96 ETHNOLOGY OF THE INDO-PACIPIC ISLANDS. 



prcceJe the attempt to ti-aoe the hiatory of any ono of those forraa- 

 tions, and no Siitisfactoiy pi-ot^i esa can le made in the elucidation 

 of the ai'chaic position and movemeuls of the Dravirian until more 

 light is tiji'own on those of llie Indo-European and Seytliic in 

 particular. 



The Dravirian Tocabulariea have some special affinitiea wiih the 

 most eastera of the Medo-Persian, tliose of AfghaniBtan and Beta- 

 cliistan. This part of Irania ha^ received new Scythic vocables 

 Bubiiequent to the Ariaii ei'a, and 8ome of ihese may haTo been 

 erehaicaHy common to Scythic and Dravirian. But the special 

 af&nitic3 in question must bo remnanla of ihe pre-Arian era, and 

 thus stand on a similar footing with the Dravirian roots in the 

 Sanskritoid languages of nortliern India. These affinities are not 

 confined to Brahui. I have obsej'ved several in tlie Pashtu and 

 other publialied vocabularies wliich I have partially examined. 

 Xbese vocabalaries also have this in commou with Dravirian, 

 that they possess non-Sanskrit roots and forin§ of roots liaviug 

 clear affinities wiih Semitic, Caucasian and Scytbic radicals!. 

 While some of the Medo- Persian afhnitics are exclusively with 

 the proper Dravirian voeabularies, a much largtfr number includo 

 also the Guzarati- Bengali class,* 



These non-San&krilic roots, and non-Sanskritic varieties of roots 

 that are Sanskrit, common to vocabularit^s on the western side of the 

 Indus with the ancient Dravirian glossaries, afford some evideucK 

 of a period wdieii Eastern Irania was not yet Arianised, and of 

 a connection winch then existed between its languages and those 

 of India. It does not necessarily follow that the immediately 

 pre-Arian formation of this province was Draviriari, for even if 

 it was not, it might have had a glossarial connection with it. But 

 as no traces have been remarked of a distinct formailon, and as 

 several of the vocableg are Dravirian in structure as well as in 

 root, the presumption is that the affinity indicates the fornier 

 prevalence of the Dravirian formation to the west of the Indus, 

 and this presumption becomes certainty when llie affinities of Dra- 

 virian with still more western languages are considered. It is 

 quite possible that before the Sanskrit language itself was carried 

 * Esampltid may be foiuid in thu annexeit vocabulary iiiiJ«r tlie terms Air, Ant, 

 Arrow, Hint, HlootI, lioBt, Done?, Bufluloej Cut, lioij, Ear, Kye, Fire?, l-oot, 

 Horaa, Stone . 



