REMARKS ON THE GENERAL MAP OF THE TRAVELS AND THE ELEMENTS WHICH SERVE FOR ITS BASIS.
Having completed the construction of the itinerary, it remained to subject all these lines of route to the invariable data of which geography is already possessed. I first sought among these data for points common to M. Caillié’s march: they are unfortunately very few in number. How then could I flatter myself, whatever trouble I might take, with whatever care I might combine all the data, hazarding nothing without some authority to support it, that I should produce any thing beyond a mere essay? If it should be hereafter confirmed by the observations of travellers furnished with astronomical instruments, the only merits of this work will consist in fortunate combinations; if it should be falsified by future discoveries, still it will have called for the criticism of geographers, and will consequently not have been useless to science. In submitting to the reader results differing from those hitherto admitted, I wish to warn him against an error, too common, especially in map-making, that of giving the preference to the more recent publications, and to place confidence in them in proportion as they are so. I am far from desirous of usurping this species of interest, to the prejudice of geographical works in general estimation.
The points common to the route of M. Caillié and to the list of positions considered by geographers as perfectly or sufficiently established, are confined to the following: the points of the Western coast of Africa, Kakondy, Timbo, Sami and Yamina (for the latitude), Bakel, Elimané, Fez; and I shall add to them the position of Ain-Salah, though published here for the first time. With respect to the positions of Djenné, Timbuctoo, and the places situated in the great desert, the uncertainty is so great, that there is no resting any solid calculation upon them, and they are of no use in verifying the exactness of new itineraries.
Thus we are reduced, for a space which comprehends twenty five degrees of latitude and from ten to twelve degrees of longitude, to eight points in the interior.[77]Still, the point whence the traveller set out on the first part of his travels, the position of Timbo in the middle of this part, and the very probable knowledge of the parallel of Sego, a town which is connected with the itinerary and attaches itself to the fixed points of the Senegambia, with the almost certain situation of Fez, form a first basis, which may serve to verify as well the inflections of the route as the length of the lines travelled over. I began by establishing the lines from Kakondy to Timé, from Timé to Djenné and Timbuctoo, and from Timbuctoo to el-Araouan; first, by supporting them separately upon Timbo, the parallel of Sego, and the position of Fez; and secondly, by attending to the declination of the compass. These lines were at first formed without any other modification than the necessary substitution of the true north for the magnetic north, in the night journeys. The direction of the first line from Fez gave me a very fair position for Timbuctoo; and that of the second line from Timé furnished me with another but little different, and which the situation of the parallel of Sego brought considerably nearer to the first: whatever uncertainty still remained has been cleared up by new data, of which it would have been difficult not to have made some use.
Whilst at Timé, the idea struck M. Caillié of observing the length of the shadow of a style at midday; his long stay there gave him an opportunity of making the observation twice: the first time, which was on the 30th of October 1827, the height of the style, with every reduction, was 0,706 metre; that of the meridian shadow was equal to 0,2945 metre.[78]The second observation was made on the 1st of November 1827; but this measurement cannot have been taken with so much precision. It was the shadow, properly speaking, which was measured, that is to say, the shadow terminating distinctly and without the penumbra. The calculation gives for the latitude as nearly as possible nine degrees.[79]
This being admitted, I perceived that the construction (made in the manner before explained) of the line which represents the first part of the journey, gave to the situation of Timé the same latitude within a few minutes. This agreement convinced me that no change was required in the construction; so small a difference, considering the insufficiency of the means employed, might indeed be regarded as an entire concordance, and I could not but suppose that it was probably the effect of a fortunate compensation for many errors on the contrary side. I might therefore look upon Timé as a point nearly fixed, and leave it to establish the other two lines. The longitude of Timé, resulting from the preceding operations, is nine degrees two minutes west of Paris. Thus Timé would be at a nearly equal distance from the equator and from the meridian of Paris.
