Page images
PDF
EPUB

SECTION VII,

ON THE

MONGOLIAN AFFINITIES OF THE CAUCASIANS.

ALL residents in the East who take an interest in the more general topics of Ethnology must have been exceedingly struck by Dr. Latham's recent imposing exhibition of the vast ethnic domain of the Mongolidæ. From Easter Island to Archangel, from Tasmania and Madagascar to Kamtchatka and the mouths of the Lena, all is Mongolian! Caucasus itself, the Arian Ararat, is Mongolian! India, the time-honoured Aryavartta, is Mongolian! Granting that this remarkable sketch* is in good part anticipatory with reference to demonstrative proofs, it is yet, I believe, one which the progress of research has already done, and is now doing much, and will do yet more, to substantiate as a whole; though I think the learned author might have facilitated the acceptance of his splendid paradoxes, if, leaving the Osetit and the Bráhmans in unquestioned possession of their Arian honours, he had contented himself with maintaining that the mass of Caucasian and Indian population is nevertheless of Turanian, not Arian, blood and breed; and if, instead of laying so much stress upon a special Turanian type (the Seriform), he had been more sensible that the technical diagnostics, which have been set upon the several subdivisions of the Mongolidæ, are hindrances, not helps, to a ready perception of the common characteristics of the whole race.

• Natural History of Man : London, 1850

+ It will be soon in the sequel that in the course of those investigations which gavo tho “ Comparative Analysis " its present amplitude, I stisfied myself that tho Osoti aro Mongolian.

I do not propose on the present occasion to advert to what has been lately done in India demonstrative of the facts, that the great mass of the Indian population, whether now using the Tamulian or the Prakritic tongues, whether now following or not following the Hindu creed and customs, is essentially non-Arian as to origin and race, but that this mass has been acted upon and altered to an amazing extent by an Arian element, numerically small, yet of wonderful energy and of high antiquity. These are indubitable facts, the validity of which I am prepared with a large body of evidence to establish; and they are facts which, so far from being inconsistent with each other, as Latham virtually assumes, are such that their joint operation during ages and up to this hour is alone capable of explaining those physical and lingual characteristics of the Indian population, which Dr. Latham's theory leaves not merely wholly unexplained, but wholly inexplicable. I must however postpone their discussion till I come to treat of the Newar and Khas tribes of Népál. In the meanwhile, and with reference to Dr. Latham's crowning heresy that the most Caucasian of Caucasians (the Irôn or Oseti) are “more Chinese than Indo-European," I have a remarkable statement to submit in confirmation of his general, though not his special, position; my agreement with him being still general, not special.

His general position quoad Caucasus is, that the Caucasian races are Mongolidan; and, availing himself with unusual alertness of the results of local Indian research, he has, at pp. 123-128, given copious extracts from Brown's IndoChinese Vocabularies, as printed in our Journal; and he has then compared these vocables with others proper to the Caucasian races. My recent paper upon the close affinity of the Indo-Chinese tongues with those of the Himalaya and of Tibet, will show how infinitely the so-called “Chinese" element of this comparison may be extended and confirmed ; and my Sifanese series, now nearly ready, will yet further augment this element of the comparison, which in these its fuller dimensions certainly displays an extraordinary identity in many of the commonest and most needful words of the languages of Caucasus on the one hand, and of Tibet, Sifan,

the Himálaya, Indo-China, and China on the other. There is no escaping, as I conceive, from the conclusion that the Caucasian region, as a whole, is decidedly Mongolian, what I have now to add in the shape of grammatical or structural correspondences affording so striking a confirmation of that heterodox belief, whilst Bopp's somewhat strained exposition of the Arian characteristics of the Iron (as of the MalayoPolynesian) provokes a doubt even as to them, despite the " Edinburgh Review.”* It is the fashion of the age to stickle, somewhat overmuch perhaps, for structural or grammatical correspondences, as the only or best evidence of ethnic affinity. I am by no means insensible of the value of such evidence; and, though I may conceive it to be less important in reference to the extremely inartificial class of languages now in question than in reference to the Indo-European class, I proceed to submit with great pleasure a telling sample of structural identity between the Gyárúng tongue, which is spoken on the extreme east or Chinese frontier of Tibet, equidistant from Khokhonúr and Yúnán, and the Circassian language, which is spoken in the west of Caucasus.

The Gyárúng sample is the fruit of my own research into a group of tongues heretofore unknown, even by name: the Caucasian sample is derived from Rosen apud Latham, PP. 120-122.

