, and I know a well where we can drink.’ The fox then said, ‘Come along.’ They travelled on till they reached the well where they found two buckets worked by a pulley, one ascending whilst the other descended. ‘Now,’ said the hedgehog, ‘I will go in first, and when I tell you, jump into the other bucket.’ The hedgehog went down and had his drink, and then shouted to the fox, ‘Now you jump in.’ He did as he was told, and as he went down met the hedgehog coming up in the ascending bucket; upon seeing which he said, ‘What does this mean?’ The hedgehog answered thus, ‘It is the world goes round:’ and when he was safely at the top, and the fox had reached the bottom, he called down to him and said, ‘Those who want to kill me I catch them in a trap, and to those who do me a good turn I do the same to them.’

2. The Camel, the Hedgehog, and the Lion.

Once upon a time there was a camel who met with a hedgehog, and the camel tried to trample on him. The hedgehog said to the camel, ‘Wait till I call my brother, he is able to kill both you and me.’ ‘No,’ said the camel, ‘if he comes he will perhaps kill me.’ ‘No, no,’ said the hedgehog, ‘if you wish to see him, lie down on your belly or on your back, open your mouth and let the flies come in, and appear as if you were dead.’ The camel said, ‘All right.’ ‘Well, well,’ said the hedgehog, ‘I will go call my brother.’ The hedgehog went away to look for a lion, and meeting with one, said, ‘Your servant, my lord; there is a wild beast which wishes to eat me.’ The lion replied, ‘Will he eat me?’ The hedgehog said if he were there he certainly would; but he has gone away to get food, ‘but my lord, if you would like to see what he has procured for his breakfast, come along with me.’ The lion said, ‘You go first.’ ‘Very well I will do so,’ said the hedgehog, ‘and when you follow and get near, roar with all your might.’ The lion said, ‘All right.’ The hedgehog said, ‘I shall go first.’ So away went the hedgehog, and said to the camel, ‘Now, he is coming you lie still; don’t stir or he will eat you.’ The camel said, ‘All right;’ and whenever they heard the roarings of the lion, the camel said to the hedgehog, ‘Listen to the noise he makes while talking.’ The lion then drew nearer and roared again; when the camel exclaimed, ‘In the name of the most merciful God, is he going to eat me?’ The hedgehog said, ‘Don’t stir, don’t fear.’ The camel said, ‘All right.’ They waited till the lion came, when the hedgehog addressed him, and said, ‘This is a morsel of the breakfast the monster is going to eat.’ The lion and the hedgehog now bade each other adieu; and when the lion had departed the hedgehog said to the camel, ‘Now you may get up, but tell me which of the two is master.’ The camel replied, ‘It is you, it is you; good morning.’ The hedgehog said to the camel, ‘Are you going away?’ The camel replied, ‘Yes, my lord, I am;’ and from that day to this they have never spoken.

3. The Snake, the Hedgehog, the Man, and the Hunters.

The Hedgehog	personates	the Kadi.
The Hunters	„	the Soldiers.
The Snake	„	the People.
The Man	„	the Sanctuary.

Once upon a time there were some hunters, who went out to hunt a fairy embodied as a snake. The snake being pursued meeting with a man passing by, said to him, ‘Will you afford me protection, for there are hunters following, who want to catch me?’ The man answered, ‘Very well,’ and allowed the snake to be concealed in his clothes; presently the hunters came up to the man and asked him whether he had seen a snake, to which he answered no, and the hunters passed on in pursuit. After the hunters had left, the man asked the snake to go down. The snake said, ‘No, and if you attempt to force me down, I will kill you.’ The man said to the snake, ‘Very well, let us go to the Kadi and hear what the law says.’ The snake said, ‘Very well, come along.’ So they went on till they came to the hedgehog, who was Kadi; and the man said, ‘Your servant, my lord; here is a snake that I have saved from the hunters, and I have told him to get down, but he would not.’ The hedgehog addressed the snake, and said, ‘I will decide the law for you, but first get down.’ The snake at once got down, and then demanded of the hedgehog what the law said. The Kadi then addressed the man as follows: ‘The snake is on the ground and a stick is in your hand.’ The man, taking the hint, struck the snake on the head and killed it.

