ETttWOliOOT OF THE IS JJO-PAOHTO la^jUTDB. 



161 



of hybrid racag and languages has been a stan*linG; cbaract<^nstic of 

 its ethnology. The earns retratk is appliciible to the tnore open 

 ftnd fertile tracts of Southern India. Grant that fixed industrial 

 populatiors e?t]sted in these countries prior to the later movements 

 of western races into India, and the gradual modification and even 

 transformalion of the principal Indian langiiuj|ep is a necessary con- 

 sequence. Glosi'ariul facts prove that the Indi-in tribes were set- 

 tled and civilised pi'ior to the Arian erUf and as the pre-Arian arts 

 were derived from different sources, and indicate the lapse of a 

 long period of civilisation and of intercourse with foreign races^ 

 there was room for a repeated production of hybrid formations 

 before the Indian languages acquired the forms which they now 

 have, and which, in their mm, will "prove the foundations of new 

 formations, if they are not entirely replaced by foreign ones. 



The reliition of the Draviriun physical and linguij-lic formations 

 to these of the provinces around India is the first point to be 

 considered in an attempt to ascertain tht/ir true ethnic affini tie*. 

 The Chinepf*, Siamese and Mon-Anam nations diffV-r essentially 

 from the Dravirians in pprson, in language and in other respects. 

 The North TJUraindians and the Tibetans ave very remotely con- 

 nected with them. Physically, both ai-e purely Turanian and 

 their languages, aUhottgh of a simihir ftind;imenta] lyjte, are at a 

 great distance from the Dravirian both in ideologic itevebpment 

 and in phonology. The phonetic diflVrenee ij> ?o great as of its<df 

 to prove that the Dravirian formation was not derived from the 

 countries adjoining the Indian peninsula on llic eajst and north 

 while Ihese were occupied by the Tibeto-Ultraindian. It is also 

 improbable that it was derived from Upper Asia through Tibet 

 and the Himalayas, because there are no grounds for supposing 

 that tlie TibetO'Chinese race are not the ohiest occupants of these 

 countries, and any ethnic movement on so great a scale and so 

 prolonged, as to diffuse a harmonic phonology like the Dravirian 

 or Draviro-Australian over that barrier region and ihence over 

 India, would have left traces of its prepence distinguishable from 

 those which mark the comparatively modern intrusion of Scythic 

 languages. The affinitiea between Draviro-Ausiralian and Tibeto- 

 Uliraindian, considerable and fundamental as iln?y are, appear to 

 be referable to a stage of the former long preceding its harmonic 



