MAURITANIA, an ancient kingdom of Africa, bounded on the west by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Getulia or Libya Interior, and on the north by the Mediterranean, and comprehending the greater part of the kingdoms of Fez and Morocco. Its ancient limits are not exactly mentioned by any historian; neither can they now be ascertained by any modern observations, these kingdoms being but little known to Europeans.

This country was originally inhabited by a people called Mauri, concerning the etymology of whose name authors are not agreed. It is probable, however, that the country, or at least great part of it, was first called Phut, since it appears from Pliny, Ptolemy, and St Jerome, that a river and territory not far from Mount Atlas went by that name. It likewise appears, from the Jerusalem Targum, that part of the Mauri may be deemed the offspring of Lud, the son of Misraim, since his descendants, mentioned in Genesis, are there called Mauri i or Mauritani. It is certain that this region, as well as the others to the eastward of it, had many colonies planted by the Phoenicians. Procopius tells •us that in his time were to be seen two pillars of white stone, containing the following inscription in the Phoenician language and character: “We are the Canaanites who fled from Joshua the son of Nun, that notorious robber.” Ibnu Rachic, or Ibnu Raquig, an African writer cited by Leo, and also Evagrius and Nicephorus Callistus, make the same statement.

The Mauritanians were, according to Ptolemy, divided into several cantons or tribes. The Metagonitae were situated near the Straits of Hercules, now those of Gibraltar; the Saccosii, or Cocosii, occupied the coast of the Iberian Sea; and under these two petty nations the Masices, Vernes, and Verbicae or Vervicae, were settled. The Salisae or Salinsae were situated lower, towards the ocean; and, still more to the south were the Volubiliani. The Maurensii and Herpiditani possessed the eastern part of this country, which was terminated by the Mulucha. The Angaucani or Jangacaucani, Nectiberes, Zagrensii, Baniubae, andVa-cuntae, extended from the southern base of Ptolemy’s Atlas Minor to his Atlas Major. Pliny mentions the Baniurae, whom Father Hardouin takes to be Ptolemy’s Baniubae; and Mela speaks of the Atlantes, whom he represents as possessing the western part of this district.

The earliest prince of Mauritania mentioned in history is Neptune; and next to him were Atlas and Antaeus his two sons, both famous in the Grecian fables on account of their wars with Hercules. Antaeus, in his contention with that hero, seems to have behaved with great bravery and resolution. Having received reinforcements of Libyan troops, he cut off numbers of Hercules’s men. But that celebrated commander, having at last intercepted a strong body of Libyans sent to the relief of Antaeus, inflicted on him a total overthrow, in which both he and the greater part of his forces were put to the sword. This decisive action put Hercules in possession of Libya and Mauritania, and consequently of the riches of these kingdoms. Hence arose the fable, that Hercules, finding that Antaeus, a giant of enormous size with whom he was engaged in single combat, received fresh strength as often as he touched his mother earth when thrown upon her, at last lifted him up in the air and squeezed him to death. Hence likewise may be deduced the fable, which intimates that Hercules took the globe from Atlas upon his own .shoulders, overcame the dragon which guarded the orchards of the Hesperides, and made himself master of all the golden fruit it produced. Bochart thinks that the fable alluded chiefly to naval engagements, in which Hercules was for the most part victorious, though Antaeus from time to time received succours by sea; but that at last FIercules, coming up with one of his squadrons which had a strong reinforcement on board, made himself master of it, and thus rendered Antaeus incapable for the future of making head against him. The same author likewise insinuates, that the notion of the gigantic stature of Antaeus, which prevailed for so many centuries amongst the Tingitanians, pointed out the size of the vessels of which his fleets and squadrons were composed. As for the golden apples so frequently mentioned by the old mythologists, they were the treasures which fell into Hercules’s hands upon the defeat of Antaeus; the Greeks giving to the oriental word Hxo, riches, the signification affixed to their own term μriκa, apples.