Rosen, who was the first to penetrate the mysteries of Caucasian Glossology, states, ist, that the Circassian pronouns have two forms, a complete and separable one, and an incomplete and inseparable one. 2d, That in their incomplete or contracted and concreted form, the pronouns blend themselves alike with the nouns and with the verbs. 3d, That these pronouns, like

• No. 192, article Bopp's Comp. Grammar work that cannot be too highly ratod, though its style of demonstration is not equally applicable beyond the Indo-Germanic pale. Its spirit may pass that pale, but not its letter, u when the Georgian ami is identified with the Sadecrit tri, Groek spre, and Latin tree My doubt respects tho Oseti, pot the Malayo-Polynesiana, for I am satisfied that they are Mongolian, and would now add a striking and novel statement in support of that opinion, but that I must by so doing go too far ahead of my yet unpro. duced Sifan rocabularies. The true and endless Mongolian equivalents for the Georgian numeral may be seen in the appeudis to this Eowy.

the nouns, have no inflectional or other case signs; in other words, are immutable.* 4th, That the complete form of the pronouns is distinguished by the suffix Ra. Now, every one of these very arbitrary peculiarities belongs to the pronouns in the Gyárúng language not less than in that of Circassia, as the following examples will show; and I should add that by how much the development of this part of speech is anomalous throughout the Tartar or Mongolian tongues, by so much is the instanced coincidence with the Circassian more significant, the anomalous or irregular character of the pronouns of both not sufficing to conceal the coincidence, and therefore doubly illustrating it.

Circassian.-Ab, father. Wara, thou, the full pronoun. Wa, the contracted form, used in composition.

Hence Wáb or Wa-ab, thy father.

Gyárúng.Pé, father. Nanré, thou, the full pronoun. Na, the contracted form, used in composition.

Hence Nape or Na-pé, thy father.

VERBAL Use.

Circassian. Wará, { wa } -kwisloit, thou ridest.

Gyárúng.–Nanré na-syo, thou knowest.

I have changed the Gyárúng verb, because I do not possess the equivalent in that tongue for to ride. It matters not, however, as the sample shows the grammatical form to be absolutely the same in both sentences, just as well as if ride were the verb used in both.

The other rules and examples (scanty, I adinit) given by Latham from Rosen may be matched in each instance by

I have now ascertainod that the samo principles previl, with slight variations, in the Háyu, Kuswór, Kiránti, and Limbu languages of the Himalaya in tbo U'raon, Ho, Sontal, and Gondi tongues of Tamulian lodia, and in the Tagals and Malagu languages of the Pelasgian group, though passing out of uro in the last-named tongue u in several of the Himalayan tongueu Seo remarks in the Supplement. I may add that in the Háyu language (of which I bave a detailed account nearly completed) tho verbo are distinguished into the two classes of transitives and intransitive procisely w in Malay.

Gyárúng rule and sample, as will be seen in the sequel. But there is this difference in respect to the Ra suffix, that it is applied to the first and second pronouns in Circassian, though not to the third ; and to the second only in Gyárúng *

This, however, is in complete conformity with the other and typical Mongolian tongues; for in Mantchú, and in Mongol also, the Ra suffix is found, but attaching only to the third personal; and if we compare the Téré of those tonguest with the Chinese Tá and the Sokpo Thá, we shall perceive the perfect analogy of the suffix throughout these tongues, in spite of its varying applications.

But is there no clue to the irregularities, none to the real force and signification, of this pronominal suffix ? Clearly there is; for in the Tibetan language, the word rang, meaning self, and attaching to all the personal pronouns alike, $ affords us that clue, though the people of Circassia and the Gyárúng, whose common and familiar use of this suffix is so perfectly analogous, seem equally unaware of the fact, and can neither explain the meaning nor the partial application of their suffix, any more than can the Mantchús and Mongols. This I infer from the silence of authors, and should add that the explanations are wholly my own, my Gyárúng interpreter being able only to express very unsophisticated surprise when asked to analyse a word.

But I have not yet done with the analogy of Circassian and Gyárúng pronouns, having still to notice that the third personal in Circassian, which drops the Ra suffix, is not really a personal but a demonstrative, equivalent to ille, iste. Now, the Gyárúng language has a third personal, which the Circassian lacks; but it has also a demonstrative, and that demonstrative is the very

• The first and second pronouns are so nearly aliko in Gyarung (nga, nas), that the ré suffis has probably been reserved to the second, in order to difference it moro plainly.

+ Recherches sur les langues Tartares, pp. 173, 183. I cannot thus revert to the thoughts of my old antagonist (voce Buddhism) without a fresh tear dropped on tho untimely grave of that truly amiable and leamed man.

: Nga, I, ngarang, I myself, egomet ; and so khérang, khórang. Rémuut hus udly confused the Tibetan pronouns, and, as I suspect, those of the other "langues Tartares," though bis work be a marvel for the time and circumstances of its publication. Rémusat ut supra, p. 365.

« PreviousContinue »