4. The Sheep, the Fox, the Lion, and the Shepherd.

Once upon a time a fox met a lion, and the lion, addressing the fox, said, ‘Will you be my servant to catch sheep for me? The fox said, ‘I will, if you will give me my share.’ The lion said, ‘No, and if you eat a single bit, I will kill you.’ ‘Very well,’ said the fox, ‘if that is the bargain, I will agree to go hunt for you.’ So away went the fox and hunted about till he found some sheep, one of which he killed and ate. He then went off to the owner of the sheep and said, ‘The lion sent me to hunt your sheep for him, but I would not do so, and he came himself and ate one, and I have run to tell you.’ ‘Very well,’ said the shepherd, ‘you shall be the guard over my sheep, and let me know when the lion comes;’ and the fox said, ‘All right.’ So he waited till the evening, and then went to guard the sheep; and whilst on guard he killed and devoured two more, and afterwards, making a little wound in his own leg, he ran off to the shepherd, and said, ‘The lion has come and eaten two sheep, and wanted to eat me also; see the wound he made in my leg.’ The shepherd said, ‘I see it is true; I will put two men to assist you to guard.’ The fox said, ‘All right; I will go hunt for something to eat, and then return.’ So he went off in search for the lion, and meeting him, said, ‘I know where there are lots of sheep; they are in such a place, you come in the evening to eat them.’ The lion said, ‘All right.’ The fox then ran back to the shepherd, and said, ‘The lion is coming to-night,’ and directed the men who were to assist in guarding to conceal themselves, but before doing so to bring a big sack into which the fox put a great stone, and waited till the lion came. When the lion came he said to the fox, ‘Why have not you killed me a sheep?’ The fox said, ‘Because I was afraid of a great monster that none but you can master, and there he is in that sack; go in and kill him.’ The lion said, ‘All right,’ and went in, when the fox tied securely the mouth of the bag, so that the lion could not get out. The fox then said to the lion, ‘Have you found him?’ The lion replied, ‘No, no, I have not, and it is funny I cannot get out.’ The fox said, ‘Push away, try and get out.’ The lion said, ‘I cannot.’ The fox said, ‘Probably the monster holds you there.’ The fox said to the lion three times, ‘Can’t you get out?’ and three times the lion replied, ‘I cannot.’ The fox said, ‘He who wishes to kill me I catch him in a trap, and to him who does good to me I will do good in return.’ So he went away and called the guard, and said, ‘There he is, beat him;’ so they beat him, and beat him till they were tired; and at last broke his leg. The fox said to the guard, ‘Now let him out, he has broken his leg and cannot escape;’ and when the lion got out the fox, addressing him, said, ‘Now, which is master?’ The lion replied, ‘You are my master;’ and the fox said, ‘Whoever wishes to eat me at one time will try again,’ and turned to the men and ordered them to kill him. After which the fox said, ‘Now that we have killed the lion, good-bye;’ and the men replied, ‘Good-bye.’ He went away, and waiting till evening, and returning at supper time, he wounded the leg of each remaining sheep, and ran off to the owner and said, ‘A monster bigger than the last has come and wounded all your sheep.’ Previous to this the fox went to the market, and bought a suit of clothes, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sheep, and made it appear as if the big monster of whom he spoke had also killed a man. He then said to the owner, ‘All your sheep are spoiled; we had better kill them and make a feast.’ So the shepherd killed the rest of the sheep, and ate them with the fox; and when they had finished, the fox filled a bowl with dirty water. The owner after he had finished his breakfast, said, ‘What am I to do now? The sheep are killed.’ The fox said, ‘Now I will tell you how it all happened.’ The man said, ‘How?’ The fox said, ‘Not till you open that door so that the light is let in;’ and then said quickly, ‘It is I who killed your sheep;’ he then threw the dirty water in his face, and made off.

