6o 
MADAGASCAR 
Malayan immigration as quite subordinate, and to describe 
the Malagasy as genuine negroes of African kinship. In 
this he certainly goes too far. J. Sibree, in other respects 
an excellent observer, fell into the opposite error in 
laying excessive stress on the Malayan character and 
allowing the African, Arabian and Indian elements to 
appear as only quite subordinate to the Malayan im¬ 
migration from the East. 
Apparently he has allowed himself to be too much led 
away by linguistic considerations. It is indeed true that 
a uniform indubitable Malayan language is in use through¬ 
out the whole island, but this has been simply imposed 
by force on the part of the Hova population, for, owing 
to the nomadic life of the Malagasy and the ascendancy 
of the Hova, a knowledge of this language appeared to 
be a necessity. Moreover, many dialects still exist in 
Madagascar, which differ greatly from the Hova language, 
but have not yet been sufficiently examined in detail. 
It is surprising how easily the western tribes make 
themselves understood to Makoa and Swali people who 
come to the country. 
That the feeling of a common origin does not exist 
among the people themselves, is evident from the circum¬ 
stance, which I have often observed, that the nations 
make a sharp distinction between ' Hova ’ and ‘ Malgash 
the latter appellation embracing all non-Malayan and thus 
neero-like elements. 
The assumption of James Cameron is entirely without 
foundation. He draws a parallel between the Hova and 
the Jews of the time of Solomon, and finds so great a 
resemblance in certain customs that he tries to render 
probable a Semitic immigration in Phoenician ships. If 
we except the intermixture of Malagasy and Arabs, which 
must have been mainly confined to the west of the island, 
Semitic traces are entirely wanting. 
In 1886 Alfred Grandidier formed what seems to be 
