The term “fossil words” signifies words embedded in a language, or which have not been eradicated by foreign influences–such as the Saxon words in the modern English language. The roots of the language will be found to consist of these; hence they remain as witnesses of derivative, national or tribal connection with the parent region, however remote in time or distant in space. Fossil words, then, furnish as certain a clue to connection of races as either idiomatic or phonetic similarity,^* though this opinion is disputed. Root or fossil words, it has been shown in previous papers, are only to be eradicated with the extinction of the race, and to this branch we at present address ourselves.

The previous papers on this subject, whose first object was to investigate the whence of the Maori, i.e., the tribe that inhabits New Zealand, confined their scope to the Malayan, Malagasi, and Polynesian dialects. In the present paper I have prosecuted my enquiries far beyond into the regions of Asia, Africa, and Australia, in which labour I was assisted by the works noted below.^†

The basis of my investigations have been the Malayan Language, with which my long sojourn in the Far East made me familiar, but the present work has led me into a scrutiny of over four hundred languages and dialects.

The conclusion that I was brought to previously, viz., that, counter to popular opinion, the Maori and hence Polynesian race, was not originally from the Malay (though it might be through or with them), but from a race or races which in pre-historic times inhabited Hindustan, seemed to claim further demonstration than my materials could at that time afford. In my recent visit to England, therefore, I collected all the works bearing on the subject that I could obtain.

The present paper is thus principally devoted to the following question, viz., by analogy in fossil words or radicals, how far are we justified in denoting Hindustan as the original seat of the Malagas-malayo-polynesian race, which, for the sake of brevity and distinction, I have taken the liberty to term Barata. In attempting to solve this question, we must have regard to other theories that have been propounded by various authors. The most generally accepted theory, viz., that the Malagaso-polynesians were of Malay origin, I have already dealt with in my previous essays. Another theory I have since observed to be that the Malayo-malagasi had sprung from the Polynesian, the supporters averring that as the Polynesian was the more primitive and ancient section, he must have been the progenitor. To this the following considerations suggest themselves: 1st. Admitted that the Polynesian is the most primitive and ancient section, this only denotes that he was the first to migrate from his original seat, when that seat–whether in Africa, Asia, America, or Australia–was in possession of a primitive and ancient ancestry; and as there have been waves of migration from time to time, the most primitive have stretched out furthest.^* 2nd. The over-running of skilled populous and armed nations by the simple weak sand defenceless, is contrary to all experience, ancient or modern. 3rd. Another theory has been suggested, that Africa was the original seat of the race, another that it was in Egypt; but as these have had little acceptation, I merely notice the same.

Before entering into the comparison of words in different dialects or languages, in order to judge of the connection of race we must hold in view this fact, that the radicals bear but a small proportion to the whole, thus in an English dictionary of 90,000 words, not more than 4000 or ½2 part are Saxon. Hence, amongst the races whose languages we are about to consider, and whose dictionaries do not count over 5000 to 6000 words, we must be prepared to find not over 300 words more or less which can come under the denomination of radical terms or fossil words. This fact at the same time facilitates the investigation, making it less laborious.

The number of works that can be compared are further curtailed by the subject or object being only known in portions of the regions inhabited. Thus while I have gone over many full vocabularies, I have been forced to strike out many of the words from the above cause. For instance, the cocoa-nut well known to the Malay is not known to the Maori. In a similar manner the deer, elephant, plantain, rice,&c., are well known in some regions but not in others–hence, though they come under the designation of radical terms, they are inapplicable in our enquiry.

We must again guard against the error of accepting all radical terms as proving affinity of race; the terms most certain are those which are connected with immediate surroundings or events, such as for parts of the body, head, mouth, feet, &c., the principal physical objects—sun, moon, stars, earth, &c.; articles of food—water, rice, fruit, &c.; calls to companions as come, go, give, &c. If the terms be not connected with immediate surroundings then they become less valuable in support of proof of racial affinity, as for example :—

Here the words dog, horse, crow and buffalo being similar, or nearly so, in Malay and several races of Asia, do not indicate affinity, but only that such animals had been derived from thence. On the contrary the radical Malay word nior, having wide similarity from Africa to Polynesia, may be taken to indicate affinity of race, for as the cocoa-nut grows on the sea-shore, letting its fruit fall to float and be carried to all tropical regions, it may be supposed to have preceded the emigrant tribes; thus, as they approached each island or shore, they carried the fossil word and applied it to the same species of tree, in whichever parts of their vast regions it had drifted and germinated, or they may have carried, exceptionally, the fruit with them. Again, in the following examples :—

The dog and the crow are not indigenous words of Malagasi, but derivative from Africa, the designations having been imported with the animals themselves.

Hence, in choosing words found in the various dictionaries for comparison, I have had the above considerations in view, and have adopted only such as can be held as radical, indigenous, or truly fossil. By this means the racial affinities of the separate and far distant tribes can be indicated in the Barata of the tropics as in the Gypsies of Europe or the Portuguese in

Africa and Asia, though many tribes of both have in these historic times lost their idioms and phonology, but not the roots of their languages.

We may now come to the comparison of words collected from the various sources already stated,^* and in commenting on the same it is hardly necessary for me to remark that I do so under the conviction that the insular races were derived from the continental, but I am open to enquiry from what continent or portion of continent :—

The glossarial indication would denote in the case of the Malagasi and Malay immediate derivation from Telugu in South India, with affinity to Shan in Indo-China. In the case of the Maori from Garo, N.E. Bengal, with affinity to Great Nicobar, Bay of Bengal.

The African affinities in each case are doubtful.

