ETHNOLOOt OP TAB INDO-r.AClFlC I9L\MD9. 



71 



antl numcralf, oiid not the Ancient Tami? and Ko! \yn, in kc, — 

 on, the commori form of 1, and not fhe lalnaT or the other forms 

 (jflhe nasftl definitive, an, yan Jcc, - nin tho. numeral 3, and not vo 

 as iti If &c. Such a research into the dijiil{?cl:tc lii-Fory 

 l^niviiian «'oiild carry iih heyond the .«copcof our prt^scnt eitquirv, 

 fruitful though it prohahly woulil be in datu illusrralive of Aus- 

 tralian and early Asonesian philology. 



From the accordance between tlie definitive and numeral syfi- 

 tems both in Bravirian aitd Australian, it i.^ eloar that the latter 

 system is equally native with the former in its elements and i'l 

 their combinations in the lower numbers. Any foreign affioiti<>a 

 not du0 to the spread of the Dravinau terms themselves, nm»t 

 hence be considered iudicationa not of a derivation of the 

 numerals from another formation, hut of a primary community of 

 root!* between Draviro-Australuui m\d certain other itrchaie lan- 

 guageij. Such affinities go beyond the hisfcoiy of Dravirian in all 

 its later pre-AHan stages, and even beyond its crude Austral kin 

 stage. They are vestigea of a period when the Juother Dravir^) 

 Auiitraliaji language was, in roots at least, only one of the dialects 

 of a formation that was subsequently to be variously modified 

 and developed in diftereut regions and under dLfTerent influences. 

 The superimposed quinary and denary systems, with the Dravirian 

 mode of forming 8 and 9, indicate ailiuitiea belonging to much 

 later periods. The civilization which originated them wa^j unknown 

 to DruvirO'AuijfcraHan at the time when the early Asouesian 

 migrationa took place. Ifc may be possible to connect their 

 iutroduction v^ith that of other words indicative of a range of 

 ideas and of art above the Australian, and to find in them tracea 

 of a pre-historical intercourse of other civilised Asiatic peoplea 

 with the ancient Indiana. The gradual departure of the Indian 

 physical type from the Australian towards the Sevtliieo-Somitic 

 may alao be found to synehrornise with the progress of the changes 

 in the vocabulary. 



The Dravirian systems have no decided affinity with the adjueerit 

 Iranian, Semitic or Caucasian. Hut several of the terms belong 

 to ancient Asiatic formations which ap[>ear to have predominated 

 [trior to these. The terms in question are fouml in the Ugro- 

 Koriak languages on the North East, at>d in the Semiiico-Africaa 

 on the South West. 



