NATURE 



357 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, iqio. 



ANIMALS OF THE ANCIENTS. 



Die Antike Tierwelt. By Otto Keller. Erster Band, 

 Saugetiere. Pp. xii + 434. (Leipzig: W. Engel- 

 mann, 1909.) Price 10 marks. 



FOR rnany years past the author of this interest- 

 ing volume has been engaged in investigating 

 the records relating to animals known to the ancients, 

 with the object of identifying the various species 

 described or depicted, and working out their past 

 history and distribution, special attention, in the case 

 of mammals, being directed to the larger and more 

 interesting forms, and those which have been domes- 

 ticated by man. The results of this protracted study 

 are incorporated in the work, of which the first 

 volume is now before me, and in many respects Dr. 

 Keller is to be congratulated on the outcome of his 

 labours, especially in regard to his treatment of the 

 various species of the Primates and Carnivora, 

 although even among these he does not appear to 

 have made himself acquainted with all the recent 

 literature on the subject, and notably the work of 

 Dr. Lortet on the mummified animals of Eg)'pt, now 

 in course of publication in the Archives of the Lyons 

 Museum. 



Even in the case of the Carnivora, I cannot, how- 

 ever, agree with all the author's conclusions, as, for 

 instance, the statement on p. 72 that domesticated 

 cats owe their origin in part to the jungle-cat (Felis 

 chaits). Indeed, it is difficult to believe that he is 

 fully acquainted with the characteristics of that 

 species, or he would have hesitated in identifying with 

 it the cat depicted in a fresco from Pompeii, which 

 is reproduced on p. 72, the tail being much too long, 

 and the ears showing no trace of the distinctive tufts. 



Leaving the Carnivora with this brief mention, I 

 pass on to the Ungulata, where there is much more 

 room for criticism, more especially in regard to the 

 author's identification of animals represented in the 

 ancient sculptures and cylinders of Syria and adjacent 

 parts of Asia Minor with species indigenous to 

 Central Asia and other distant regions. Nor is this 

 all, for when Dr. Keller attempts to identify animals 

 represented in the frescoes of ancient Egypt with 

 species inhabiting northern Africa, he is, in many 

 cases, to say the least, far from happy in his con- 

 clusions. In the upper figure on p. 295 we find, for 

 instance, an antelope identified as a hartebeest 

 (Butalis), although it is mucli more probably a lesser 

 kudu {Strepsiceros imberbis), and is identical with the 

 fresco from the Ptahhetep Chapel, reproduced in 

 Fig. 3 of the present writer's paper on " Some Ancient 

 Animal Portraits " (Nature, vol. Ixx. , pp. 207-209, 

 1904), and provisionally identified with that species. 

 .'Kgain, the animals in the lower figure (99) on the 

 page cited are likewise termed Bubalis, although two 

 species are clearly portrayed, one being the presumed 

 lesser kudu, while the other is, I think, the brindled 

 gnu (Connochaetes taurinus). Further, on p. 291, 

 Fig. 94, we find a fresco identified with the addra 

 XO. 2134, VOL. 84] 



gazelle (Gazella dama ruficollis),^ although it clearly 

 represents G. soemmcrringi, as does Fig. 2 in my 

 above-cited article. The white oryx (Oryx leucoryx), 

 Fig. 95, the addax (Addax nasomaculatus). Fig. 97, 

 and the Nubian ibex (Capra nubiana). Fig. loi, are, 

 on the other hand, correctly identified. 



Leaving animals indigenous to Egypt and the 

 neighbouring countries, attention may be directed to 

 Fig. 93A, which is the one reproduced in Nature for 

 September 2, 1909, in a review of Countess Cesaresco's 

 " Man and Animals in Human Thought." In that 

 work the animals shown in this Assyrian relief are 

 described as goats, but it was pointed out in the review 

 that they are much more probably gazelles, although 

 I was wrong in suggesting the addra, in which the 

 females are horned. Dr. Keller is likewise of opinion 

 that they are gazelles, but identifies them with the 

 Tibetan goa (G. picticaudata), a species with which 

 the ancient .'\ss3'rians cannot, I conceive, have been 

 acquainted. Such an identification is, moreover, per- 

 fectly unnecessary, seeing that in the goitred or Per- 

 sian Gazella subgutturosa we have a practically local 

 species which agrees in all respects — notably the horn- 

 less females — with the relief. 



Having shown that the animals in this sculpture 

 are of a local type, attention may be directed to 

 Fig. 102, p. 301, which reproduces the figures on part 

 of a cylinder brought by Sir H. Layard from Con- 

 stantinople. One of the ruminants on this is identified 

 by Dr. Keller with the Himalayan markhor (Capra 

 falconcri), and the other with the Central Asian argali 

 sheep (Ovis amnion). Both species, be it noted, are 

 represented as being in captivity, under the charge 

 of apparently Syrian attendants, and the female of the 

 supposed markhor carries horns as long as those of 

 the male, and has a kid. This renders it, I think, 

 clear that both kinds were seen by the artist in the 

 living condition, and if this be so, it is perfectly 

 evident that they were not, respectively, markhor and 

 argali ; animals, the very existence of which could 

 not, I submit, have been even known to the ancient 

 Assyrians. It is no argument to state, as the author 

 does on another page, that the .Assyrians were in the 

 habit of bringing two-humped Bactrian camels from 

 -Afghanistan, seeing that these animals now come as 

 far south as the Crimea and the Caucasus. Moreover, 

 the long horns of the female are fatal to the markhor 

 theory. In my opinion there is every reason to regard 

 the supposed markhor as Circassian domesticated 

 goats, in which both sexes carry long spiral horns. 



-As to the supposed argali, I am less confident 

 but unless they be domesticated sheep, it may be sug- 

 gested that they are Pallas 's tur (Capra cylindri- 

 coriiis), of the eastern Caucasus, and in any case 

 there can be little or no hesitation in regarding them 

 as representing a more or less strictly local species. 

 In connection with sheep, it must suffice to mention 

 that there is great doubt as to the identification of 

 those in the Negadah plate, B.C. 6000-5000 (Fig. 106, 

 p. 310), with the domesticated Hausa sheep of Nigeria, 

 as they appear to represent the wild udad, or Barbars^ 

 sheep (Ovis lervia, or tragelaphus), of North Africa 

 generally. 



I AntHofe :iniiima of the author. 



N 



