페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

rative and pleonastic, richer in forms although cruder and less flcxional. But it cannot have passed through an Iranian, a Semitico-Libyan, a Zimbian, a Caucasian or even a proper Scythic condition. All the distinctive characters of these formations arc referable either to individual development and modification since they were separated from the stock common to all, or to their separation having preceded that of Draviro-Australian from protoScythic. It is probable that the more distinctive characters of Scythic were acquired subsequently to the migration of the DraviroAustralian family to the southward. The full development of the vocalic harmony probably took place in a branch of the Scythic family that had not become predominant till after that migration. The connection of Draviro-Australian in the Scythic continued till the postpositional structure had been developed. Its radical connection with the other formations belongs to periods preceding that development.

7. Glossarially the Draviro-Australian affinities have a wide range. The pronouns, numerals and definitives are E. Asiatic and Scythic. Several particles are Scythic and several are not only Scythic but S. W. Asian and African. The pronouns are not the prevalent Scythic, and their Chinese and other affinities lead to the inference that the basis of Draviro-Australian was not a Scythic language, but a distinct one which was placed within the range of the proto-Scythic development and took a similar form. But the vocabulary although not purely Scythic in its basis, has in common with Scythic vocabularies a large proportion of roots and varieties of widely scattered Asiatic roots. Amongst the Mid and Noith Asiatic affinities the Samoiede, Yeniseian and Ugrian are more numerous and often more close than the proper Tatar or any others, save the Asonesian. The Mid-Asian affinities of the latter are equally striking and very numerous and embrace a multitude of voctibles not now found in Indian vocabularies. The Draviro-Asonesian languages have also a considerable number of vocables in common with the E. Iranian, Caucasian and IndoEuropean tongues and with the more Scythoid of the African vocabularies. The affinities with the proper Semitic vocabularies arc less numerous. The affinities in ultimate monosyllabic roots embrace Chinese and Tiboto-Ultraindian vocabularies. The affinities with Semitic and African languages appear to be mainly indirect and referable to the common Mid-Asiatic element, but some are direct and imply an early and active commercial intercourse by the aid of the monsoons along the northern part of the Indian Ocean. The special affinities of the proper Dravirian with the Caucasian vocabularies are striking.

It is probable that the most numerous classes of glossarial affinities are connected in origin with the most striking phonetic and ideologic affinities. The most positive inference that we appear to be warranted in drawing is that the strongly Scythic character of Dravirian, and a large number of the Dravirian vocables, are referable to a variable Tigroid or proto-Scythic formation which early prevailed in Mid-Asia, and by successive ethnic movements diffused its form or extended its influence not only to the Caucasian, Iranian and Indian but to the East and Mid-African languages. The numerous and striking resemblances of Dravirian to East Iranian, East-African, Caucasian and Mid and North Asiatic, particularly Ugrian, Samoide and Yeniseian, vocables are best explained in this mode. As the Scythic tribes have always been the most nomadic, and the form of their languages is deeply impressed on Dravirian, it is reasonable to regard their movements as having been the common cause of these resemblances.

This enquiry, slight and superficial as it has been, may serve to show not only that the ethnic history of the earlier races and languages of India and Asonesia is intimately connected with that of other Asiatic formations, but that larger and more exhaustive explorations of the affinitives of roots and vocables will certainly lead to many positive historical results. But the comparative glossology of the other languages of Asia and of the world must be prosecuted simultaneously, for it is clear that the history of every separate vocabulary becomes more and more implicated in that of others, and embraces a wider and wider circle of relationship the further our researches penetrate into antiquity.

As each successive formation of Irania becomes better defined, a clearer light will be thrown on the later stages of the Draviiian. But much of its more fundamental history will continue o depend on the progress of universal comparative glossology. Although in phonology, ideology and glossary it is distinctly connected with the Scythic, and also in a less degree with the Caucasian and Africo-Semitic alliances, it has so large a mass of peculiarities as to prove that, since the eras in which that connection arose, the langunges of Western Asia and probably of all Asia have undergone great changes. At one time Dravirian or Australian may have closely resembled languages of the Panjab, of Persia or of Upper Asia, but no ethnologist would expect to find such a resemblance now. From all the preceding indications we are warranted in concluding that ethnic movements similar to the historical ones, sometimes rapid, and at other times gradual, have in all eras been going on from S. \V. Asia to India and from India to Ultraindia and Asonesia. These movements have always left glossarial traces of greater or less importance, and we may therefore hope that in the progress of ethnology each will be more or less clearly defined.

