October 5, 191 1] 



NATURE 



45' 



question within a few thousand years, more or less, 

 of the relative nncientness of the calvarium, the molar 

 id thigh-bones of Pithecanthropus erectus in 

 Java; of the Homo primigenius type of lower jaw 

 found near Heidelberg; and of the Grimaldi skeletons, 

 &c. Of course, the mere finding of stone implements 





(iii) Hottentot. 

 Crania from South Africa. 



in any part of Europe or temperate Asia argues some 

 degree of antiquity in the specimens, because we know 

 more or less historically the period at which they 

 were abandoned for implements or weapons of metal. 

 But in tropical Africa no such argument can apply, 

 Err a few small portions of the continent are still in 



XO. 2l88, VOL. 8/] 



the Palaeolithic, or even Eolithic, Stone age. The 



south-western extremity 01 Africa was certainly in the 

 palasolithic age 400 years ago, when Europeans first 

 arrived there; though the Bantu tribes bordering on 

 the Hottentot and Bushman domain had for many 

 centuries before been mining, smelting, and using 

 copper and iron. 



So far as the reviewer is concerned, he continues to 

 adhere obstinately to the belief, not as yet shaken by 

 any registered fact, that man is a relatively recent 

 immigrant into Southern Africa, and that Africa in 

 general south of the Sahara Desert and of Somaliland 

 has been much more newly populated by man (almost 

 entirely of the negro subspecies) than has been the 

 case_ with Asia— the original birthplace of the human 

 species and genus — and with Europe. 



-Much interesting palaeontological and geological 

 evidence is collected and laid before the reader in 

 chapter vii. (p. 74 and onwards). In this, Dr. Perin- 

 guey mentions that a portion of a molar tooth of a 

 mastodon has been found in close proximity to a 

 deposit of palaeoliths and fragments of stone, evidently- 

 used as human implements, at Barkly West, in Cape 

 Colony. Human implements have also been found in 

 association with the lower jaw of an extinct horse of 

 large size and of the gigantic long-horned buffalo— 

 Bos or Biibalus baini (a close ally of the Bos antiquus 

 of Algeria). But from the rock drawings in Algeria 

 we know that this gigantic North African buffalo not 

 only was contemporaneous with man, but even with 

 neolithic man, and only seems to have become extinct 

 a few thousand years ago. Similarly, in the extremity 

 of South Africa a mastodon, a large horse, and the 

 South African type of gigantic buffalo may have 

 lingered down to quite a late period, since this same 

 portion of the continent contains in a living state at the 

 present day creatures which became extinct in Europe 

 a hundred thousand years ago. (In this portion of 

 his narrative Dr. Peringuey persists in confusing 

 Hyena brunnea of South Africa with Hyena striata 

 of East, West, and North Africa and Western Asia. 

 I write under correction, but had always believed that 

 Hyena brunnea was a very distinct species which 

 hitherto had not been found north of the Zambezi and 

 South Angola, and, though allied to the various types 

 of striata far more than to crocuta, was nevertheless 

 a very distinct species.) 



Some of Dr. Peringuey's deductions are very in- 

 teresting, especially as combined with the observations 

 of Dr. Shrubsall. One of these would seem to be 

 that the earliest human invaders of South Africa were 

 of somewhat higher culture, of different head-form, 

 and better brain development than the modern Bush- 

 man. These people are the now celebrated Strand- 

 loopers. At one time it was assumed, on the strength 

 of some very prognathous skulls found in the coast 

 regions of South Africa, that the Strandlooper was 

 more " simian " (if that word may be applied to a 

 very slight approximation towards the basal human 

 type) than the Bushman. This deduction would seem 

 to be wrong. The sub-nasal prognathism in the skulls 

 of the earliest cave-men of Strandlooper types is less 

 than in the Kalahari Bushmen and the Nama Hotten- 

 tots of to-day, or in the general mass of negroes. 

 One of the Strandlooper skulls, according to Dr. 

 Shrubsall, has a more prominent nose and face than 

 the tvpical negro, and in some respects recalls the 

 river-bed type of early Europeans. The cranial 

 capacity of these primitive Strandloopers was distinctly 

 greater than either Bushmen or Hottentots, and this 

 feature is present in the oldest skulls. One of these 

 has a cranial capacity of 1600 c.c. , while in a female 

 skull of the Bush race from the Kalahari Desert there 

 is a capacity of only 950 c.c. 