5. The Pigeon and the Monkey.

Once upon a time as a pigeon was passing by he met with a monkey. The monkey said to the pigeon, ‘Come, let us play;’ and the pigeon said, ‘Very well, what shall we play at?’ The monkey put up a stick and proposed they should get up it. The pigeon agreed, and the monkey said, ‘Which shall go up first?’ The pigeon said,‘You.’ The monkey said, ‘All right,’ and tried but could not manage it; upon which the pigeon immediately flew to the top. The pigeon said, ‘Now it is my turn to say, ‘What shall we next try?’ The monkey said, ‘All right.’ So the pigeon challenged the monkey to tie his tail to his leg, and when he had accomplished it, and untied it, he said, ‘Come, let us see whether you can tie your wing to your leg.’ The pigeon said ‘All right,’ and fastened his wing to his leg, but could not undo it; and the monkey devoured him.

6. The Hyena and the Hedgehog.

Once upon a time there was a hedgehog travelling in quest of something to eat, and saw a hyena coming towards him with intent to devour him. As soon as the hyena had reached him, he said, ‘My lord, I observe that you are dirty and stand in need of a bath, and if you require one I have a bath at your service in my house.’ The hyena replied, ‘Yes, it is true, I am much troubled with fleas, please come along and give it me; but first come to my house and breakfast, and then we will go to the bath.’ The hedgehog said, ‘That is just what I want, for I am out now looking for food.’ So the hedgehog went to the hyena’s house and had his breakfast. The hedgehog then said, ‘Now come along and take your bath.’ The hyena said, ‘All right.’ So they went to the hedgehog’s house and the bath was heated to boiling. The hedgehog said to the hyena, ‘Now jump into the bath, and scratch yourself.’ So the hyena jumped in; whereupon the hedgehog closed down the lid, and tied it with a string. The hyena said, ‘This is too hot for me, I want to get out.’ ‘No, no,’ said the hedgehog, ‘it is far better for you to be there than for me to be in your belly; bawl away till you are dead.’

---

APPENDIX K.

On the Shelluh Language.

By John Ball.

Jackson in his ‘Account of Marocco’ refers to the opinion of Marmol, that the Shelluhs of Marocco and the Berebers (Kabyles) of Algeria speak the same language, as altogether incorrect, and positively affirms, on the contrary, that these languages are quite distinct. In proof of this assertion, he gives a short list of Shelluh words or short phrases, with the Bereber equivalents of most of them, and concludes, from the differences between these, that the languages are profoundly, if not radically, different. A comparison of this kind is so notoriously misleading that no importance would have been attached to the conclusion derived from it, were it not for the fact that Jackson was well acquainted with the Shelluh language, probably better than any other European has since been; and that although not versed in comparative philology, a science not yet come into existence in his time, he was a man of good general intelligence who seems to have had frequent occasion to compare the two languages.

The first person who was able to speak on the subject with any authority was Venture de Paradis, a man of remarkable linguistic attainments, who died prematurely while accompanying the French Syrian Expedition in 1799. His grammar and vocabulary of the Bereber language were not published until 1844, and his conclusions were not until then made known to the world. It appears that in the year 1788 two Shelluhs, one a native of Haha, the other from Sous, went to Paris. Notwithstanding the difficulty of communicating with men who possessed no written language, Venture de Paradis contrived to obtain from them a list of Shelluh words and short phrases. He was very soon after attached to a mission sent to Algiers, where he was detained for more than a year. He made acquaintance with two Kabyles, theological students, at Algiers, and, finding that his list of Shelluh words corresponded very nearly with the Kabyle equivalents, he devoted himself to the study of the Kabyle dialect of the Bereber tongue, and prepared the grammar and dictionary which remained for more than half a century unpublished. It might be sufficient to refer the reader to the judgment of so competent an authority; but a slight examination of the subject has afforded such confirmation to the conclusions of Venture de Paradis as seems to place them beyond the reach of controversy.

