176 KTHNOLOOY OF THE INDO-PACIPIC igl.ANTlS. 



marked by the influx of earlier tribes of the snnio rnce. Tlio firral 

 southern movement of tlic CIiriio-Tilietan race wliiclj ^ave a 

 Malayu-Polyuesian population to Asonesta and a Chino-Ulli'nin- 

 dian and Tibeto-Ultratndian to thn trnns-Ganrrctic peninsula, afTt'Ct- 

 ed not only the middle and north Gantrotic race but I lie Vindyans 

 also. The influx of this race from the east and of jn'tj-Brahmiuic 

 Arians or allied tribes from ihc west was probiibly coiiiomporarie- 

 ous at an early period, ongiiiating llie mixed type which [jredomi- 

 nated in ihe ancient Ni ha- Polynesian branch of the Gaiigetico- 

 Ultraindian Asonestans. The prc-Brnhminic Arian influpnee w i3 

 probably sufficiently powerful and long conlinued to have produced 

 anlrano-Monggliantype, prior to the proper Arian craof Noilhern 

 India. It is even probable that the Di-avirian nafions of ihe 

 Ganges, like the more civilised ones of the south, were grciiily 

 modified by archaic Iranian influence before the Ulli*aindbtia 

 entered ihc basin. 



Although we have found it im|>osaible to trace the actual histo- 

 ry of the Dravirian formaliott, we haveasccrLiined the main course 

 of its development and various points of contact, at its successive 

 fltages, with other existing foj-mations. The general conclusiuiis 

 may be recapitulated as follows 



1. The general character of its harmohic, aspirate and fiqjiid pho- 

 nology is Scythic, but it has ]iecnliariiieB in iis Btrong and complex 

 Bounds. Save in some of the emasculated tongues il has a more 

 liarsh ami primitive character than the Scythic phonologies. 



2. The Btructural phonologj' is agglomerative and harmonic. 

 It separates the formation not only from the Chinese and iMon- 

 Anam but from the Tibct& Ultraindian, and allies it with all the 

 harmonic formations. In its specific characters — -a weakness of 

 the agglutinative, elliptic and amalgamutive power and conteqmnt 

 rarity of flexions— *it is much nearer akin to Scythic than to tbfe pre- 

 vailing S. W* Asian and African formations and to the prc-Seythic 

 6. European [Eusk arian]. Its agglomerative power is similar to 

 the Scythic, and is hence greater than Caucasian and Seniitico- 

 Libyan, but less than the Iranian, Zimbian and Malagasy anfl 

 greatly inferior to the American. But in its archaic Auslraloid 



• See Sec. 10 for review of the Ideologic and plionetjc altiniti* §. 



