way to the islands through the basin of the Ganges and Ultraindia for their diffusion in the most ancient insular vocabularies, including the Australian, must have long preceded the era of a direct navigation between Southern India and Ultraindia or Indonesia. Of those chiefly found in the vocabularies of the more civilised and maritime tribes of Asonesia or within their range of locomotion, a large number were probably derived from India in the era immediately preceding the Arian, when the civilisation and maritime skill and enterprize of the leading Indian nations appear to have attained a high grade, and when their boats became the models of the Ultraindian and Malayu-Polynesian.

From the Australian era of Indian ethnology to that which immediately preceded the advance of the Arian race beyond the Indus, there must have been a great lapse of time. Of this we have some measure in the changes which had taken place in the Indo-Australian region. In Asonesia the Papuan race and formation had spread over the islands, obliterating or modifying the ancient tribes and languages. In India the leading Dravirian tribes had probably been already improved physically by mixture with immigrants of Scythic and Semitico-Iranian race. Their civilisation and languages had certainly been deeply modified by foreign influence. Making every allowance for what the Australians and other eastern tribes may have lost when they left the continent and became insular, it is probable that most of the arts for which the Dravirians have non-Sanskritic names were acquired by the race subsequent to the Australian era. Many of these names have Scythic, Iranian, Semitic, Caucasian and African affinities, and it may be concluded that the civilisation of the principal Dravirian nations was mainly derived from foreign immigrant tribes, settlers and traders who entered India from the North West or visited its coasts from the northern and western ports of the Indian Ocean. The principal nations of the South are so closely connected in person, arts and language, that we cannot refuse to recognize in them the influence of one dominant and civilised people which at a remote period raised itself above the level of the barbarous tribes of India, and then spread itself by destroying, breaking up or transforming a large number of

these throughout the more open country, as the Arian race after-
wards did in the basin of the Indies and Ganges. The difference in
physical characters between the higher classes of these nations and
some of the lower castes and hill tribes, is so great as to indicate a large
influx of a foreign people, and it is possible that the higher civili-
sation originated in a race of conquerors who were not sufficiently
numerous to maintain their own language. Whatever nations,—
Scythic, Iranian or Semitic-preceded the proper Brahminic Arians
in the N. W. of India and the adjacent countries beyond it, must
have influenced the principal or more civilised and exposed
Dravirians. Such influences operate, and must have operated in
all ages, wherever human races differing in power or civilisation
come in contact, and the tribes of India have necessarily been al-
ways in immediate contact with tribes belonging to the races that
predominated in succession to the westward of the Indus. The
glossarial affinities with the Pashtu, Pashai, Brahui and other N.
W. languages, although pre-Sanskritic, may thus be comparatively
modern. They tend to shew that the East Iranian and North In-
dian glossaries were connected with the South Indian prior to the
diffusion of the Brahminic formation and Sanskritic vocables into
India, and they thus help to strengthen the other reasons for suppos-
ing that the grammars also were akin to the Dravirian and Scythic
before they were modified by the Arian. The next great revolu-
tion in Asonesian ethnology after the Papuan, serves also to
illustrate the history of the Dravirian in the era which immediate-
ly preceded that of Brahminic predominance, and was probably
marked by the influx of earlier tribes of the same race.
The great
southern movement of the Chino-Tibetan race which gave a
Malayu-Polynesian population to Asonesia and a Chino-Ultrain-
dian and Tibeto-Ultraindian to the trans-Gangetic peninsula, affect-
ed not only the middle and north Gangetic race but the Vindyans
also. The influx of this race from the east and of pre-Brahminic
Arians or allied tribes from the west was probably contemporane-
ous at an early period, originating the mixed type which predomi-
nated in the ancient Niha-Polynesian branch of the Gangetico-
Ultraindian Asonesians. The pre-Brahminic Arian influence was
probably sufficiently powerful and long continued to have produced

2

an Irano-Mongolian type, prior to the proper Arian era of Northern India. It is even probable that the Dravirian nations of the Ganges, like the more civilised ones of the south, were greatly modified by archaic Iranian influence before the Ultraindians entered the basin.

Although we have found it impossible to trace the actual history of the Dravirian formation, we have ascertained the main course of its development and various points of contact, at its successive stages, with other existing formations. The general conclusions may be recapitulated as follows:*

1. The general character of its harmonic, aspirate and liquid phonology is Scythic, but it has peculiarities in its strong and complex sounds. Save in some of the emasculated tongues it has a more harsh and primitive character than the Scythic phonologies.