It must be remarked in the first place that, from the want of sacred books or other written records among the races of the Bereber stock, there is no one of the many dialects spoken by them that can be taken as the classical standard to which others may be compared. French writers in treating of what they style ‘la langue Berbère’ usually mean the Kabyle, spoken by most of the mountain tribes of Algeria. The same language, with dialectic differences, is used by many tribes of the Sahara; but throughout the larger part of the vast region lying between the southern borders of Algeria and Marocco and the Soudan, the prevailing tongue, though unquestionably belonging to the Bereber family, deserves to rank as a distinct language from the Kabyle. A slight examination of the latter shows that it has been largely adulterated by contact with the Arab population, who from an early period have ruled the open country and carried on all commercial intercourse; while the characteristic grammatical features have been in many respects obscured or effaced. On the other hand, it appears from a recent publication by General Faidherbe[1] that the dialect spoken at the south-western limit of the Bereber races, adjoining the river Senegal, while preserving the chief Bereber grammatical characteristics, has undergone much etymological alteration, whether from contact with the Negro tribes, or from inherent causes. As far as the available materials enable us to form a judgment, it seems clear that the best living representative of the Bereber language is that spoken by the Touarecks of the Great Desert, and especially by the great tribes, the Azguer and Ahaggar, who occupy between them a territory measuring at least half a million of square miles. Of this, which is properly called Tamashek’, a grammar was published by General Hanoteau in 1860, and another by Mr. Stanhope Freeman in 1862. The Tamashek’ is distinguished from the other languages of the same family by the greater regularity and completeness of its grammatical system, by the comparative absence of Arab words, of which the Kabyle shows a large infusion; but especially by the possession of a system of writing, rude, indeed, and imperfect, but not known to any other branch of the Bereber stock. This privilege has not led to the growth of a national literature; the written characters are used only for rock inscriptions, for mottoes on shields, and occasionally for verses on festive occasions; but their use is widely spread among men of the higher class, and still more among the women, and, however restricted, has doubtless tended to give comparative fixity to the language.

Of the Shelluh tongue the materials available are, indeed, very scanty. The most considerable document is contained in the ninth volume of the ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ where Mr. Francis Newman has given a literal Latin version of a story written in Arabic characters by a native of South Marocco. It would require far more knowledge of the Shelluh language and familiarity with Arabic writing than I possess to enter on any examination of that document; and there is the further difficulty that the natives who learn to write their own language in Arabic characters are usually those who also acquire the Arabic language, and in so doing learn to adopt Arabic phrases and forms of speech. In the following table I have introduced all the Shelluh words given by Jackson and Washington, of which I have been able to find equivalents in Kabyle or Tamashek’, and have endeavoured to adopt a uniform mode of orthography. The vowels are intended to have the sounds to which they correspond in most European languages, and not those peculiar to England. Th and sh have nearly the same sounds as in English; gh before e or i has the hard sound; and r’ indicates the peculiar sound intermediate between the guttural and the ordinary r, which European travellers indicate sometimes by r, and sometimes by gh. In several instances synonyms are given in brackets.

English	Shelluh			Kabyle			Tamashek’
Man		argaz			ergaz			ales
Woman	⎰ ⎱	tamraut	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	themthout		⎰ ⎱	tameth
		tamtout			themgart			tamethout
Boy		ayel			ashish		⎰ ⎱	abaradh
								amaradh
Girl		tayelt			tehayalt			tamarat
Slave		issemgh			ismigh			akli
Horse		ayiss		⎰ ⎱	eïss	⎱ ⎰		ayiss
					aghmar
Camel	⎰ ⎱	aroum	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	aram	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	amnis
		algrom			elgroum			amagour
Sheep	⎰ ⎱	izimer	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	thiksi	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	izimer
		djellib			thili			ekraz
Mule		tasardount			aserdoun			—
Boar		amouran			mourran			azibara
Cow		tafounest			tefonest			tes
Green lizard		tasamoumiat			tesermoumit			—
Water		amen		⎰ ⎱	eman	⎱ ⎰		aman
					aman
Bread	⎰ ⎱	tagora	⎱ ⎰		aghroum			tagella
		aghroum
Milk		akfaï		⎰ ⎱	aifki	⎱ ⎰		akh
					aghfaï
Meat		ouksoum			aksoum			—
Eggs		tikellin		⎰ ⎱	tighliim	⎱ ⎰		—
					thimillim
Barley		toumzīn			toumsin			timzin
Dates	⎰ ⎱	tena	⎱ ⎰		tini			teini
		tinie
Green figs		akermous			tibaksisin			—
Honey		tamint			thament			—
Sun		atfoukt			tefoukt			tafoukt
Mountain		adrar (plur idrarn)			edrar (plur. ouderan)			adrar (plur. idrarn)
Palm tree		taghinast			jat faroukt			—
Year		aksougaz			ezoughaz			aouétai
Morning		zir			ighilwas			ifaout
To-morrow		azgah			ezikka			toufat
Village		thedderth			tedert			—
House	⎰ ⎱	tikimie	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	tighimi	⎱ ⎰		—
		tigameen			akham
Wood		asr’oer			esghar			asr’er
Dinner		imkelli			elles			amekchi
Head		akfie		⎰ ⎱	ikf	⎱ ⎰		ir’ef
					akfai
Eyes		alen			ellin			tiththaouin (sing. tith)
Nose		tinzah			inzer			—
Feet		idarn			idaren (sing. adar)			—
Go (imper.)		aftou			eddou			eg’al
Come		ashi		⎰ ⎱	as	⎱ ⎰		as (come, or go)
					eshkad
Give		fikihie			efki			ekf
Eat		aïnish			itch			eksh
Call		irkerah			kera			—
Sit down		gaouze		⎰ ⎱	ghaouer	⎱ ⎰	⎰ ⎱	r’im
					aguim			ekk’im
Good		egan ras			delâli			elkir r’as

