KTIUVOLOaV OF THE INUO-PAClFrO ISLANDg. 



97 



into Itt'lia, otlicr Arkn ilblects or Dfaviro-Arian dialects may 

 ljuve existed in tbe provincp, and the Scythic element c^QUOt be 

 excluded from the East Iranian languages of any perioj. But 

 however ihk may he, we are uliimateiy carried back to a Dm- 

 virtan ei-a in tlie Unguis lic history of eastern Iraniaj and it is tbo 

 oldest that we can recognize. 



By far the most numerous glossarial affinities of the Dravirian 

 languages are whh a great chain of vocabularies that appears at one 

 |)ei iod to have extenilcd trom the Caucasus lo Karaschalka, era- 

 hracijig difieretit formations, although it is probable that this wide 

 tlispei'sion of the same roots was chiefly the work ofaraeeto 

 which one only of these formations was nalive. Tlio aftinilies iu 

 question embrace Caucasian, Ugrian and Ugro-Tatar, Yeniseian, 

 and, in a less degree, Koriak and other extreme N. E. Asian voca- 

 bularies. The Ui5rian are the most important, hut a con^^iderablo 

 proportion are exclusively Caucasian, and a smaller proportion 

 exclusively Yeniseian. The larger portion of these roots appears 

 to belong to the pre-Indian era of the Dravifo-Auelralian forma- 

 tion, ami to form an integral part of its glossarial basis. The 

 Caucasian basis h Yeniseian, N, E, Asiun and proto-Scythic raoro 

 than proper Scythic, and the Semitico-Libyan formation is not 

 remotely allied to it by several phonetic and ideologic traits, as 

 well as by roots. The Draviro- Australian formal ion partly enters 

 into the same circle by some of its ideologic traits, and as the Se- 

 mitico-Libyan type preceded the proper Scythic in the 8, W. pro- 

 vince of the Old World, and Draviro- Australian is the earliest of the 

 more Scylboid formations in this part of the continent, it is proba- 

 ble that some of the Caucasian affinities are direct- The more 

 fundamental Ugrian roots, witli the Yeniseian and N. E. Asian, 

 render it probable that they were brought by the primary Dravi- 

 rian— speaking tribes from central Asia. Some are doubtless of 

 later derivation, but the greater portion must be considered as of 

 erpial antiquity with those phonetic and ideologic diameters which 

 affiliate Draviro-Australian nnd Ugrian. The more remote N; 

 E. Asian affinities, when not Scythic also, may be stilt older, for 

 similar affinities are found in ll>c Caucutiian, Seuiiiico-Lihyau and 

 Zimbian languages. They may appertain to the nou-Scythic 

 southern element of the formation, or to its partially cognate proto- 