The bearing of the line from Kakondy to Timé, according to the travels of M. Caillié, having been confirmed, has given me confidence in the bearings of the rest of the route. I have therefore first laid down the line from Timé to Timbuctoo, and that from Timbuctoo to Fez, such as they result from the construction of the map of the route. The point of Fez being fixed, it became necessary to modify a little the absolute length and the direction of these lines, to confine myself between the two points of Timé and Fez, and I have proceeded upon a proportionate reduction. The difference was nothing extraordinary for so long a route, amongst so many obstacles and difficulties which the indefatigable traveller had to overcome. It amounted on the whole, upon near three thousand English miles,[80]to about one hundred and fifty, or a twentieth part of the space travelled over, and the total angular difference is less than six degrees upon the angle between the meridian of Kakondy and the direction upon Arbate. The latitude of Timbuctoo, obtained by this means, is near seventeen degrees fifty minutes north.
Possessing upon this latitude no geographical data properly so called, having only the routes of caravans, and not even the hours of march, but merely the reckoning of the day’s journey, so that to the uncertainty of the length of the journeys is added the still greater uncertainty of the pace of the caravans, according to whether they were more or less numerous, whether composed of camels more or less laden, or only of pedestrians; together with our ignorance as to the number and situation of the forced halts which they make in the desert, either on account of wells, or of those unforeseen accidents which will happen in these terrible peregrinations;[81]in the midst, I say, of so many causes of hesitation, which ought to warn geographers against the employment of the vague itineraries of the Arabs and the Moors, could I grant less confidence to the route of M. Caillié than to the marches of the Africans?
These routes are constantly divided by hours: the rests are noted with exactness, and they are never undecided with respect to the length of the marches: it only remains then to estimate the pace, and we are enlightened on this latter subject by the composition of the caravan. For these reasons, and others still which it would occupy too much time to explain; I have not thought it right to take preceding itineraries into account in combining the elementary facts necessary for ascertaining the position of Timbuctoo.
I should, however, have still remained in doubt, and have abstained from offering an opinion had there not been other new data susceptible of comparison with the itinerary of M. Caillié; I mean the measure of the meridian shadow which he took at Timbuctoo itself. This observation was made by the same method as that at Timé: this proceeding is undoubtedly very imperfect, but, for want of others I think it should not be entirely neglected. On the 1st of May 1828 our traveller planted a style of the height of 0,635 metre; he measured, at noon, the shadow of this style and found it equal to 0,030 metre.[82]The calculation gives seventeen degrees fifty one minutes north latitude. I must repeat here the reflection that this agreement may very probably result from contrary errors which have balanced each other: but as it is impossible to discover the points in which the errors lie, or the limit of their extent, the final result is all that can be obtained.
I will add one consideration which will not have escaped those geographers who have studied the calculation of probabilities. In a series of observations made under the same circumstances, and especially by the same observers, the greater the number, the more probable is it that their amount will approach to the total quantity required. When there is no reason that the errors committed should be on one side rather than another, they mutually destroy each other, and the more so, the more the observations are multiplied. There is even a rule which teaches us how much the sum found differs from the truth; its discovery belongs to the learned geometrician, who is at present the organ of the French Institute for mathematical science. Knowing the error which may have occurred in an observation, it must be multiplied by the square root of the total number of observations. Thus, instead of growing with this number the total possible error decreases proportionably. For example, for four observations it would be represented by two, and for a hundred observations, by ten only. The proportion of total errors is therefore as ¹⁰⁄₂ whereas the proportion of the number of observations is as ¹⁰⁰⁄₄: thus the error is but the fifth part of what it would be proportionally in four observations.[83]Hence it follows that the more observations are multiplied the more any imperfection in the processes by which they have been made will be corrected.
Are we not authorised to apply this principle to the length of M. Caillié’s stages, since the number of the lines of route is not less than six hundred and thirty three? I may add that the same remark applies to the angular deviation. Indeed, considering the total distance between the meridian of Timé and that of Fez, or the difference in longitude (which is equal to one degree forty four minutes) as being the real sum of all the angles of the route to the east or west of the first, it will follow that the forming of the lines of bearings noted by the traveller (or the calculation of the angles, which is more exact) gives a total variation, so much nearer to the above difference of longitude as the number of bearings is greater; and this number is also six hundred and thirty three. As it has been seen above, I have found the deviation equal to less than six degrees, and it has been easy to divide it over the whole line.
From the determination of the lines which join Timé, Djenné, Timbuctoo, and Fez, and from the latitude of Timbuctoo thus fixed according to the itinerary at seventeen degrees fifty or fifty one minutes,[84]necessarily results a more westerly longitude of this city, than has been hitherto supposed, and even than that which I had formerly admitted, and which brings its position much nearer to the ocean than any geographer has placed it.
