H TUX XTHrCOLOOT OF THS INDIAN ARCHIPSLi.40. 



Asia, could have applied their prototypes, but that where it 

 is naturally to be sought, the adjacent S. W. region, where 

 Semitic, Tartarian and Iranian (i. e. advanced Tartarian) existed 

 in close proximity, the Imnian preserving more of the Tartarian 

 character than the other members of die same family, and the 

 Tartarian having an Iranian structure and many Semitic roots.* 

 The difficulty hitherto presented by the contrast between the more 

 Tartarian of the African languages and the fully developed Semitic 

 of Syria and Arabia, has been lately much removed by the 

 researches into the ancient languages of the Euphrates basin. If I 

 may judge from an imperfect newspaper notice of Major Rawlinson'a 

 latest communication to the Royal Asiatic Society (in February 

 last) the Babylonian language of bis inscriptions has an African 

 or Seraitico-Tartar structure. Various linguistic types beneath 

 and between Egyptian and Babylonian, and between them and 

 Tartarian, pnhawy prevailed in numerous tribes inhabiting 8. W. 

 Asia, and Africa, during the archaic eras which preceded the 

 existence of the families from which the Aramcean, Canaanitish, 

 Himyaritic, Babylonian, Median, and Persian tribes descended. 

 Even after the connection between the two continents by the isthmus 

 of Suez, was cut off by the predominance of the Egyptian race in 

 the lower basin of the Nile, the tribes of Arabia and the Euphrates 

 may have continued to communicate with Africa by the Red and 

 Indo-African seas. In India amiin the Tamulian era is evidently- 

 long oosterior to that of the development of the African languages, 

 but there is evidence of the existence of older tribes and languages 

 more nearly related to the African. The Iranian tribes, from die 

 high development and great structural and jjhissarial affinities of 

 their Iangii",,^, evidently belong to a very recent era compiled 

 with the African or even the present Tartarian and Old Indian. 

 Yet the period when the distinctive Iranian bent was taken by a 

 single family, must be exceedingly remote, for even the highly 

 developed Sanskrit cannot have a less antiquity than 5,000 or 6,000 

 years, and between it and the origin of older Iranian forms, and 



* Tim hvin nfthe Euphrates throughout probably prestntrd transition Ikohk 

 and the adjacent rrpm tafween the Caspian and the Mack Sea, from its — ^-tyfc" 

 oiw idiaraetw, tnu pre*errt*l tribes that appear to he connects in their liuiguafjM 

 with the Ugro-Tartariin a.* wol the Euphratan owl Iranian. The Armenian 

 root* ore frequently Medo-F^rMan. The (iairgian ha* some re^mhlntro to Iranian 

 but nmrr to To ranian. The Circassian again have eonoecUon* wit ti t he more ancient 

 Turanian.— FinnUlijS&mnkiteix. (See Klaproth'* Asia l'tdvijlotta and Dr Prichani's 

 flewarrhrs Vol IV. I have not at present the meanaofobialnlnsra knowledge of the 

 Caucasian longuagca myself.} The Cancaaean tribe* partly belong to the tiMfta 

 bndn, whWi iurhidea that of tin- Wofga, of which the upper portion In within the 

 existing Fumhth boundary. Before the eastern Tartarian tribe* moved into the 

 lower W«In of tbe Wolga, and thu§ Interposed themselves between the northern and 

 8, W. partsofthe Caspian, il cannot he supposed that It wasnot inhabited throughout, 

 W. Asia from (be North sea to the Euphrates must then, or in soum earlier era* (if 

 Iranian movement* preceded Tartarian into Europe by tnu route) have boot 

 emvinuouriy occupied by Ugnan or Ufrro-Caocasian tribe*, and thfrehimueh evidence 

 inlHnii-tiJi.'1-.BriJ rihnie ge^raphy, that the greater part oi centra] ajM «H tki 

 pOMewM by similar tribes. 



