JuLy 6, 1899] 
NATORE 
219 
spondences are almost in a minority when compared 
‘with the discrepancies. More serious is Wydropotes on 
p. 139 against Aydrelaphus on p. 296. But the culmin- 
ation is reached when we find, pp. 115-6, Otocyon twice 
identified with the Cape hunting-dog, and, p. 313, the 
giant Armadillo miscalled the giant Kangaroo / 
With regard to the authors’ view on nomenclature, 
which we venture to regard, with certain curious excep- 
tions, as somewhat old-fashioned, it is not our intention 
to offer any general criticism on this occasion. We may, 
however, point out that in rejecting the earlier WZazama 
in favour of the later Caréacus for the name of the 
American deer, they are led into a difficulty when they 
come to sub-genera; Dorcelaphus (a sub-genus) ante- 
dating Cariacus (the genus)! Moreover, whereas they 
term the guemals Xenelaphus on p. 297, the same animals 
are designated Furcifer on p. 78. 
With the statement that the chapter on marine regions 
is a new feature in books of this nature, and that those 
by Dr. Sclater on the distribution of the various mam. 
malian families and genera will be found of the greatest 
value to students, the latter half of the book must be: 
dismissed without further notice. 
A large number of figures, for the most part specially 
prepared for it, illustrate the volume ; and to the excel- 
lence of these we are glad to be able to testify. The 
maps, too, which are numerous, are all that can be de- 
sired to illustrate the text. And here it may be men- 
tioned that in the majority of instances the sub-regions 
are well determined, and their distinctive faunas well 
described. The portion of the work relating to these 
must, indeed, claim a high value for students. We can- 
not, however, but regret that the authors have not seen 
their way to follow Mr. W. T. Blanford in the recognition 
of a Tibetan sub-region, the animals of that area being 
of so remarkably isolated a type. 
Throughout the foregoing criticisms it will be noticed 
that we have studiously avoided bringing forward our 
own views, and have been content to call attention to the 
discrepancies and misstatements in those of the authors. 
Had the authors taken more pains in bringing their sub- 
ject up to date, and did they possess (if we may say so) 
the all-round knowledge necessary to the proper fulfil- 
ment of their task, the volume, as an expression of what 
we regard as somewhat old-fashioned views, might have 
been worthy of higher commendation than we can 
venture to bestow. RSE, 
ANTIQUITIES FROM BENIN. 
Antiquities from the City of Benin, &c., tn the British 
Museum. By C. H. Read and O. M. Dalton. Pp. 
61 + Plates 32. (London: British Museum, 1899.) 
HE real interest in the finding of the Benin bronze 
castings centres in the fact that a negro people 
seem at one time to have been able to produce bronze 
work showing great skill in manufacture, coupled with 
indications of a considerable amount of knowledge of 
art. The question how the craft was learned immediately 
suggests itself. Messrs. Read and Dalton appear (p. 16) 
to accept the statement of the natives (p. 6) that it 
was introduced by the Portuguese, but further on (p. 19) 
NO. 1549, VOL. 60] 
they acknowledge that it is “not easy to solve how far 
Europe is responsible for the art of metal casting in 
West Africa.” From what may be called internal 
evidence, we may reasonably suppose that some of the 
best castings date back to the end of the fifteenth or the 
beginning of the sixteenth century. If the Portuguese 
introduced the art we should expect that some specimens 
of Portuguese work of {that date, and of equal merit, 
should be found in our museums. So far no such 
evidence is forthcoming. There is, however, no reason 
why the art should not have been in existence before 
the arrival of the Portuguese amongst the Bini in the 
same way as the domestic architecture in Benin and the 
surrounding country is most probably indigenous, or in 
the same way as the decorative art of the Ashantis is 
indigenous in so far as our knowledge goes. In all 
probability, the solution of the question will be found to 
lie in the fact that the existence of the art antedates the 
arrival of the Portuguese, who, however, may have given 
it considerable impetus. Yet it must not be taken for 
granted that the Portuguese were the only people who 
influenced the art, for there is plenty of evidence pointing 
to other influences, and we can rest assured that, amongst 
a people so fond of trade as the African negroes, trade 
objects would be numerous, and these would leave their 
impress behind them. For instance, an almost exact 
copy of a spiral bracelet from Benin was brought many 
years ago from Tunis, and is now in the Blackmore 
Museum, while its prototype is to be found at the present 
day on the banks of the Upper Congo. 
From a time shortly subsequent to the arrival at 
the British Museum of the large collection of these 
bronze castings, the authorities prohibited any student 
from taking notes, on the plea that they intended to 
publish a work on the collection. The work is now 
before us. It consists of an historical introduction 
with a descriptive summary, for purposes of comparison, 
of the Yoruba gods taken from Burton instead of from 
Ellis’s later and more comprehensive account, a chapter 
each on the ivory work, the metal work, the early Euro- 
peans, and on dress, ornament and weapons, as ex- 
emplified by the specimens in the collection. The 
illustrations are fair, but some—as, for instance, those 
of the ivory tusks and a king’s or chief’s helmet—are re- 
produced on too small a scale to be of much assistance to 
the student. It is to be regretted that the authors have 
limited themselves to deal solely with the specimens in 
the British Museum collection. The museum possesses 
a unique collection of the bronze castings used as 
historical or decorative plates on the pillars of the 
king’s compounds, but it possesses very few of the 
numerous domestic and other utensils, many likewise 
unique, which have from time to time been on sale in 
London. In other words, the collection is not a repre- 
sentative one, as is, for instance, that of General 
Pitt-Rivers at Farnham. The opportunity for a com- 
parative study of the objects ze se is impossible, and 
the student will therefore have’to go to other museums 
to complete his studies. However, even restricted as the 
work is in its scope, the monograph will always be found 
useful, and the authors are to be congratulated on a good 
piece of work. H. LiInG ROTH. 