Such is the importance of the situation of Timbuctoo that I deem it necessary to insist again on the discussion of the elements; in order, not to establish it with certainty (I am far from believing that I have accomplished this) but to furnish the reader with new means of approaching the truth, as nearly as the state of our knowledge will permit. It is true that a single astronomical observation made by a skilful observer, furnished with good instruments, and worthy of confidence, might overthrow these inductions; but it is equally true that till we are possessed of such an observation, no geographer can fix this main position on a map, without deducing all the reasons which determine him, especially if he dissents from the opinions of his predecessors.
Timbuctoo is placed, on the general map of the travels, in the latitude resulting from the observation of the shadow and the length of the route from Timé to Timbuctoo. A great part of this route, it may be observed, is in a northerly direction, which was far from being conjectured from the course of the river in this quarter. If Mungo Park could have acquainted us with the particulars of his journey beyond Sansanding, we should not have been so long uncertain of this direction, which has uniformly been carried easterly, and that because the situation of Timbuctoo was imagined (as it is still) to be very central in the continent. Park’s map (travels in 1805) places it under the meridian of Paris; Clapperton at 0° 5° west. Rennell at 2° 3°: but the data of which we have been for ten years in possession oblige us to bring it nearer to the ocean; M. Walckenaer has done so, in adopting a longitude from nine to twelve minutes more westerly. I have always proposed to carry this position much farther west, and even placed it four years ago four degrees west.[85]M. Brué has since adopted 3° 34’: perhaps it should have been advanced as far as the sixth degree. For the reasons I have elsewhere given, the route from Timbuctoo to Fez cannot be fixed at more than two English miles an hour: to this rate I have reduced the computation of M. Caillié, who at first estimated the whole route equally at three miles. Now the line of route thus constructed and resting upon Arbate, a well known position, carries Timbuctoo very near the eighteenth degree north; that is to say, from 17° 50’ to 17° 55’; had not this been shortened a little, the city would have been carried to 19°, or 20°, a position far too northerly, and totally inadmissible. Moreover, the line from Timbuctoo to Arbate would be ten degrees too far west; it would also be increasing the declination to 27° instead of 17°, which seems to be its amount for the mean meridian.
But, if the bearing of the line from Timbuctoo to Fez resulting from the itinerary, and that of the line from Timé to Timbuctoo, are preserved, these two intersect each other about the parallel of 17° 50’. This latitude agrees so well with that resulting from the height of the shadow, 17° 51’ that we derive from these data a very satisfactory confirmation. Now the line of the parallel 17° 51’ and the two lines of direction meet, all three, on nearly the same meridian, the sixth west from Paris.
No positive data are yet known which can better fix the longitude: not only are the itineraries of the Moors too vague, but they support themselves upon the Mediterranean, while M. Caillié’s routes, though they are continued to the Mediterranean, support themselves upon the ocean; which is much nearer than the former, and also upon the known positions of Timbo and Fez.
Suppose, however, it were determined, notwithstanding all these reasons to withdraw Timbuctoo farther to the east by a degree or more, it would then become necessary greatly to increase the journeys from Kakondy to Timé. In making them three English miles and three fifths an hour, the true measure has probably been somewhat exceeded, but the situation of Timbo compelled this; while, to place Timbuctoo on the third degree of west longitude, would be to suppose a march of more than four miles and a half an hour.
Another circumstance here comes to our assistance: it is that by carrying it farther towards the east, we must suppose the traveller greatly and constantly deceived in a western direction on his journey from Timé to Timbuctoo, and, on the contrary, in going from Timbuctoo to Fez, he must have made a similar and not less considerable error in all his bearings towards the east. How should we account for this singularity?