It will be seen that, as regards thirty out of thirty-five Shelluh substantives here enumerated, the Kabyle equivalents are distinguished only by dialectic differences, and the same holds as to at least four out of six verbs. It thus appears, as far as the evidence goes, that there is as much verbal resemblance between these tongues as between Italian and Spanish, or other allied languages belonging to the same stock. The comparison with the Tamashek’ shows a less close etymological relationship. Out of twenty-four substantives for which Tamashek’ equivalents have been found, twelve only, and two only out of five verbs, show identity of origin. But it is interesting to find indications that the Shelluh retains a closer conformity to the rules of Tamashek’ grammar than does the better known Kabyle language. In the very few cases where a comparison is possible we find, indeed, absolute identity. Thus the Shelluh word for boy (ayel), is apparently not found either in Kabyle or Tamashek;’ but the feminine form (tayelt), for girl, precisely follows the rule of Tamashek’ inflexion for gender, and a slight modification of this (tehayalt) is found in the Kabyle. A somewhat similar example is the word tasardount for mule, this being the regular feminine form of the Kabyle name, aserdoun. The word adrar (mountain) forms its plural idrarn exactly according to rule, and both singular and plural are identical with the Tamashek’ forms; while the Kabyle shows dialectic differences, especially in the plural where the final r of the singular is lost. The last word in the list affords an illustration of the liability to error incurred by a traveller attempting to form a vocabulary of a language with which he has but a slight acquaintance. Good is here used in the sense of a satisfactory answer to inquiries, pretty much as all right is adopted in colloquial English. Jackson was doubtless familiar with the expression egan ras, which he gives as the Shelluh equivalent, and which we also often heard from the natives; but the ras of the Shelluh is obviously the same as the Tamashek’ adverb r’as, meaning only, or exclusively, which invariably follows the word elkir in the corresponding Tamashek’ reply, elkir r’as.

It has not appeared necessary to add to the table given above a column for the corresponding words in the Zénaga language from the vocabulary given by General Faidherbe. The amount of verbal similarity between this and the Shelluh is very trifling, and the distinguished author referred to was doubtless misinformed when led to express a belief in their close connection.

The time is perhaps not yet come for forming a definitive judgment as to the origin of the Bereber languages, and the precise nature of the relations between them and the ancient language of Egypt on the one hand, and those of the Semitic family on the other. The present writer feels his own incompetence to grapple with questions of such difficulty, and will merely refer the reader to the conclusions recently announced by M. de Rochemonteix as those which appear to carry with them the greatest weight.

