842 EEPOET — 1886. 



6. Papuans and Polynesians. By the Rev. G. Brown, F.B.G.8. 



After more than fourteen years spent in the Samoa Group amongst a true Eastern 

 Polynesian people, the writer resided for some years in the New Britain Group, 

 amongst a pure Melanesian or Papuan people. There was no white man in the 

 group at the time of his arrival, and the people were quite unailected by foreign 

 intercourse. Whilst engaged in reducing this language to a written form, and 

 studying its grammatical construction, Mr. Brown was led to alter or very much 

 modify his previous opinion that the Polynesian and Papuan languages were radi- 

 cally separate and distinct from each other, and to conclude that they are both of 

 one common origin, the Papuan representing now the more archaic form. Mr, 

 Brown, in his paper, gave a detailed account of the principal theories on the subject 

 of the origin of the different Polynesian tribes, as advanced by Messrs. Wallace, 

 Vaux, Ranken, Keane, Fornander, Staniland Wake, and other writers, and ex- 

 pressed his own opinion that the Papuans and Polynesians were of one common 

 stock, of which the former was the least affected by immigration from the main- 

 land. This opinion the writer attempted to justify by a comparison of the two 

 languages and the manners and customs of each race. The customs at birth, the 

 class relationships of the Papuans, and the survival of them in Eastern Polynesia, 

 the marriage customs, etiquette, the social and religious customs of both peoples, 

 were compared, and in the opinion of the writer the comparison justified the 

 opinion which he had formed. 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7. 

 The following Papers and Reports were read : — 



1. What is an Aryan ? By Sir George Campbell, E.G. S.I. 



The question is — What are the traits to distinguish an Aryan ? He is seldom 

 pure. He seems to have been a sort of monster, developed in comparatively recent 

 times, who has conquered and absorbed older races. He is easily distinguishable 

 from Turanians and Negroes (e.ff., a Constantinople Turk is an Aryan), but it is very 

 difficult to distinguish between Aryan and Semitic, craniology notwithstanding. 



Let us deal with — 1, colour; 2, features. 



There are two great branches of Aryans — dark branch in India ; fair branch in 

 Europe, including Asia Minor. Part of Western Asia (e.*;., Hindoo Koosh) may 

 be classed as intermediate. Seeing various castes of Hindoos and Aborigines to- 

 gether, one cannot doubt that besides climate Hindoo Aryans get dark colour from 

 the Aborigines. So also the Celts have derived a dark tinge from the Iberians, 

 &c. The fairest Aryans are in north of Europe, but they also are not pure. Was 

 the original Aryan white, or has he been blanched in the North ? I incline to think 

 that he was light brown in his original state, and has been blacked or blanched 

 in the South-east and North-west. 



Next as to features. What are the true Aryan features ? God finished the 

 Celt by running His hand up the face ; the Teuton by stroking him down. That 

 means that the Celt has lost some of the high, prominent features of the purer 

 Aryans. The idea is, the large high features are the real Aryan. But the 

 greatest development and exaggeration of that sort of feature is found in the races 

 of Western Asia — notably the Jews whom we deem Semitic — where flux and 

 reflux of conquest have mixed Aryans and Semitics ; but high featui'es prevail 

 among Jews and Syrians, Northern Arabs, Persians, Affghans, and Kaffirs of the 

 Hindoo Koosh. The Southern Arabs are very different — small, dark, more snub- 

 featured men ; and the Arab language has more African than Aryan affinities. I 

 suspect these are true Semitic, and not the Northern Arabs of Persian affinities. 



I incline to believe that what we call Jewish features as seen in Persians, 

 Affghans, &c., are the real Aryan features, and that they have been toned down by 

 intermixtures in India and Europe. ^ 