From all these considerations, could I risk changing the result of M. Caillié’s itinerary and altering the construction of his route? could I, in short, without sufficient motive, give the preference to any one map over another? Some judgment may be formed upon this question from the diversity of situations assigned to Timbuctoo by different authorities:
It is on the English maps, even those of most recent date, that this town has always been placed the most to the east. The advantage of a more eastern position relatively to the proximity of a great river flowing into the Gulf of Guinea would be evident: but this proximity is nothing less than certain. By a coincidence worthy of notice the English maps have also brought Timbuctoo farther to the south than any others except Delile, as will appear from this table of different latitudes:
I return to the latitude of Timbuctoo. Ain-Salah, in the oasis of Touat, is usually placed about 1° east of Paris and in 24° 30’ north latitude; but Major Laing’s observation, as communicated to me by Captain Sabine, is very different, namely: 0° 29’ west of Paris, and 27° 11’ 30". M. Walckenaer has calculated the distance from this oasis to Timbuctoo at six hundred and seventy five geographical miles: it is evident that this measure, if admitted, would advance Timbuctoo towards the north to between the 17th and 18th degree; now, it happens that this distance of six hundred and seventy five miles is found exactly between the two points as placed upon the present map. This last coincidence, which I remarked after my labour was concluded, contributed still farther to dispel my doubts. I have estimated the day’s journeys at 18’ four tenths and not with M. Walckenaer at 15’; but it was the medium journeys, not those of the great caravan, which formed the object of his researches. It appears then that the approximative situation assigned to Timbuctoo, 6° west and 17° 50’ north, satisfies the different data, and the best itineraries, that it agrees with the positions of Timbo and of Fez, and that it is not contradicted by Mungo Park’s observations on the latitude, taken at Sami and Yamina; finally, it is confirmed by the particulars brought from Elimané by Captain Beaufort.
Fifty four days’ journeys will be found on my map from Timbuctoo to Tatta; an itinerary cited by M. Walckenaer (p. 297) marks fifty. The fifty four days from Fez to Timbuctoo according to Mr. Jackson[86]also agree: it is the same with the sixty-four days from Timbuctoo to Morzouk. Fewer than twenty eight journeys are reckoned from Houssa to Timbuctoo, according to the itinerary of Mohammed Ebn-Foul; this distance is too short on our map, and on all the others, even those in Clapperton’s travels. There are, besides, other reasons for believing that there may be two towns or countries called Houssa[87].
I do not compare with the map the distance reckoned between Timbuctoo and the town of Tafilet, because M. Caillié heard no mention of a town so called: he affirms that none such exists, in which case it is not possible to make use of this distance.
I shall add in conclusion of this discussion, that nothing can authorise us to depart from the observations of latitude taken by Mungo Park, at Yamina and Sami, namely, 13° 15’ and 13° 17’, and to remove these points much further to the south, as M. Brué has done upon his map, otherwise so rich in details and nomenclature. The determination which I propose for the latitude of Timbuctoo agrees better with these observations, the only ones we possess in this direction as far as Timbuctoo.
From the whole discussion, it results, first, that the different lines of route forming the itinerary map have been subjected to divers conditions resulting from the journal of the traveller, from anterior observations and from good geographical data; secondly, that the hour’s journeys, estimated at three English miles, mean measure, between Kakondy and Galia or Djenné, are a little increased between Kakondy and Timé, in consequence of the position of Timbo; thirdly, that, from Djenné to Timbuctoo and thence to Fez, the average of two miles an hour has been a little modified by the real difference in latitude of the two extremities. I have now only to speak of the bearings and measure of the lines of march.
The reduction of the true north of our traveller’s lines of route was one of the most important points; and to arrive at their actual bearing, I was assisted by a single new datum only; namely, the observation of the angle of the meridian shadow with the magnetic north. The travels furnish two of these observations: the one, of the 30th of October 1827, gave the N. N. E.; the other of the 1st of November, the N. ¼ N. E., that is to say, the compass had on these days a declination of 22° 30’ and 11° 15’ to the east. I was then obliged to have recourse to other researches to determine between these two measures, and to avail myself of several observations taken by Mungo Park and other travellers.
The following are the names of the places and observations; I omit their geographical situations:
In Mungo Park’s journal of his second expedition, as printed in London, is a tracing of the Gambia,[92]from which a smaller declination would result: it appears evident to me, that some error has crept in here, either in the copying or in the engraving, when the coincidence of the preceding observations from five different travellers is considered, and particularly that of Park’s own observations.[93]To these might be added the declination observed by Major Laing in his first journey, and that which has been observed at Sierra-Leone and other places; but this inquiry would be superfluous. It will be remarked, that the mean term of 16° 55’ declination east, is also the mean between the two observations of M. Caillié; but, as the observation of Badoo seems hither small compared with all the others, I have thought myself entitled to adopt 17° as the mean declination and to subject the whole route to it.