In his essay, published in 1876,[2] the learned writer finds that the ancient Egyptian and the Bereber possessed the same pronominal roots, and employed the same methods for forming their inflexions and derivatives; and he arrives at the same opinion with reference to the inflexions of the substantives. He further asserts that the modifications which time and external conditions have effected are of a superficial character, and in no way conceal the close grammatical affinity of these languages. Whether this affinity be due to direct inheritance, or to common descent from a more remote ancestral stock, is a question not touched by the writer, who bases his conclusions on a study of two only of the Bereber dialects, the Kabyle and the Tamashek.’[3]

With reference to the relation indicated by the conjugation of the Bereber verb, in which the grammatical processes show a considerable affinity with those of the Semitic languages, while the comparison of the verbal elements shows no token of common origin, M. de Rochemonteix expresses the opinion that at an early period of their development, the Bereber people must have been brought into contact with the Semitic stock, and may well have been struck by the advantage of precision obtained by systematic conjugation of the verb, and thus gradually moulded their own rude tongue on the model supplied to them.

---

APPENDIX L.

Notes on the Roman Remains known to the Moors as the Castle of Pharaoh, near Mouley Edris el Kebir.

Communicated by Messrs. W. H. Richardson and H. B. Brady, F.R.S.

Learning that a party of English travellers had visited these ruins in the spring of 1878, and believing that they had not been seen by any European traveller since Jackson visited the place early in the present century, we were anxious for information respecting them; and in reply to our request we received an account of their visit kindly drawn up by Messrs. W. H. Richardson and H. B. Brady, F.R.S. We have also been favoured with the loan of a sketch executed by Mr. G. T. Biddulph, who formed one of the same party, from which the vignette given p. 487 is taken.

After the notes were in the hands of the printer the appearance in the ‘Academy,’ No. 32, p. 581, of a very full account of the ruins by Dr. Leared, already well known as a successful Marocco traveller, informed us that the ruins had been visited by him in 1877, in company with the members of the Portuguese mission to the Sultan, and about the same time by some members of the German Diplomatic Mission. Dr. Leared has fully succeeded in establishing the identity of the so-called Castle, or Palace, of Pharaoh with the Roman town of Volubilis, and has left little to be said on that point. Nevertheless the ruins are interesting enough to make the additional notes of other travellers useful and valuable; and we have therefore availed ourselves of the greater part of the paper kindly sent to us by Messrs. Richardson and Brady.

‘One of the points we had determined to visit on our tour was the ruin known by the Moors as “Pharaoh’s Palace,” or “Pharaoh’s Tomb.” The time of our journey was in some respects unfortunate for visiting places held in veneration by the natives; we were, in fact, staying in Fez at the time of Mohammed’s birthday, when religious fanaticism exhibits itself, not merely in holidays and powder-play, alternating with devotional exercises, but in processions to the shrines of saints, and in sundry manifestations of ill-will to unbelievers. We had considerable difficulty in obtaining intelligible information as to the exact site of the ruins. Our idea had been that they ought to have been accessible from the road between Alcazar and Fez, striking off near Sidi Guiddar. The interpreter and the mounted soldiers who were with us, overruled this when it was proposed, and we therefore continued our journey. They were probably right; but in our various conversations with them on the subject they managed to convey the impression that either they did not themselves know the precise locality, or that they did not intend that we should visit the place.

‘During our stay in Fez we were joined by two Englishmen, Messrs. G. T. Biddulph, and F. A. O’Brien, whose acquaintance we had made in Tangier, and we proceeded to Mekinez in company. Mekinez is a sort of Mecca to the Aissowies—the most fanatical of all the sects of western Mohammedans—and the road was thronged with devotees returning from their annual pilgrimage to the city of Mohammed-ben-Aissa, their prophet. We were kindly received by the Lieutenant Bashaw (Kaïd Hamo), who seemed desirous to forward our views in every way in his power. He thought it necessary on our departure to provide us with a soldier who knew the district thoroughly, so that altogether we had a guard of four regular soldiers. Thus furnished, the tone of our interpreter changed, and we had no more obstacles thrown in our way.

