aboeiginp:s of eastern province. 321 



geneoiis lot. It is very improbable, however, that such skulls 

 jnerely represent various g-rades of intennixtiire between the 

 true strandloopers and the Kaffirs. 



In several respects the skull first mentioned resembles 

 those described by Professor Elliot Smith under the name of 

 rroto-Egyptian.* This authority lays stress on the fact that 

 the typical pre-dynastic mandible had a. very short but broad 

 ramus, and shallow sigmoid notch, thus differing greatly 

 from the mandibles of the aliens who entered Egypt unde\- 

 dynastic times. Moreover, the Proto-Egyptian had a long, 

 narrow skull, with the occiput bulged out into a marked 

 prominence of the back of the head. On the other hand, the 

 face was narrow, thus differing from the Bush-Hottentot type. 

 This seems significant in view of the fact that various 

 authorities on linguistic grounds have noted a relationshij) 

 between the Hottentots and various pastoral Hamitic tribes 

 of North-East Africa, one of those tribes, the Gallas, even 

 making use of clicks. It may be that the source of the 

 bulging occiput, conspicuously developed in the above- 

 mentioned specimen, and represented in various Bushman 

 skulls according to Sir William Turner, is to be traced to 

 the earliest Hotteiitots, who centuries ago left the cradle of 

 their race in North-East Africa, and, along with herds of 

 long-horned cattle and flocks of fat-tailed sheep, slowly made 

 their way to the pastures of the south. t 



* " The Ancient Egyptians," by G. Elliot Smith. 



t On the relationship of South African tribes to those of tropical 

 and North Africa, the reader may find useful information in Sir Harry 

 Johnston's paper, " A Survey of the Ethnography of Africa " (Journal, 

 l?oy. Antlirop. Instit., vol. 43, 1913). His account of strandloopers, 

 thougli said to he based on Shruljsall's conclusions, seems to me 

 somewhat strained. 



,^i — S<g, 



ju L I B H A, R Y I 33 



