Let us suppose that the root word Kiyi (written also Kayi and Keyi) is the same as that found in the case of the Kinaihhi or Kinahni, called also Xva (Kina), a people who according to the Tel-Al-Amarna tablets came from the region of the Persian Gulf and colonized Phœnicia, being, presumably, a part of the peoples who introduced the "horse" to Babylon and Egypt about 1700 B.C. Then it would not follow that because these races only arrived in North Africa as colonists towards 1300-1000 B.C. and were then, so far as we know, unveiled, that races homogeneous to them did not at a much earlier period migrate from Iran to the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula, and Horn of Africa, and become the Tehenu who, as Mr. Rodd points out, were as early as 2500 B.C. established in the oases near the Nile. It may be noted that the Egyptians called the Iranian nomads Dahi. Such a supposition gains very considerable support from the data collected by Prof. Ridgeway with regard to the advent of the "horse" in North Africa, as well as from the Tamashek words for horse and ass which may well bear some relation to the Aryan ἄσπος. There is also good reason to suppose that the early civilizing influences which acted (a) in the extreme west of Africa-the Lixus Wadi Draa, and (6) in the early civilization of Garama (Jerma), were mainly Syrian, i.e. Phœnician, and did not come direct from either Egypt or Europe. That these influences must be classed as Semitic both as regards language and otherwise, and that there is no trace of a veil among the Libyans of the Greek age or on the Egyptian monuments, does not preclude the supposition that races in part homogeneous to them in passing through the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa did not (a) while retaining to some extent their original language, modify it considerably in the course of years, (b) acquire the use of the " veil." The theory that in fact the two groups were in origin the same, albeit the ancients believed in two widely secluded but homogeneous races of Ethiopians, might remain pure speculation were it not that (a) a definite Elamite migration from the Persian Gulf to the Horn of Africa is believed by scholars to have taken place about 2000 B.C. or before; (b) the Arabs and Sudan tradition hold as definitely that the Tuareg first came from Syria to Yaman, and thence to Africa and the Sahara. That El-am (Elamites) is the same word as Il-am is perhaps too easy a supposition to be true, and yet it is difficult to see why El-am should not mean "people of El," i.e. God, as it would do in Berber languages akin to Kanuri. It is true that Ibn Khaldun's Berber origins are somewhat confusing in detail, but in broad outline his account does not materially differ from that suggested above, for (1) He brings the Sanhaja and Kitama (i.e. the Tuareg or Ilam) from Yaman. He says they multiplied in the "rif of Abysinnia," and afterwards spread west. They are his "Second race of Sanhaja "; i.e. though he calls them Gara (San-gara) they were clearly not the same Gara who were in ancient times the subject peoples of Garama (Jerma), the Tebu and Teda races of to-day-the Garawa or Guraan. (2) Ibn Khaldun's southern Berbers are in general termed by him Beranes, i.e. by the word which in Bêle, Zaghawi, and other Berber languages of the Eastern Sudan means "person," or in the plural "people." The present local words for man (i.e. vir) vary, e.g. in Teda, a man is angi, pl. anya, and in Kanuri, kwa, pl. anwa; whereas in Kanuri kam, pl. am, means people, and in Teda a person is anu and people amba. The equivalent for man (vir) in Tamashek is masigh, hence Ibn Khaldun talks of the Beranes being children of Masigh. As regards the Northern Berbers, Libyans, on the other hand, he derives them from Madghis (mazigh) el Abtar or el Botr, who, like Beranes, was a son of Canaan, son of Ham. Here it may be suggested we have the simple name for the Phoenicians, who were called by the Assyrians Surru, by the Egyptians Dara, and in early Latin Sarra. Butr or Abtar may mean, it is suggested, Aba Tar or Abu Tar, the Phoenicians, whose country, originally called Usu or Uzul, provided the people of Kanem and of Bornu with their name for Fezzan, “Uzlan' in Teda-Kanuri, and its old capital "Zeila of the people of Uzu"Zeila Uzlan-near modern Murzuh. To this day a Tuareg is still called by the Hausas, a Buzu, i.e. Ba-Uzu, while they called Syria "Surukal " (Suru-akal), and a Syrian (in fact, any white man) Ba-Ture, the corresponding words in Bornu being Tura and Wasiri or Wazili, the latter of which might as well be written Zeilawa. A lengthy discussion about the origin of the Tuareg veil would be out of place here, but such evidence as exists indicates that its use, originally ritual in some way, became a badge of rank. From the Tamashek word -am, mouth, it is called amawal by the Fulbe and Hausas, and by the Kanuri and Teda it is called Funi. The key to its original signification seems primarily to be connected with veneration for the acacia tree, particularly the species Acacia seyal, which has a sweet and rather strong scent. An Eastern Tuareg (Kindin) will not willingly, it is said, look on an acacia tree or come near it, much less handle the gum (gum arabic) or carry it on his camels. In fact, it is the "totem" of the Kindin in general, and it is said that they closely cover their noses and mouths with the "veil" if they smell an acacia tree. They are said to be afraid of iskoki (spirits) which haunt the acacia, and which are liable to afflict them with leprosy, so they think. In Tamashek the name for two species of acacias are aghar and saghar (Acacia seyal), and in Tebu the word for syphilis is aghar-anna, which appears to indicate that the real author of the affliction was the *Akal is in Tamashek "land." Mother Goddess Amma or Anna (Carthaginian Tanit), i.e. the Babylonian Ishtar or Nana. It is also at least noteworthy that the Arabic word for this "veil" is lithan, the root of which means (1) to kiss, (2) to muffle oneself, and then of a camel " to go lame," it is said, owing to pebbles on the road. The root of litham L-TH-M, curiously enough, comes in the dictionary next to the root LTH, which means to "exude gum or resin," and which looks as if originally the Litham were a "people" who had to do with "gum and its collection." The Arabian El-Lath was, of course, the feminine of El and the Semitic counterpart of the Babylonian Nana. It is suggested, therefore, that the adoption of the "veil" by the Ilam was originally due to awe of the goddess Nana or El-Lath, who was personified in the acacia tree, the acacia being in this way the "Pene Baal," or "face of Baal" (the epithet of Tanit on Carthage votivetablets), i.e. the outward manifestation of the unseen Baal, whence the veil itself was by certain Berber races called "Pene," the Kanuri Funi, and possibly the Egyptian Funh, a name apparently applied to Asiatic bandits in general of the type of the Tuareg. It may be added that the Tamashek root ghar for acacia occurs in the Tebu kingar, Kanuri Karamga (Acacia seyal) in the Hausa karu, gum arabic," and in its Kanuri equivalent kolkol, while the Acacia verek is also in Kanuri called kindil. It is difficult to see how a race could have the acacia as a totem, i.e. believe themselves descended from the acacia tree, unless they had lived in the Sudan belt for a very long period. It is also possible that at one time they picked the gum with due ritual once a year. NOTE ON MR. PALMER'S PAPER BY MR. FRANCIS RODD Time and space forbade entering into such detail as I should have liked to in my paper on "The Origin of the Tuareg." Some of the points which have now been raised by Mr. Palmer had nevertheless received consideration. The whole problem has been dealt with more fully in a book which has recently appeared from Macmillan's house. In it the MZGh root was discussed in some detail. I absolutely agree with Mr. Palmer that the names containing this root are descriptive and not national. I do not however feel that the root ILI or ALIL is vastly different in this respect; moreover, it is rarely used by the Tuareg. It appears to have the value of an epithet. Arab evidence to the contrary has scarcely more value than the known Arab misinterpretation of the name Tarki or Tarqi (plural tawarek or tarkiyin). The latter name is also discussed at some length in my book. I incline to the view, on the indications given by Leo and others, that this is the proper name of one tribal division, which, by reason of that section having become better known to the Arabs than the other groups of Tuareg, acquired the significance of a proper name for the whole race and was then given a fictitious etymology. I am afraid that I do not concur in the suggested derivation of the name Aulimmiden. The word is a plural form of Limmid, which has the same root and application as Alamt, Lamt, and Lemta (cf. de Foucauld's dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 65, 72, and 344. Also Barth's etymology suggested by Mr. I am hardly competent to discuss the origin of the word Dar. The usual Arabic word Dar, ls (as in Dar el Islam), I think I am right in saying, occurs in pre-Islamic poetry; if then it were borrowed from the Berber, this must have occurred a very long time ago. In Africa I distinguish between dar, s, from the Arabic, and the Berber root DGh. The latter is found in such words as Adghagh, a mountain, or Tadghagh, a small hill (see De Foucauld, vol. 1, p. 170). Bates (in his Eastern Libyans,' p. 79) discusses this root, giving various examples of its occurrence in Libyan place-names. He calls the root DRR, but I think also confuses the two, probably distinct, roots. The final consonant is important; it is either a (re) or a (ghen), and among Europeans alone do these seem to be interchangeable. In Arabic or Berber (re) may become J (lam), or (ghen) may become (gim) or (qaf); but the one is liquid and the other a guttural. I hazard the guess that ̧, dar, is an Arabic word, but that the root DGh is Berber, the former being derived from the radical meaning "to encircle" or go round," the latter signifying "hill." The situation of camps on hills is perhaps etymologically only fortuitous. Travels,' etc., vol. 5, p. 552). In any case the Palmer savours of redundance. ر ر ج I do not feel that I can usefully comment on the suggested derivations of Kiyin, Kindin, Kinin, or Dirki. I agree on quite other grounds that the early rulers of Kamen