I shall here make another remark respecting the situation of places marked upon the two maps, upon information communicated by others, and not direct observations; it is that the natives are extremely clever at indicating the direction of places at a greater or less distance: they are seldom mistaken in this indication; and they point out with the finger with great accuracy, the direction which must be taken to go in a straight line to a given spot. This observation has been made before. When a certain direction was thus pointed out to M. Caillié, he remarked some particular object on the line, and applied his compass to it at the first favourable opportunity. These bearings have been extremely useful to me for the points situated beyond the route; without this assistance I should have found it impossible to trace, even tolerably, the course of the Dhioliba above Djenné.
The geography of countries which have not been explored by observers furnished with instruments is usually reduced to the calculations of days’ journeys. What can be more vague or doubtful than such documents? The most learned discussion (as remarked above), can only elicit feeble scintillations from them. How are contradictory accounts to be reconciled? How are common days’ journeys to be distinguished from double days, or even longer still? It is evident, that itineraries must be examined and compiled from the number of the hours journeys, and not by the days, and there would then be a less degree of uncertainty. Should European travellers themselves compute their lines of march by the days’ journeys? And how happens it that it is not an established rule, in exploring distant and unknown countries, to keep an exact account of the hours and every fraction of time? The journal of M. Caillié, although he has not rigorously complied with this condition, at least presents an uninterrupted continuity of marches measured by time, generally by hours, sometimes by half-hours and even quarters. But for this persevering (and amidst so many fatigues truly laudable) attention, positive geography would have gained very little by these long and toilsome peregrinations.
In a memoir inserted in the eighty-first volume of thePhilosophical Transactions, Major Rennell has fixed the day’s journey of a caravan heavily laden at sixteen geographical miles (or minutes of a degree) and one sixth; and that of a light caravan, at seventeen miles and one third. It appears to me, that the second of these results is too small, and especially that an intermediate term should have been established, between the light and the heavy caravans, for there is a vast difference between the two extremes. The former certainly advance more than twenty geographical miles a day, especially, as they are able to continue their journey longer, that is to say, for a greater number of hours each day. Then, again, it would be convenient to fix an intermediate valuation between sixteen and twenty miles, that is to say, the day’s journey of the medium caravans, if they may be so called. I find Major Rennell’s appreciation of the first denomination of days’ journeys confirmed by the experience of the engineers attached to the French expedition, in crossing the deserts near Egypt. We estimated the hour’s march at nineteen hundred toises; eight hours would amount to fifteen miles two hundred toises, or very nearly sixteen geographical miles; the hour’s march would thus be established at two miles, or thirty hours to the degree. In consequence of several calculations much too long to be reported here, I consider the day’s journey of the medium caravan to be eighteen geographical miles and four tenths, the hour being between two miles and two miles and one tenth. I shall not here take the light caravans into account; these travel longer, and the progress of each hour is at the same time greater; but I think it may in many cases be estimated at twenty-two miles, or ten hours of two miles and two tenths. Persons travelling in small parties, without reckoning men mounted on horses or dromedaries, move still quicker.
According to Captain Lyon, the days’ journeys of the caravans are less than twenty English miles, and above seventeen; that is to say, more than the short day, and less than the medium. It is not by the pace either of a pedestrian or of a lightly loaded camel that the progress of a caravan must be measured, but, on the contrary, by that of the man or camel bearing the heaviest burden; for the latter must be waited for by the former, and is perpetually retarding the march; otherwise the usual pace would be much greater than that just fixed. Besides, this reduction of the average value is independent of that which must be allowed for the deviations and turnings which are often unknown: another source of hesitation and of error to geographers.
The earlier journeys of M. Caillié on leaving Kakondy afford an example of the real amount of the day’s journey: the first day, he advanced twenty-three English miles, the following sixteen miles and a half; the third eighteen miles; the average rate nineteen miles and one sixth.[94]The hour’s journey was estimated by him at three miles only, but the construction of the itinerary proves that this computation was more than one tenth too small. The result is twenty one English miles,[95]which is very near eighteen geographical miles and four tenths; all, by my estimation, medium days, (or days of a medium caravan). Indeed, the small caravan to which M. Caillié then belonged may be balanced against these considerations—first, that though small in number it included a woman; secondly, that all were on foot; thirdly, that all were loaded. In traversing the desert, the day’s journeys were of twelve hours and sometimes more;[96]but exhaustion, thirst, and fatigue, prevented both the travellers and camels from keeping up the same pace as on their first departure, and a mile and a half an hour is a large allowance for the march.
