Semitic physical type, and the Zendic or Persian linguistic form, are strongly marked. Through the widely spoken Hindustani the latter has, in modern ages, gained a considerable glossarial and phonotic diffusion in India. In the Zend phonology the SemiticoAfrican element is strongly marked, and this is one of its most fundamental peculiarities when compared with Sanskrit. This sub-formation does not appear to have influenced Dravirian.

The physical character of many of the Dravirian tribes and castes, and perhaps some of the traits of the language, point to a still more archaic diffusion of the Semitico-African element to the eastward. The modern or western Iranian idiom has also become that of some Scythic tribes of eastern Irania. But there is strong evidence that prior to the great eastern advance of the Indo-Germanic race, large portions of Irania were occupied by dominant Scythic tribes. The Iranian languages themselves, in phonology, ideology and glossaries shew, when they are compared with the only other formation spoken by a kindred race, the Semitic, that the Scythic formation, or formations akin to it, had been extended into Irania at a period coeval with the development of the Iranian. linguistic type itself. It is possible that some of the northern Scythic tribes of Affghanistan are pre-Iranian, and there seems no room to doubt that one of the southern, the Brahui, is a genuine representative of the pre-Arian population of S. E. Irania or Beluchistan, as the Jats appear to be of the lower Indus. The Brahui physical type is Scythic, and the language has some strong Dravirian affinities in glossary although it is probable that the grammar has become Iranised. The other vocabularies of eastern Irania and the Indus, whether spoken by Semitico-Iranian, Indian or Scythic tribes, have also a considerable number of non-Iranian vocables that are Dravirian and in many cases Scythic or North Asiatic also. The Dravirian forms sometimes resemble those of the Indus and east Iranian

glossaries more closely than the Scythic. From this it may be inferred that they were received into India through the pre-Arian languages of the Indus, because the advance of the Indo-European race into Eastern Irania and India must have cut off the further diffusion of the native vocabularies to the eastward, and arrested the regular flow of Scythic words into Irania and

thence into India. We may conclude that the Scythic element of the ancient Indian tribes and languages was immediately received from eastern Irania at a period when it was mainly Scythic. But the Semitico-African element both in Dravirian and Iranian requires us to believe either that the pre-Arian Scythicism of this province was mixed with Semitico-African ingredients, or that it was, in its turn, preceded by formations of a more archaic character, having fundamental affinities both with Scythic and AfricoSemitic. In pre-Arian India the Africo-Semitic physical element must be the most ancient, because it is chiefly marked in some of the most southerly tribes and is found also in Australia and amongst the Papuans. The more decided or pure Scythic character of the Brahui and several of the ancient Indian tribes of the Dravirian formation must be referred to a later era when the Scythic race prevailed in eastern Irania. The partially AfricoSemitic basis of the Dravirian race and languages and of the Australian must belong to an east Iranian formation prior to that represented by the Brahui. While therefore the latter affords one strong reason for believing that the more recent and predominant Scythic element of the Dravirian tribes and languages was derived from the west and not from the north, the commencement of the Semitico-African formation immediately beyond Beluchistan and the immemorial existence of the Iranian in Irania, justify the conclusion that those typical physical and linguistic traits of the Dravirians which are not Scythic but rather African, Semitic or Iranian were received at a still earlier period from the same province.

The Draviro-Australian alliance, when considered in its preArian condition, differs so much in its several developments, and there is so great a break between the Indian and the Asonesian forms, that we can only consider the Arian as one of the latest and most partial of the intrusive elements that have modified the Indian branch. Between the Australian condition and the proper Dravirian, or that which immediately preceded the Arian, the interval, whether measured by physical, linguistic or mental and industrial change, is very great, and its Indian history must have been complex. It probably began with negro tribes and protoScythic languages like the human histories of Asonesia and Africa, while its later eras were marked by the predominance of

