BTnyOLOOT OF THB IJTDO- PACIFIC ISLANDS. 



13 



Mi!cliBt)iiii({ to the SiiTgpHo ind Lao, eoiiW roi hav- been ttttUd hy i 

 Tibpun «nb(" whtrh was confineri lo 'heroaur)U»f>*t, like ibe prpsmt 

 W««ieTn BhiUtariK mij eauifrn Llii< ^af. Tibelane oi Tibnaninfd HtntftJa* 

 jrant tntiet hav(t dfscended intn Uitrtindia or ladii iDdtcqaiietl a polU 

 tk«l and aocial predominance over a coniideratltte am. 



The iiecnad mierttie* is \htl tlif diffaiiaD of Tibettn tUmeni* on this 

 aide of tbr HimMlsraa hat oot. bc«D ciuied b; a iinMl« movr-mffit of « 

 Tibetan uibp conlin«>d to one era. Thpie Bbniian irrapnoot into tb« 

 aitb HimslityaM ard India wbicfa nay be reuaidcd aa hislorrca! bave pro* 

 d cpd A comparaiiTely amall tnfluence. Altbougfa it hta bfcn cntinaed. 

 oniil liie present liode, or for abftat twelve cenliiriei at Uvni, ow'ttig to 

 tb« pprrsanrnt advarce of the tihotitn ethoic Uoru^r iot^t tbe lob. 

 Hitualafaa, it baa fniled to aRaimi1|te tba conterminoiit lartiaacrfla of ibat 

 traci. Ffona the Tibarkbad to tbs AHor a oFarly nninipf rupitd band of 

 laDRuaneaia preaenff>d, whicb tettin non- Bholian f-*rma of proncmn* and 

 p»rlicU*t, and two third* of the vocabiea of which appear to be non Bho. 

 tian Even the moBt eagtern of these laDRUa^en, at the Daphla and Abor, 

 vbich are tpolten by bighly B hot "id tribea, htve a very considerable ba. 

 sis of non-BbiHian tntUt in pbooulogy, nloasary and ideolnify. In tht 

 ► Gtnittlic plain the it fluence of Bhotian haa bepo aiill leta. It it 

 obvioas from iheae facta, that the pure Bhntiaa tribea and UnBOtft't o( 

 the tob Himalayaa bare atwafa been aeparatrd hova thosf of (be ittain 

 by a Itarrier oi only partially Bhotited lanROtgea. lo Bbotan the jnfloentfi 

 •f ihe hiatorieali Bhotian advaoce to ihe soQlhward baa beet) tuorc- pow* 

 erful and eitensive than in yikirn and Nipal. bat the phytical and lin^ 

 ffuittie characJer oi the Bodo and Dhiroal nhm that beyond thf tnotin- 

 taina it waa coaiparatitrcly feeble and snpeificial. Id the basio of tbs 

 Ifawadi and the connected weiiero territftry as far at Beniral and ihe 

 B,y,_ihe tribea of which are entirely afparated from the Bbniiana bj 

 ioterveninK onea and are te^a Bhotian in p^^rAitn and eiiaioma ihtti aonis 

 of the Himalayan tribet,— we fiou that ibe Nftfia and Yiitna vocabuTarift 

 ire twi€p aa Rhotian aa raoat of the Nipaleat. The Miehm^ Jtll, Sinjf- 

 pho, Niufti Vunaa and Garo appear (o bare a direct gloetarical connee- 

 tioa with Bh<>ttan — whatever mrvy ba the cbronolonicat andethnic relatioii 

 of the Tibetan nsnvement which induced it — distinct from ibat whirh 

 Tibetiaed the mart weetern lantcutizet. But to ascertain ihia relatioa 

 aaiiffaciorily ii i« necegaary to adsi-rt to th« non-Bhoiian trails of th« 

 Najza,, Yuma and of tht Qairgetic lan^uageB, and tbeie wiU be diicnated m 

 1 separate Section. ^ 



In the ffrllowing details my principal object will hi to thew the exterl 

 to which Tibetan enters gloasarially into the lanj£tia|j;e« of Ultraindi* 

 and India. In the coraparanve liaie in the Appendii, compilfd before 

 the pulilication ol Mr. Hodgson's Siftn vocabiilariet. I had inditrrU 

 niinately entered all wordt (bat have Bhnttan affiniliea, A few are that 

 included of which the derivation from Tibet roay be doubted, Mid. 

 Asian and other remote lanKaaKea having forma that are nearer iha 

 eii Himafayan, while otbert are K^en which now appear to be Sifao lod 

 not Bhotian. But mtkioji every allowance for thete, ihi« Section with 

 the Appendix will fifford a fjeneral view of the influence which the Pifanf 

 ind Bhotiana ha»« exerted on the vncabulariea of Ultr«india and lodm 

 £fcim thvert wheQ tbei firil foupd their way acroii ib« anowy bixner. 