I ought here to report the opinion of M. Walckenaer, who has discussed with much sagacity this important geographical question:[97]he fixes at fifteen minutes the amount of a day’s journey of a caravan heavily loaded; this amount falls short by only one sixth of that which I have adopted, from our own experience in Egypt, and which further confirms the opinion of Major Rennell.
But M. Walckenaer does not estimate the other two denominations of days’ journeys, those of the medium and of the light caravans. I shall only remark that the result of his arguments seems to be, that the real and effective progress is considerably more than 15’, and about equal to 18’ or 19’:the average of a day’s journey reduced to measures taken in a straight line upon the map. But will the diversity of elbows and inflexions, resulting from that of the obstacles which produce them, allow us to work a uniform reduction, and to apply a uniform factor to every distance travelled over? Let us, for instance admit that part of the route amounts to sixty miles, and that the straight line between these extremities is forty-eight miles; can the same rule be adopted with regard to the whole route, which may be three hundred miles or five times as much? would the total direct line amount to two hundred and forty miles? The longer the route, the greater should be the variation in the rate of the reduction. The following table contains a summary of these observations upon the amount of the hours’ and days’ marches of caravans, and the different computations which have been made of them.
N.B. To reduce these numbers into English miles, they must be worked by the proportion of 60:69.[100]
I had at first intended to construct separately each of M. Caillié’s routes, taking into consideration in each particular case the difficulties of the ground, the composition of the caravans, and the physical condition of the travellers; but, as it was impossible to perform this work correctly, it would also have been useless. Besides, the reflections which I have already made tend to shew that, by following a uniform plan of reduction from one end of the route to the other, one must arrive at a result nearly approaching to the truth.
All that I have hitherto advanced relates solely to that part of the general map, which represents the space travelled over by M. Caillié; I have now to speak of the remainder, namely, the extremity of the map towards the north, and that towards the S. W. The former portion, or the country of Morocco, has been chiefly extracted from the fine map of M. Brué,[101]but reduced to much fewer details; we know that he sought his data in the best Spanish and English maps, and in the works of Badia, Jackson, Walckenaer, Ritter, &c.; authorities which furnish excellent materials, but which, the former especially, must not always be employed without the assistance of criticism.
The second part, to the south of the Rio-Nuñez, has been drawn from theSenegambieof M. Dufour, who has skilfully combined the materials of Major Laing with those of preceding English travellers: it will be seen by comparing our two maps, that I have been obliged to differ from him with respect to the situations and names of several countries. I have also been necessitated, as well for the sake of perspicuity on a map upon a very small scale, as on account of uncertainty, to retrench many details. I shall conclude with the table of geographical positions, forming the foundation of the general map, independently of the coast of Africa, which is pretty accurately known.[102]
OF THE NOMENCLATURE.
I shall not here offer to the reader a general list of the names of towns and villages, or of the different nations, states and districts visited by M. Caillié during his travels; this duplicate labour is rendered quite unnecessary by the minute list of the Itinerary[103]contained in this volume, and by the journal itself, both of which I recommend it to the reader to consult upon this subject. My object is merely to make some remarks upon the method of retracing these names and upon a few other relative points. The nomenclature is so much the more important in the compilation of African maps, as inattentive travellers frequently confuse generic appellations with proper names andvice versa; or they spell the same name in several different ways, or in writing various names they lose sight of the trifling differences by which they are distinguished. Hence the faulty multiplication upon the maps of places which do not exist, and on the contrary the suppression of many which do. The difficulty is great, particularly with respect to countries recently explored and the language of which is unknown. I have chiefly confined myself to obtaining the names from the mouth of the traveller as his memory furnished them, and comparing them in his presence with his journal.