CHAPTER VI.

ENQUIRIES INTO THE ETHNIC HISTORY AND RELATIONS OF THE
TIBETO-ULTBAINDIAN AND MON-ANAH FORMATIONS.

[Introductory Note—The conclusion that the Mon-Anam numerals as well as the pronouns are of North-East Dravirian origin (chap. v. sec. 11), affects the views previously advanced in these papers as to the ethnic position of the formation, and the Si-fan vocabularies of Mr Hodgson having now placed beyond all doubt the lines of connection between the Tibetoid languages of TJltraindia and India and the Tibetan and Scythic, it becomes necessary to alter the order in which I had treated of the Ultraindian languages in this part. Instead of having to ascertain the distinctive characters of the Ultraindo-Gangetic group by & prior approximative determination of those of the Mon-Anam, we can now proceed much more surely by reversing the order. The form and substance of the Burma-Gangetic branch when it entered TJltraindia being traced through its affinities with the existing languages of eastern and western Tibet, a well defined basis is obtained for the investigation of the original condition of the older Ultraindian languages. The surrounding and intrusive formations —Chinese, Tibetan (Si-fan, Bhotian), Dravirian and Arian—are all referable to foreign lands, and when the alien ingredients which the mixed languages of TJltraindia owe to these formations have been successively removed, we may hope to arrive at the native MonAnam residuum. The order I had adopted in considering the formations following the Dravirian was " B. the South Ultraindian or Mon-Anam; C. the Tibeto-Ultraindian or Burma-Himalayan; D. the Tibetan." (vol. vi. p. 658.) The arrangement now adopted is—A. the Tibeto-Burman formation, I. The Tibetan branch embracing 1st the Si-fan languages and 2nd the Tibetan proper which it may now be preferable to term Bhotian; II. the Ultraindo-Gangetie branch ; B. the Mon-Anam formation. As the Si-fan dialects have not hitherto been noticed, it becomes necessary to consider their characters so far as the materials supplied by Mr Hodgson allow. The sections relating to them are therefore to be received, in some of the details, as supplementary to sec. 2 of chap. iv.

To show how Mr Hodgson's Si-fan vocabularies affect the general inferences at which I had arrived, I may be allowed to refer to some of the earlier portions of this series of papers. In the 2nd section of that " on the ethnology of South-Eastern Asia" (vol. iv. for 1850, p. 464) the following remarks were made on the distribution of the Tibetan tribes. "The western or inner division is chiefly occupied by the Tibetan tribes who possess the whole of the great trans-Himalayan depression which slopes westward to the margin of the Hindu-Khush, forming the transalpine basin of the Indus, and eastward to tho unknown point where the basin of the Zangbo bends south and sends its waters into the basin of the Brahmaputra or of the Irawadi. They have even extended to the 8. East and entered the upper part of the eastern basin of the Brahmaputra where they are in contact with the Mishmi. Tibetan tribes and others allied to them have spread over the basin of the Ganges, although they are now chiefly confined to the Himalayas, the Vindyas and the basin of the Brahmaputra. In the basin of the Brahmaputra they are blended with allied tribes of the Mayama family. Bude Tibetan tribes of nomadic predacious habits, known in Tibet chiefly undor the generic name of Kham and in China under that of Si-fan, are spread over all Tibet to the northward of the depression of the Indus and Zangbo, and eastward along the greater part of the eastern margin of the inner division to a considerable distance within the boundaries of the Chinese Provinces.* They probably come in contact with the inner tribes of the Brahmaputra and Irawadi basins, and are intermixed with the most westerly Chinese tribes and the Mongolian tribes who chiefly occupy the northern and N. E. portions of Tibet.

"The ethnology of the E. middle division is very obscure, and will probably prove to be of extraordinary interest. In a region of which a great portion is inaccessible from lofty mountains and snow, many of the inhabited districts must still be secluded. Numerous petty tribes must retain their ancient independence and their aboriginal languages and manners, and it is probable that

* They are found to the west of the Yaloog and probably in some places reach Jo the Vun-ling mountains.

« 이전계속 »