2. The structural phonology is agglomerative and harmonic. It separates the formation not only from the Chinese and MonAnam but from the Tibeto Ultraindian, and allies it with all the harmonic formations. In its specific characters-a weakness of the agglutinative, elliptic and amalgamative power and consequent rarity of flexions-it is much nearer akin to Scythic than to the prevailing S. W. Asian and African formations and to the pre-Scythic S. European [Euskarian]. Its agglomerative power is similar to the Scythic, and is hence greater than Caucasian and SemiticoLibyan, but less than the Iranian, Zimbian and Malagasy and greatly inferior to the American. But in its archaic Australoid condition the formation was much more agglomerative, and conscquently approached closer in phonetic structure to the great agglomerative alliance. In this respect as in the character of its elementary sound, and in the absence of the regular vocalic harmony that has been developed or diffused throughout the Scythic family it appears to associate itself with a proto-Scythic phonetic type.

3. The basis of the Dravirian vocabulary is monosyllabic. In this stage it is connected with the ultimate monosyllabic basis of all other languages, and by its pronominal roots, as well as many others, it specially connects itself with Chinese.

• See Sec. 10 for review of the ideologic and phonetic affinities.

4. The actual form of the vocables is in general that of a root with definitives attached, usually postfixually but in some cases prefixually. In this stage it connects itself generally with all the existing harmonic languages; more closely with those formations in which the Scythic postfixing of definitives prevails to a greater or less extent although combined with prefixes, as in Caucasian, Indo-European, Semitico-Libyan, N.E. Asian, American and protoScythic; and specially and most closely with the Scythic formation itself in which this habit is predominant and almost excludes the prefixual. The postfixing of the pronoun possessively, and the attainment through this of the assertive form, are referable to the same idiom, and embrace a similar range of affinities. The South Dravirian group like the Indo-European formation has lost the primary universality of the habit, but, as in that formation, the postfixed pronouns and pronominal elements in assertives are a remnant of it. The Kol group in one class of words retains the idiom with substantives. The idiom is fully preserved in Scythic; in some American languages; in Semitico-Libyan with substantives and in most of the languages with assertives; in the Caucasian languages with substantives and in some with assertives; in Euskarian, as in some tenses of Libyan languages and in IndoEuropean, with definitives used as generic or absolute assertives only; in Malayu-Polynesian with substantives and in one group with assertives. The pronoun is prefixed in all or in some cases in certain of the Caucasian, Semitico-Libyan, Zimbian, Yeniseian and American languages (following the Chinese and Tibeto-Ultraindian collocation). The postposing or postfixing of words used to denote the other generic relations of substantives and assertives is a further phenomenon referable to the same idiom, for all formatives whether used with assertives or substantives are ultimately reducible to definitives and substantives. In the general position of the formatives Draviro-Australian resembles Scythic, Indo-European, and Assetic generally; Semitic in its archaic directives, and Zimbian in its assertive formatives; while it differs from the Semitic assertive formatives which are prefixual and infixual or flexional and from the Zimbian directives and definitives which are prefixual. With the Euskarian and American systems it agrees more closely

than withthe Caucaso-African. Hence the forms of the DraviroAustralian words, whether substantival or assertive, whether simply combining a concreted definitive with the root or clothing it with pronouns, directives or formatives, normally agree with the Scythic and proto-Iranian forms more completely than with those of any other family.

In its generally post positional and inversive collocation, and several affinities in particles and idioms, it is Scythic, although other formations also possess several of these common characters. Thus the inversive tendency prevails to a large extent in the American languages, in archaic Iranian, in Euskarian, in Caucasian and in various degrees in the Semitico-Libyan and more especially in some of the Mid-African members of that alliance. The negative assertive is not only Scythic but Zimbian. The dual of the Kol and Australian groups and the double form of the 1st pronoun plural are very archaic and common idioms. But the general combination of traits, positive and negative, is much more akin to Scythic than to any other formation.

5. The principal idiomatic peculiarity when compared with Scythic, is the distinction of sex in the 3d pronoun and to a certain extent in the postfixed definitives of substantives,-an Indo-European and Semitico-Libyan trait.

6. In abstract and flexional development it has a wide range of affinities in its Australoid stage. In its Dravirian condition it takes its place with the more flexional Scythic languages. It is much more crude than Iranian in its historical development or than the more flexional Semitico-Libyan languages.

The peculiarities of Dravirian and Draviro-Australian, even when compared with those Asiatic families that most closely resemble it, are conclusive against the hypothesis that it was derived from any of these. The common characters are referable to a mother formation which diverged into distinct channels and received special modifications in each, these main streams in their turn divaricating, while the different branches or some of them from time to time overflowed and came into mutual contact. Dravirian probably passed through an Australoid condition, and it is even probable that in a still older race it was more agglomc