‘We proposed to make the Roman station the first stage on our road from Mekinez to Rabat. Whether it would have been better to have taken it, as we had originally intended, on the way to Fez, or subsequently, between Fez and Mequinez, it is needless now to inquire; it certainly is a good deal out of the direct route between Mekinez and Rabat, if maps are to be trusted. However, we got on the way on March 23 a little after 10 A.M. The site of the ruin is some fifteen miles north-west of Mekinez, at no great distance from Mouley Edris el Kebir; both are on the southern slopes of one of the ranges that constitute the Lesser Atlas. There was little of interest by the way. Part of the road was on the horizon of a bed of white, friable, microzoic, tertiary limestone, which forms a conspicuous feature in the mountain strata of this district. This is traceable for a great distance, and its exposure at one or two points in the heights to the far east, we had at first mistaken

for snow. After about four hours’ riding we had to diverge from the main road; and here we learned that it would be necessary to encamp at some distance to the south-west, in the last douar within the government of Mekinez. The hill-country, it was said, was so infested by a lawless set of Berebers that we should not be safe out of the jurisdiction of the Bashaw. Before the evening was out we had reason to know that these fears were not entirely groundless. Leaving our servants with the luggage, therefore, we took two soldiers and rode across country to the object of our journey.

‘The ruins stand on a little hill, a mile or more from the road. At the base of the hill runs a bright little mountain stream. The ground for many acres is strewed and heaped with squared stones, the débris of ancient buildings; lines of wall-foundations appear in every direction, and pillar bases in rows or squares, arranged as though for the support of colonnades surrounding courts or patios. The demolition is no doubt largely due to spoliation, but it is also partly the result of the unstable character of the mortar, which has to a great extent weathered out from between the stones. In some of the walls still standing the stones appear to retain their places by their own weight rather than by the help of any cement that is left to hold them together. Two perfect Roman arches still remain, and one or two nearly complete, but even these look as though they might not long withstand the mountain winds.’[1]

‘In the present condition of the place it is impossible even to guess what was the original ground-plan of the buildings. The principal frontage appears to have had the west aspect, and there is still the remnant of a sort of façade. Amongst the fallen stones of this front is part of an entablature which has borne an inscription in four lines. We could only find one stone of it; and this bore the following letters, about eight inches in height. There were the shafts of many marble columns amongst the fallen stones, and not a few capitals, some simple, others more or less carved with volutes, Ionic fashion, and one at least with the remnant of acanthus leaves, as though derived from a Corinthian building. Some of the mouldings had the common egg and arrow ornament, and there was a portion of a narrow frieze on the western side with one of the common frets of classic architecture formed of a double series of interlacing

curved lines; but beyond these there was but little decorative sculpture. There is clearly a basement storey of very large stones lying underneath the present ground level. Here and there the subsidence of the ground, or the falling in of the masonry, reveals passages and what appear to be small rooms or vaults, with solid, well constructed walls. In the short hour that circumstances permitted us to linger, it was impossible to do more than observe things as they stood. The mere removal of the loose stones would do a good deal, and a very little excavation would do much more, to indicate the history of the original structures, and we have little doubt that many inscribed stones might still be found that would help materially to the same end. On the north side of the western arch and façade is a sort of enclosure formed of loose stones piled together as a rude wall, and whitewashed. This wall has been reared by pilgrims, each of whom has carried and placed a stone, according to their custom, at what they regard as a “saint’s place.”’

Up to the year 1877 no traveller appears to have visited the ruins since Jackson, who twice refers to them in his ‘Account of the Empire of Marocco.’ In a note to p. 21 (3rd Edition, 1814) he says: ‘The father of the Sultan Sulieman built a magnificent palace on the banks of the river of Tafilelt, which bounds his dominions on the eastward; the pillars are of marble, and many of them were transported across the Atlas, having been collected from the (Ukser Farawan) Ruins of Pharaoh near the sanctuary of Muly Dris Zerone, west of Atlas.’ In another place (p. 146) he says: ‘When I visited these ruins in my journey from the sanctuary of Muly Dris Zerone, near to which they are situated, in the plain below, the jealousy of the (Stata) protecting guide sent by the Fakeers to see me safe to the confines of their district was excited, and he endeavoured to deter me from making any observations by insinuating that the place was the haunt of large and venomous serpents, scorpions, &c. A good number of cauldrons and kettles filled with gold and silver coins have been excavated from these ruins.’

---