With regard to the age in which Atlas and Antaeus lived, the most probable supposition seems to be that of Sir Isaac Newton. According to that illustrious author, Ammon, the father of Sesak, was the first king of Libya, or of that vast tract extending from the borders of Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean, the conquest of which country was effected by Sesak in his father’s lifetime. Neptune afterwards[7:14:331] excited the Libyans to a rebellion against Sesak, and slew him, and then invaded Egypt under the command of Atlas or Antaeus, the son of Neptune, Sesak’s brother and admiral. Not long after, Hereules, the general of Thebais and Ethiopia, reduced a second time the whole territory of Libya, having overthrown and slain Antaeus near a town in Thebais, from that event called Antoea or Antocopoli s . Such is the notion advanced by Sir Isaae Newton, who endeavours to prove that the first reduction of Libya, by Sesak, happened about a thousand years before the birth of Christ, as the last, by Hercules, did some years afterwards. Now, although we do not pretend to adopt every particular cireumstance of Sir Isaae Newton’s system, yet we cannot forbear observing, that it appears evident from Scripture, that neither the western extremity of Libya, nor even the other parts of that region, could possibly have been so well peopled before the time of David or Solomon, as to have sent a numerous army to invade Egypt, since Egypt and Phoenicia, whence came the greater part of the ancestors of the Libyans, and which were much nearer the place whence the first dispersion of mankind took place, could not have been greatly overstocked with inhabitants any considerable time before the reign of Saul. That such an invasion, however, happened in the reign of Neptune, or at least in that of his son Antaeus, has been most fully evinced by this distinguished chronologist.

From the defeat of Antaeus nothing remarkable occurs in the history of Mauritania till the times of the Romans, who at last brought the whole kingdom under their jurisdiction. With regard to the customs and manners of this people, it would seem, from what Hygimis insinuates, that they fought only with clubs, until one Belus, the son of Neptune (as that author calls him), taught them the use of the sword. Sir Isaac Newton is of opinion that this Belus was the same with Sesostris king of Egypt, who overran a great part of the then known world.

All persons of distinction in Mauritania went richly attired, wearing gold and silver on their clothes. They took great pains in cleansing their teeth, and curled their hair in a curious and elegant manner. They combed their beards, which were long, and always had their nails closely paired. When they walked out in any numbers they never touched one another, for fear of disconcerting the curls into which their hair had been formed.

The Mauritanian infantry, in time of action, used shields made of elephants’ skins, being clad in those of lions, leopards, and bears, which they kept on both night and day. The cavalry of this nation were armed with broad, short lances, and carried targets or bucklers made of the skins of wild beasts. They used no saddles. Their horses were small and swift, had wooden collars about their necks, and were so much under the command of their riders, that they followed them like dogs. The habit of these horsemen was not much different from that of the foot already mentioned; they constantly wore a large tunie of the skins of wild beasts. The Phutaei, of whom the Mauritanians were a branch, were eminent for their shields, and the excellent use they made of them, as we learn from Homer, Xenophon, Herodotus, and Scripture. Nay, Herodotus seems to intimate that the shield and helmet came from them to the Greeks.

Notwithstanding the fertility of their soil, the poorer sorts of the Mauritanians never took care to manure the ground, being strangers to the art of husbandry, but roved about the country in a wild and savage manner, like the ancient Scythians or Arabes Scenitoe. They had tents, or mapalia, so extremely small that they could scarcely breathe in them. Their food was corn, herbage, &c. which they frequently ate green, without any manner of preparation, being destitute of wine, oil, and all the elegancies as well as many necessaries of life. Their habit was the same both in summer and winter, consisting chiefly of an old tattered though thick garment, and over it a coarse rough tunic, which answered probably to that of their neighbours the Numidians. Most of them lay every night upon the bare ground, though some of them strewed their garments thereon, not unlike the Kabyles and Arabs of our day, who, according to Dr Shaw, use their hykes for a bed and covering in the night.

If the most approved reading of Horace may be admitted, the Mauritanians shot poisoned arrows, which clearly intimates that they had some skill in the art of preparing poisons, and were excellent bowmen. This last observation is countenanced by Herodian and Aelian, who entirely come into it, affirming them to have been in such continual danger of being devoured by wild beasts, that they durst not stir out of their tents or mapalia without their darts. Such perpetual exercise must have rendered them exceedingly skilful in hurling that weapon. The Mauritanians sacrificed human victims to their deities ? like the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and other nations.

The country people were extremely rude and barbarous; but those inhabiting cities must have had at least some smattering of the literature of the several nations from whom they deduced their origin. That the Mauritanians had some knowledge of naval affairs seems probable, not only from the intercourse they had with the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, as well as the situation of their country, but likewise from the statement of Orpheus or Onomacritus, who asserts that they had made a settlement at the entrance into Colchis, to which place they came by sea. To magic and sorcery, divination and witchcraft, they appear to have applied themselves in very early times. Cieero and Pliny say that Atlas was the inventor of astrology and the doctrine of the sphere, which he first introduced into Mauritania. This, according to Diodorus Siculus, gave rise to the fable of Atlas bearing the heavens upon his shoulders. The same author relates that Atlas instructed Hercules in the doctrine of the sphere and astrology, or rather astronomy, and that the latter afterwards brought these sciences into Greece.