ETHKOLOOT OF THE IK DO-PA OIFIC INLANDS. 



timt fangiiflgcs of il>e oldest Libvan irjio werfi nor rontinetl lo ihe 

 S. W, extremity of Asia ami to Africa, bul cvrcnJotl easlwanl 

 along ibe uorfheni ehores of tlie Intiiati Ocean, nnrl may have 

 jireceiied the Draviro- Australian ou Bonic portion of the line along 

 wliicb it arlvaiiced lo Intlhi. 



Be this m it roay, the history of the Dravirian linguistic forma- 

 tion is far from being fully ehicitl(U(-*d by a comparison of it with 

 the other formaiiona of S. W. Asia,— Talar, Traninn, Semitic and 

 Caucasian. It h not closely related to any of iht'se, and ifs more 

 fundam(}ntal aJRnitifs with tljem, larffe as llioy arp, go back for 

 their sources to older devf-lopmeni^, embraeing a elilt wider ran^re 

 of formation?. The individuality of the Dcavirian fbrmntionj the 

 irn|joBsibility of subordinating it to any of ihe S. W. Asian forma- 

 tions, and itB great auliquity, are illustrated by the fact of its 

 arehalc prevalence in a cruder condition in Asou« gia. When the 

 characters of the present predonjinant formations of Ultraindia and 

 of all Aaonesia save Australia are coniiidered, Dravlrian appeara 

 to Bland out from the Iranian and ihe Tatar as an older 8. W. 

 Asian formation, which has survived great changfe in the distribu- 

 tion of races in Southern Asia, and which by the crude form it 

 retains in Australia, proves that the more Iranian and Scylhic 

 character it hm received iu lucUa was su per nid need on a native 

 basis of independent ori<rin The earlier S. W. Asian history of 

 Dravirian, when thus viewed as a prior formation to Iranian and 

 Scythic ia Irania and India, is hardly capable of being traced, 

 because there no longer remains any formation which can be con- 

 sidered as ihe ultimate or native one and as the limit of our 

 researches in this region. We can ascertain affinities with other 

 and more distant formations', but thefc will not supply ns with all 

 the elements ot the ancient lingui^itic tiistory of the trano-Indiun. 

 When the actual barrier languages on the west are removed, we 

 no longer have any clear guide to the archaic limits or movements 

 of Dravirian. It may have been developed in Iranta or India 

 from a type still cruder than ihe Ausilndiair, or, as is more proba- 

 ble, it may have been derived iu iis Austi-aloid type from a distant 

 land of origin. When we go beyond the Tatar and Iranian and 

 come to the allied Ugrian langtiages on the north and east, and to 



