93 TETF. STHNOLOQY OF THB tPDlAH AEOHIPELAOO. 



nearly to the mouth of the river. To the E. of that line Turanian 

 and Irano-Turanian feature's prevailed and to the W, Africo-Indian, 

 the latter being much more Iranian than the formerand probably pre* 

 Renting a negro character in its ruder and servile people,and Iranian 

 and quasi Iranian in the hjgher classes of its more civilised tribes. The* 

 boundary has doubtless been much affected by internal movements 

 and contests in all the middle Indian highlands, induced by the 

 external pressure of the Aryan nations, and even in the pre- Aryan 

 era it must have undergone a succession of changes. During that 

 period strong Africo-Indian influences appear to have extended 

 over the 8. portion of the eastern or Turanian reckon, and pro- 

 duced languages intermediate between the Tarn ulian and XuMC 

 to-Indian winch was the more easily effected from the two hav- 

 ing numerous characteristics in common. The Tibeto-Tamuiiaa 

 era must therefore have been of threat length. 



By Tibetc-Miaii languages I do not mean languages composed 

 of a mixture of exiting Tib? tan and Indian, Tiiere are Tibetan 

 tribes on the southern side of the snowy range, but they art 

 probably of recent immigration. The connection of the other 

 tribes is with a protoTihetan era, when the present widely spread 

 Tibetan race may have been only one of several rude trans. 

 Himalayan tribes speaking archaic dialects of an incipient Tibetan 

 character or even of one nearer Chinese. The languages of the 

 southern tribes with whom the first emigrants from Tibet ming- 

 led, in the lower Himalayan basins and in the plains, appear 

 to have belonged to the archaic linguistic era that preceded tha 

 development of the Tartarian, Iranian and Semitic Tbey associate 

 themselves with the archaic African and Asianesian. " Some of 

 the present languages of the Himalayan and Asamesc ran^ef, have 

 been able to preserve much of this archaic character, from the 

 alpine locations of the tribes which speak them, having preserved 

 them from being linguistically assimilated by the gfeal U^ro* 

 Tamuliun development, or the later and still greater Indo-European 

 one, but not from being physically and morally influenced by Tu- 

 ranian and Iranian races on both sides. The languages in ques- 

 tion, with some of the 3. E. Indonesian and the Polynesian, pre- 

 serve much of an ideologic character simpler than botli of these de- 

 velopments, but having many affinities which the simpler Turanian. 

 The ethnic connection of these languages with the earlier develop- 

 ment represented by the Chinese is buried in obscurity, but it 

 may be conjectured that languages with an allied general ideologio 

 character, and intermediate between Chinese, Lau and Anam on 

 the one side and Coptic on the other, had, from some ethnic 

 causes, obtained a wide ranrje, before those of the Turanian deve- 

 lopment began to be spread abroad and prevail over the greater 

 prt of the Euro- Asiatic continent. • 



• Both thin derefopasnt and the Ugro-Timulkn faf which the Bnmwc ittht 

 Bust archaic ftra) caniwct themieke* in the stnHtfct*! nacwr with 'be Chine* 



