ETHNOLOGY OF THE TNDO-PACIFfC ISLANDS. 



91 



languages having the game roots, praLabfy bi long in part lo miicli 

 Inter period!?, and whilo 9c#nie are daiibttess of Arian origin in the 

 trans-Indus a^^es of th.ti formulion, oihorp, itia rc?a&oimb!e lo con- 

 ceive, must be of Dravirian origin. If*, as appears to result from 

 ethnic evidence of all kinds, tbe Dravirian formation preceded the 

 Indo-Eurof>ean in eaplern Irania, it is very Improhahte that no 

 nutive torms were adopted by the intrusive Arian vocflbnlariea. 

 It is equally improbable that iu Northern India, where the ancient 

 formation has never been wholly eliminated, Sanskrit did not 

 receive other addirions from the vocabiilarit.'s of ihe suhject and 

 jiarliallj helotised tnb<^,* 



When we compare the various forms of roofg common lo the 

 eastern Indo-Euroi^ean languages — those of Iranta and India—with 

 the Draviro-Asonesian, we frequently find that several of the 

 ai'chnic inenlar forms, Australian, remote Papiianesian &c., are 

 ideniical with Irano-Indian forms. It is somelimes erroneon^lv 

 assumed that roots common to Sanskrit and Zend with the 

 Rjjoken Me<lo-Per3ian and Indian hingna^es are necessarily ori- 

 ginal in the former and derivative in itie latter, and that all the 

 variations from the Sanskrit or Zend forms are corruptions 

 of them. There is no reason to heh'eve that in archaic 

 times one Indo-European nation, speaking one dialect, was 

 ever so civilised, populous and powerlnl as to oconpy all Ija. 

 nia. The Sanskrir-speakinf^ tribe, when ii first comes into the 

 dawning Uy:ht of history, is found restricted lo a petty district in 

 N. W. Ijjdia, and it never succeeded in imposing one dialect even 

 on tlie basin of the Ganges. The present vocabtdaries prove that 

 dialects preserving Dravirian ingredients of different kinds have 

 always existed in this province. The living vocabularies of Irania 

 aflbrd similar evidence, for they possess roots that are not Sanskrit 

 or Zend, in common with Indian and Aso nesian languages, and 

 vurieties of San!*krit roots which have an equally wide dissemi- 

 nation. A large jiroportion of these vocables probably existed in 

 ditierent Iranian dialects not only contempora neously with Sanskrit 



• 8i!e tlje pemarkfl on !lil9 Rvihject in tlie Introductory Chap, of thh Part {ttntt 

 voL Ti. p. p, 6<*6-<*). Dt SU veumt),, in a mpat wlifcit Uud not rf-aclwd me wiit-ii 

 tlif^ remarks werewritien, alluded to tin: adilitioits n\iich Sanskrit tmv umtv 

 rtctnily— thut is aiiue it teafed to lie a spoktii tanuuane—Jiave receivt'tJ irom 

 nutiv** waiilB iniroductNl into «Lc l!iii;.u»ge t>y pro%intial wj iters, and tlit-a adimifd 

 by lexii-'ogra-phtjra. Juuin. Lundiay /m. Hoc. \ol. it. |t. 119. 



H 



