The parts which are nearest the sea he describes as inhabited by Nomadic, or pastoral tribes; and the inference is, that where there are flocks and shepherds, there is also pasturage and water. The country inland of these, and immediately adjoining them, he states to be abounding with wild beasts; and for these animals, also, more shelter and moisture is necessary than could be afforded them in the burning sands of a desert: we may therefore conclude that the parts where they are found would most probably contain caves, or woods, which might serve them as habitations and places of retreat and security. This tract we should consequently imagine to be wild and stony, unadapted to cultivation, and affording little or no pasturage, but certainly not wholly of sand, or altogether unprovided with water. The third region, mentioned by Herodotus as succeeding to the two before enumerated, and placed farther inland than either, is the sandy tract of country usually, though not necessarily, implied by the term desert, in which there is neither water, nor vegetation of any kind; nothing, in fact, by which life could be sustained[15]. This tract he merely states to be a long ridge of sand, extending itself from Egypt to the pillars of Hercules[16]. It is but justice to state, in confirmation of the account here submitted to us by the father of history, whose veracity has been so much called in question, that (so far as our own experience, and that of the Arabs whom we have questioned on the subject, has enabled us to judge) it is perfectly consistent with the truth. What was beyond the sandy desert was little known to Herodotus, and must not therefore be adverted to in considering this description.