92 



ETHNOLOGY OF THE XNDO-PACIFIC ISLANDS. 



and Zend tluririg iha pei-iod of tlieir pretloininance, bul tlirouj^lioiit 

 the earlier ages of llie forniatiori. Those that are most widely 

 dispersed in the Irano-Indian and Draviro- Australian langua^fs*, 

 and those that arc found not only in Australian and other archaic 

 Aaoneaian Tocabulariea bnt in Caucasiaiif Ugrian, western Indo- 

 European and African, ronder it certain that, even in thti crnde 

 proto-Arian siage otthe Indo-European formation, various dialecia 

 exiared. In thtt stage the formation approximated to the Draviro- 

 Anstralian in its general chaiacler, and when it is found that 

 dialectic varieties of a common root are uLjo common to existing 

 Irano-Indian and Draviro-Austmlian Tocabularfes, it results that 

 iJieie was a period when the external limits of the (wo formations 

 were not so far sundered as frtrlaud and Australia, and when the 

 line of rautu'.d contact was fni'ther west than the basin of the 

 Ganges. The dialectic vaiielies were produced not only before 

 the Iranian formation he^^an to spread to the shores of the German 

 Ocean but before the Dravirlau began to move eastward on iis 

 route to the Indo-Pacific islands. If they belong to the earliest 

 dialects of the Draviriau foraaation, tliey must have existed before 

 the Iranian formation look its diiitinctive shape. It h probable 

 tlmt they belong to the prolo-Scythic basis of both formations. 

 They et5tablish ati early and close connection hot ween them, and 

 render it probable that they were at one time conteraporaneou& in 

 I rani a. 



The further our comparative glossoloj^y advances the more 

 miuuie and accnrale will be our classification of the root varieties 

 common to the two flimilies. liut until the vocabularies have 

 been carefully compared not only with each other but with those 

 of all the other families of language, ibeir fall higtorical import 

 will remain concealed. While many of the common Irano-Dravi- 

 rian roots may, by the structure of the vocables in which they occur 

 or by their distribution, he referred to Ugrian or other families, 

 and some to more modern sources, olhei*8 appear to be entirely 

 pre-Scytbic, in other words they are older than the Drav Irian and 

 Iranian forniutions, and older than the Scythic or proto-Scythic 

 formaiional basis itself. The foj-m of the pure root in such 

 instances is referable to a monosyllabic condition of the family, not 

 only because it is free from any adventitious characiei^ denied 



