2 
PAPEHS Oi\ MAIAV SUBJECTS. 
writer lias to begin by discussing the reliability of otlier 
people's work ? Paucity of evidence leads, of cotirsea tc* 
plenitude of criticism and explains why books art 
big wlien facts are few. 
The line of discussion usually followed in such case.^ 
also tends to kill popular interest in the wild tribesmen 
of the Peninsula. Tliey are represented as inaccessible 
persons who are remarkable principally for their cephalic 
index and their Mon-Annam affinities — and baits of this 
sort fail to attract the general reader. No sane savanl 
is likely to give up the best years of his comfortable life 
to the study of wandering tribes who lead lives of liard- 
ship in the rece.sses of unhealthy forests; nor is it 
probable that any practical planter or trader will take 
an enthusiastic interest in the cranial proportions of the 
savages that he meets* It is to be feared that there will 
always be a distinction between the people who know 
the wild tribes and the people who write about them. 
. In the early days of European trade with the Far 
East the Peninsular aborigines were known through 
the Omng Benita or Jakun of Malacca, and were 
regarded as mere simian savages, the Buums Safffrop 
of the old Portuguese maps. The first traders took n& 
interest in them. At a later dat^ when research became 
more popular and when the British occupation of Penang 
brought our students into relation with the Bemang, the 
presence of negrito tribesmen in a Malayan country 
roused much curiosity and led ultimately to the belief 
that the other wild races were only the result of blends 
between the Semang and the Malay. This was the 
Pan-Neginto theory that influenced the writings of 
Miklukho-Maclay. Of course, no one believes in it now. 
Even from the beginnings of Sakai investigation the 
