THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT 1139 



It is somewhat curious that the natives of Africa display no aptitude 

 n for the domestication of the wild animals of their country, in which 

 respect they stand in marked contrast to the Malays and other Eastern nations. In 

 the later ages of Rome, as shown on coins, the African elephant was tamed and ex- 

 hibited in the arena; and these animals are commonly stated to have been employed 

 by the Carthaginians in the Punic wars (B. C. 264-216), no less than thirty-seven 

 of them accompanying Hannibal's army across the Alps. On this point, however, 

 Oswell writes as follows: "I believe some people suppose the Carthaginians tamed 

 and used the African elephants; they could hardly have had mahouts, Indian fash- 

 ion, for there is no marked depression in the nape of the neck for a seat, and the 

 hemming of the ears, when erected, would have half smothered them. My knowl- 

 edge does not allow me to raise any argument on this point; but might not the same 

 market have been open to the dwellers at Carthage as was afterwards to Mithridates, 

 who, I suppose, drew his supply from India, where they have been broken and made 

 to do man's work from time immemorial? " In a note he adds that " I know in the 

 representations on the medals of Faustina and of Septimius Severus the ears are Af- 

 rican, though the bodies and heads are Indian; but these were struck nearly four 

 hundred years after Carthaginian times, when the whole known world had been ran- 

 sacked by the Romans for beasts for their public shows; and I still think it possible 

 that the Carthaginians the great traders and colonizers of old may have obtained 

 elephants, through some of these colonies, from India." From the disposition of 

 " Jumbo," it may be inferred that the species could be as easily tamed, and would 

 prove as docile as the Indian elephant; but there is the difficulty that the natives of 

 Africa probably could not be trained to act as efficient drivers, and without a de- 

 pendable native attendant the best elephant would be worse than useless. 



The general testimony of those who have had experience of both the 

 African and the Indian elephants points to the conclusion that the for- 

 mer is the more dangerous animal of the two, and the one that is more ready to 

 charge. The females, especially those that are barren and have small tusks, are 

 said to be far more dangerous than males, frequently charging without the least 

 provocation, even when un wounded; and it is stated that hunters will sometimes 

 take the trouble to kill one of these worthless females before attacking the tuskers. 

 Indeed, Mr. W. H. Drummond is of opinion that the greater number of accidents 

 that have occurred in African elephant shooting may be set down to females. From 

 the testimony of Gordon Cumming, supported by that of the writer last quoted, it 

 would appear that the African elephant, unlike its Indian cousin, charges with its 

 trunk uplifted, and loudly trumpeting. 



Previous to the introduction of firearms, it appears that in South 

 Pits 



and Southeastern Africa, at any rate, the natives but seldom attacked 



the elephant, and effected little, if any diminution in its numbers. Occasionally, as 

 narrated by Livingstone, they attacked the unfortunate animal with assagais, and 

 gradually harried it to death from the loss of blood caused by hundreds of weapons. 

 In other cases poisoned arrows were the weapons used. A more general method is 

 that of digging pits in the paths frequented by the elephants on their way to water. 

 These pits, according to Sir Samuel Baker, are usually twelve or fourteen feet in 