probably were Tuareg ; Mr. Palmer's origin for the name Tarki may indeed be correct, but one cannot be too careful not to base history on philological or linguistic evidence for it is notoriously misleading. I think Mr. Palmer is wrong about the derivation of the word Tagilmus, the Tuareg veil. Ag certainly means "son," but the prefixed T does not refer to Ag. The 7 is part of the common feminine or diminutive form; the word is a diminutive of Agulmus, meaning a large piece of stuff (De Foucauld, vol. 1, p. 311). The words perhaps come from the root verb Egli, meaning "tie up to knot or wrap or "fold." Similarly, further on in his note Mr. Palmer is probably incorrect in his derivation of the word amawal, the lower part of the Tuareg veil covering the mouth. This word is regularly derived from the root verb AWL, meaning "to turn" or 66 66 or 66 change direction," and by extension "to hitch up" or "fold up" or "catch up (stuff)." The reference is of course to the fact that the lower part of the veil is the only piece which can be moved without undoing the whole strip of cloth, and is, in fact, hitched up or folded back to enable the wearer to eat and drink. Turning to the more general question raised by Mr. Palmer, I regard the Kitala or Gadala, and the Lemta or Aulimmiden sections of the Tuareg race as distinct; nor is there enough similarity in their names to identify them with one another or with the whole. The Sudanese name Ilam is probably more akin to the word Lemta than to the root ILI, which, as I have said, I am not aware that the Tuareg use as a national name for themselves. The connection between Ilam and Lemta is moreover justified by the evidence, which indicates that the Lemta migrated into the Chad regions from the Fezzan, and thence westwards. But I cannot see very much etymological justification for identifying them with the Kinin, though the latter name certainly does refer to them in the language of the southern folk, even if not in that of the Tuareg themselves. A Ki root in Dirki and Amakitan is too slender evidence for me to regard the Kinin name as Tamashegh. I agree that the Tuareg may have come to North Africa even as late as 1300-1000 B.C., but mere coincidence of a Ki root does not seem enough evidence for associating them with the Kinahhi, however tempting this may seem. The Tuareg probably did come in from the Eastern Mediterranean, but the Egyptian records of people who, we agree, were their ancestors prior to this date must be considered. I have dealt with the "Madghis" Berbers and Ibn Khaldun's second race of Sanhaja very fully in my book, to which I must refer any one interested in this topic. Unfortunately, Mr. Palmer is as much at a loss as I am to account for the commencement of the practice of veiling, which must have begun some time between the fourth century A.D. and the time when the first Arab authors referred to them as the Muleththemin. There are certain totemistic survivals among the Tuareg. In support of Mr. Palmer's totemistic theory on the origin of the veil I might quote the name of a tribe in Air, the Kel Tamat-the People of the Acacia. Further, my suggested derivation of the Tagilmus from the verbal root meaning "to wrap " is in accord with the meaning given to Litham, the Arab equivalent for the veil. Nevertheless, I do not see why the Tuareg, who were once not veiled, should all suddenly have taken to this practice on account of their veneration for the Acacia at a time in history when Christianity was strongly in the ascendant in North Africa and the worship of Tanit and Baal was distinctly on the decline. In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Palmer's main line of theory while reserving myself the right to criticize his etymology and question much of his evidence. I am not convinced by the suggested origin of the veil. I am ready to investigate the theory that the origin of the Tuareg is to be looked for in Persia, whence they came through Syria to Africa; it accords with the result of my independent researches, which only covered their migrations after their arrival in this continent. But I had not ventured to look for their origin further afield than the Eastern Mediterranean. Readers of my book will see that my deductions are, broadly, not inconsistent with Mr. Palmer's ideas on this subject. NOTE BY MR. RONALD DE PASS F. R. R. I have read with great interest Mr. Rodd's paper on "The Origin of the Tuareg," published in the January Geographical Fournal. As regards the origin of the wearing of the veil, Winwood Reade states in his 'Martyrdom of Man' that the Tuareg give the following reason for covering up their mouths: they say that "it has the disgusting office of chewing the food, and is therefore not fit to be seen." I have frequently asked Tuareg to uncover their faces for me to see, and have nearly always found them willing to oblige on my offering them a reward, GEOGRAPHY AT THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE THE I HE exhibition galleries of the Imperial Institute, which have been closed for some months for decoration and re-arrangement, were opened again to the public on September 29, and the Governors, to mark their sense of the important part the Institute should play in public |