CERTAIN ANCIENT BRITISH SKULL FORMS. 137 
and its greatest relative proportions, in length and breadth, are 7°7 
by 5:25 inches, so that it closely corresponds in those respects to 
the most characteristic British kumbecephalic crania.* 
Whatever be the final conclusion of ethnologists, as to the evidence 
which led me to adopt that name to indicate the characteristics of 
a preceltic British race; the necessity appears to be acknowledged for 
some such term to distinguish this form from the ordinary dolichoce- 
phalic type. The Ben-Djemma skull isnarrowthroughout, with its great. 
est breadth a little behind the coronal suture, from whence it narrows 
gradually towards front and rear. The lower jawis large and massive, 
but with less of the prognathous development than in the superior 
maxillary. The skull is, no doubt, that of a man, and the nose has 
been prominent ; but the zygomatic arches are delicate, and the whole 
face is long, narrow, and tapering towards the chin. ‘The parietals 
meet at an angle, with a bulging of the sagittal suture, and a slight 
but distinctly defined pyramidal form running into the frontal bone. 
The occiput is full, round, and projecting a little more on the left side 
than the right. The measurements are as follows :— 
Longitudinal diameter......... PUMA ice arenes aneralurdh eters aveiavete 7.4 
Parietalidiameterede sissies elelele clale ce WMelaliotersinrer einen ciate otanet lice is 5.1 
Hrontalediameter {o2-.c.-cccceeee CAUSAL UN AIA SoMa eh eee 4. 
Merticalit diameter secctertcrers crac Osanna Mavala Welmaperaraln edie) DGS 
IntermestoidianGhicwssatiscies aces OHI ASS RA Ais Eh ccun oreeaener re 1223 
Intermastoid arch ............08 bhefaetwielaiclnjaieehetatefaeltioler estore 15. @) 
Mgamerea SLOT INC totes elerejasd cae iris (aicieie eieeqsisinshele caieprieisels= aye 4.3 (?) 
Occipito-frontal arch .........0. arian leverenctellsierelovereiatelcicionetelcnet 14.2 
Horizontal circumference..... a Eat aha netohapeta vals euaintelenstoreverers 20.2 
Ihave been thus particular in describing this interesting skull, 
because it furnishes some points of comparison with British kum- 
becephalic crania, bearing on the inquiry, whether we may not 
thus recover traces of the Pheenician explorers of the Cassiterides 
in the long-headed builders of the chambered barrows. When 
contrasting the wide and nearly virgin area with which Dr. Morton 
had to deal, with that embraced in the scheme of the Crania Brit. 
anmica, 1 remarked in 1857 :—Compared with such a wide field of 
investigation, the little island home of the Saxons may well seem 
narrow ground for exploration. But to the ethnologist it is not so. 
There, amid the rudest traces of primeval arts, he seeks, and 
probably not in vain, for the remains of primitive ‘European allophy 
- * Natural History Review, vol. i. 