advanced Scythic, Semitic and Semitico-Scythic races, and by the influence of Semitic and Scythic languages. The great and archaic Scythic movements that appear to have preceded the proper Semitic in S. W. Asia, and are so deeply impressed on the Caucasian and African languages, were felt in India also and through it in Asonesia. The early Caucaso-Semitic movements which preceded the historical Semitic, and must have been associated with the civilisations out of which the Egyptian, the Babylonian and the Phonician grew, have left their impress on the Dravirian languages as well as on the Nilotic and North African, and the partial approximation of the Dravirian physical type to the Semitic, with the civilisation the Indian nations had attained prior to the Arian era, need not be sought in any remoter cause. There is no reason to suppose that the influence of the Semitic race and civilisation on the Dravirian has ever been wholly interrupted since it first began. When the Arians broke through the connection which in all probability previously existed by land, it is not likely that the maritime intercourse between the Semitic and the Dravirian ports was interfered with. The Dravirian formation is so archaic that not only all the great historical ethnic developments of S. W. Asia, but the first rise of the Semitic power and civilisation, and all the later movements and revolutions of this region, including the IndoEuropean, must have taken place in its presence. Its history goes back beyond the beginning of the civilisation of the Euphrates and the Nile, and much that distinguishes the Dravirians from the Australians may associate itself with the most archaic and as yet undefined periods in the gradual progress of the Semitic, Cauca sian and Iranian tribes from a barbarism more than African. The general character of the Indo-Australian formation proves that in the most archaic era to which the positive ethnology of S. W. Asia can as yet ascend, the Scythic linguistic element predominated in Eastern Irania and India. But whether a Scythic or an Africo-Semitic race and formation was the oldest of all, or which was the older of the two, in this region, is not clear. The early extension of the Semitico-Libyan or Libyan formation over the great outlying region of Africa, its undoubted Asiatic derivation as evinced by its Caucaso-Scythic affinities, its fundamental proto

Scythic traits, the character of the purer African physical type, and the presence of a similar element both linguistic and physical in the Draviro-Australian family, render it probable that Libyan races and languages long preceded the Draviro-Australian in §. W. Asia, and mixed with the intruding and dominant protoScythians who introduced that formation. The Egyptian stage of the Semitico-Libyan formation is cruder than the Australian stage of Draviro-Australian. It is nearer the Tibeto-Ultraindian and Chinese developments. Australian has much of the advanced proto-Scythic development which predominates in the American, the Zimbian, and the Euskarian formations, and is only less prominent or more modified in the Indo-European, Scythic and Caucasian. Egyptian shows that the Semitico-Libyan mother formation had separated from the great trans-Chinese stock of Asia prior to the attainment by the latter of a highly agglomerative and harmonic phonology. It spread to the south west, took possession of Africa and long remained faithful to the archaic West Asiatic type, while in Upper Asia that type changed, and gave rise to various higher phonetic formations, including the early IndoAustralian. That formation stands in its origin at a great distance behind the Indo-European and even the Ugrian, but the early Semitico-Libyan goes back for its origin or point of divarication to an era far beyond the Indo-Australian. The latter distinctly associates itself by its phonology and structure with an archaic condition of the Scythic development, Semitico-Libyan with a condition of the Mid-Asian development between Chinese and Scythic. In this early or Scythico-Libyan stage it is probable that languages of the oldest Libyan type were not confined to the S. W. extremity of Asia and to Africa, but extended eastward along the northern shores of the Indian Ocean, and may have preceded the Draviro-Australian on some portion of the line along which it advanced to Indin.

Be this as it may, the history of the Dravirian linguistic formation is far from being fully elucidated by a comparison of it with the other formations of S. W. Asia,-Tatar, Iranian, Semitic and Caucasian. It is not closely related to any of these, and its more fundamental affinities with them, large as they are, go back for their sources to older developments, embracing a still wider range

of formations. The individuality of the Dravirian formation, the impossibility of subordinating it to any of the S. W. Asian formations, and its great antiquity, are illustrated by the fact of its archaic prevalence in a cruder condition in Asonesia. When the characters of the present predominant formations of Ultraindia and of all Asonesia save Australia are considered, Dravirian appears to stand out from the Iranian and the Tatar as an older S. W. Asian formation, which has survived great changes in the distribution of races in Southern Asia, and which by the crude form it retains in Australia, proves that the more Iranian and Scythic character it has received in India was superinduced on a native basis of independent origin. The earlier S. W. Asian history of Dravirian, when thus viewed as a prior formation to Iranian and Scythic in Irania and India, is hardly capable of being traced, because there no longer remains any formation which can be considered as the ultimate or native one and as the limit of our researches in this region. We can ascertain affinities with other and more distant formations, but these will not supply us with all the elements of the ancient linguistic history of the Irano-Indian. When the actual barrier languages on the west are removed, we no longer have any clear guide to the archaic limits or movements of Dravirian. It may have been developed in Irania or India from a type still cruder than the Australian, or, as is more probable, it may have been derived in its Australoid type from a distant land of origin. When we go beyond the Tatar and Iranian and come to the allied Ugrian languages on the north and east, and to the Caucasian on the west, we find strong Dravirian affinities, and it has others with the N. E. Asian languages and even with American which appear to belong to a proto-Scythic development. The languages of China and Tibet on the one side and those of Egypt and Africa generally on the other, show that the intermediate region must have undergone great linguistic changes before even the earliest variety of Indo-Australian was introduced or formed. From Tibet and Egyptian-the salient members of the old formations on the two sides of the Irano-Semitic region-to Draviro-Australian, the phonetic advance alone is so great that it necessarily implies a succession of formations, although it does not follow that they were developed in this province. The