Among other generic terms which have been considered as proper names, I shall particularize two, on account of the confusion which they have introduced, and which involves in obscurity some important geographical questions, namely the situation of a considerable chain of mountains to the south of the 8th degree of latitude, and the still unknown outlet of the great central river.Kong, is the name given, particularly since Mungo Park, to a great chain of transverse mountains which he reports to have seen at a distance to his right, when travelling from the Gambia to the Dhioliba. Now, M. Caillié learnt from the natives thatKongis a generic word, and that in the Mandingo language it signifies a mountain; the mountain or chain of mountains in question is accordingly far from being the only one of its name. I remark also, that the English traveller in his Mandingo vocabulary explains the wordKongbyhead; whence perhaps the signification ofKong; and himself translatesKonkobyhill.[104]
When the later English travellers had gained intelligence of a river calledCouara, to the west of Saccatou, and of the river which is near Funda, it was remembered that this name is also borne by the upper Dhioliba, and these three rivers have been at once identified; but it appears thatCouarais a general term signifying a river. The inhabitants who in three different places have been asked the name of the river, not understanding the question, have answered by the wordriver. Already had this confusion taken place a hundred times with the wordsba,bahr, andnil, which also meanriver,running water,great water. There is on the road from Timé to Djenné a village named Couara, and near it a river of moderate breadth, called Coraba (or according to my idea Couara-ba,[105].) It is easy to perceive from the face of the country, that it is a tributary of the Dhioliba, which was also reported to M. Caillié; here then is another river of the same name, or rather another general denomination which confirms the import of the wordCouara, already observed by travellers.
I have noticed that the Arabic,khaغ, is used every where, even in the countries where the Arabic language and Islamism do not prevail: the traveller had expressed it by a blank; I have written itkhaccording to the general custom. The slightly lisping sound ﻎ is used in many central districts, as is a liquid sound, common also in Senegambia, and which may be writtenghiordhi. The name of the town of Jenné has been written Djenné, because the Arabs of the present day write جنع or جنا; but M. Caillié remarked that the natives pronouncedhiI am therefore inclined to prefer Dhienné.[106]
M. Caillié knows nothing of the Island of Jinbala marked upon Park’s map, but he was not wholly a stranger to the name; he mentions a tribe of Jinbalas to the north of Timbuctoo.
I entertain doubts, which time alone can remove; respecting the names of many places, and I have therefore thought it better to preserve those names without alteration. I have only omitted, upon consultation with the traveller, letters which appeared useless to the pronunciation, or which might create difficulties. The names of such places as Brahihima no doubt require rectification; the name of Abrahima, or Ibrahima, &c., are met with in some travels.
I have suppressed the letterqand almost always thek, except beforeeori, confining myself to the use ofc. The doublessmerely expresses the sound of an initialS. Thewandooof the English, which M. Caillié acquired the habit of using at Sierra-Leone, I have expressed upon the maps byou; the words in the text have been generally subjected to the same rules.
On the route to the Tafilet such names as Tamaroc and M-dayara, &c., occur on account of the use of the initial letters T and M which announce the vicinity of the Berbers. The wells of Trasas or Trazah should perhaps be pronounced T-ghazah or T-ghazzah, which will correspond with the Tegasa or Tegazzah of Leo Africanus[107]. In several words beginning withLas L-Eksebi, L-Guedea, L-Eyarac, L-Guim, &c., the Arabic articlealappears to me to be joined to the name by contraction, as in the vulgar pronunciation throughout Northern Africa. The words beginning with the letternshould perhaps be pronouncedain, which signifies a source or fountain. I hazard this conjecture from the presence of wells at such places, and from the example of Ain-Salah, in the oasis of Touat, which is frequently writtenEnsalah, orNsalah, in a single word. It is difficult for Europeans to pronounce the guttural ع, and they frequently leave a blank for it, as well as for the ق and the خ. I presume, therefore that the names Nzeland, Nyela, &c., stand for Ain-Zeland, Ain-Yela; but this supposition may perhaps be refuted by the orthography of the name of Hanalak or (Hen-Alak) هنالﻜ a place situated upon the route from the country of Galam to Morocco.
I shall take this opportunity of giving the Arabian orthography of the names of several places belonging to the space between St. Louis, Timbuctoo, and Morocco; I am obliged for them, to the Baron Roger, formerly governor of the Senegal, and who has lately enhanced, by important publications, the title he had long since acquired to general esteem, by the improvements of all kinds which he introduced into that country.