Malagasi and Malay derived from tribes in Nepal and East of Bengal, Maori from tribes in Indo-China.

No African affinities.

Malagasi and Malay derived from Tibeto-China, Nepal, and Bay of Bengal.

African affinity distant.

Malagasi and Malay derived from Bay of Bengal, but doubtful; Maori from Nepal, Indo-China and China.

No African affinities.

Malagasi from Bay of Bengal, doubtful; Malay from Nepal, Maori from Nepal and Indo-China.

Malagasi from Africa, Maori also from Africa.

Indications of African affinities.

Malagasi and Malay direct from Khond, Central India, less distinctly from Indo-China and Bay of Bengal, Maori from Central India, doubtful.

No African affinities.

Malagasi, from Singpho, E. of Bengal, doubtful; Maori from Burma and Indo-China, doubtful.

Malay from ossa, W. Africa, doubtful.

Malagasi and Malay from N. Central and E. Hindustan, Maori from Tibeto-China, Central and Southern India.

Malagasi and Malay have E.W. and S. African affinities.

All from India and Indo-China, indications also from China and Japan, also all allied to Fulah, Africa, but doubtful.

All from Nepal, E. of Bengal, Indo-China and Bay of Bengal.

All have indications of African connection.

All from Nepal, Central and Southern India.

In Africa indications doubtful.

Malay from Indo-China and E. Bengal.

Maori has African connection.

All Tibeto-China and E. Bengal.

African indications doubtful.

All from Hindustan.

All have African indications.

All from Indo-China, Nepal, Central and East India.

African indications.

All from North, South, and Central India.

All have African affinities.

Malay and Maori from Nepal and Indo-China.

Maori has African indications.

Malay and Maori from Bengal and Indo-China.

Malay from Swahili, Africa, doubtful.

Malagasi and Malay from Nepal and Indo-China.

Indications in Ibu, Central Africa.

All from Nepal, Central and Southern India.

All have African affinities.

Malagasi and Malay from China and Central India.

No African affinities.

Malay and Maori have African connection.

All from different parts of Hindustan and Indo-China.

Maori term has indications in Yao, East Central Africa.

All from Nepal and Central India.

No African affinities.

Malagasi and Malay, N.E. Bengal, Central and South India.

No African affinities.

Malay and Maori from Indo-Tibeto China and Nepal.

Maori has affinity with Haussa, Central Africa.

Malagasi and Malay from East Bengal and Bay of Bengal.

Malagasi and Malay have African affinities in East Central and South.

Malay from Nepal, East and Central India.

Malagasi and Maori have African connections.

All from Hindustan and borders.

No African connection.

All from Hindustan and borders.

Malay and Maori have African connection.

No Asiatic or African connection.

Maori from Tamil, South India.

No African connection.

All from East of Bengal and Bay of Bengal.

No African connection.

All from South and Central India.

No African connection

All from Nepal.

No African connection.

All from Hindustan and borders.

No African connection.

All from Hindustan and borders; also, Chinese connection.

No African connection.

No Asiatic or African connection.

No Asiatic or African connection.

Malagasi and Maori from Central and South India, Malay from East Nepal.

No African connection.

Malagasi and Maori from Central India.

No African affinities.

Malagasi and Maori from Indo-China.

No African affinities.

On analysing the comparative vocabulary given in the appendix, I find that the analogies are much greater as between the Barata terms and Asia than as between these and Africa; and of the list of 43 given, 235 analogies, or close analogies, are found in the primitive languages of the former, particularly in Hindustan, while 97 analogies are found in Africa–principally in the Mosambique districts–but in most cases the analogies are by no means so perfect.

It may be further remarked, that of the 43 Barata terms given in our list, all except two are found embedded in the languages of South Asia, while 17 of them are not found in any African language.

Proceeding on our basis then–viz., that the Malagas-malayo-polynesian tribes derived their origin from the continent–not the continental tribes theirs from the islands–which theory some ethnologists support; it can scarcely now be doubted (that is, if the testimony of language have any value), that the origin of the Barata race extending over the tropics from Madagascar to Easter Island was in Hindustan, where the roots of their language are yet found so profusely preserved.

Further, that many of these words should also be preserved in Africa is not to be wondered at, seeing that the negro race had in archaic times such large expansion^* over all the regions under review, and between whose tribes and nations there has been immemorial intercourse.

The question still remains–from what part of Hindustan did these great Island Tribes emanate? The reply will be best made by reference to the accompanying map (pl. IV). It will be seen from this that Hindustan is now overrun by two distinct sections of the human race–viz., Indo-Germanic or Aryan and Turanian; or, in other words, the one Caucasian, the other Mongolian; the one occupying the western and northern regions, the other the southern and eastern; and in overrunning Hindustan have they extirpated the primitive races? not entirely; many of these remain, much modified, it is true, in colour and physiognomy, but little in language.^† The roots of a language die only with the tribe's extirpation. Hence, it is not in the languages of the intruding sections that we have found the Barata fossil words; but, for the most part, in the various small tribes, yet preserved in the obscure portions of their territory, difficult of access, such as under the Himalaya, Jynteah and Nilgherry mountains. In these, the undeleted glossarial remains of what had once been the language of a numerous people, we have witnesses to facts and conditions of nations long since past and preceding historic record.

Small tribes may have found their way towards the Tropics by divers routes, and particularly by those through the Malay Peninsula, Tenasserium coast and islands, but the section or nation that spread its influence, girdling two-thirds of this globe, could not have been one or more of these.

It is to South India, therefore, that we must look. For the inhabitants of this region have from times immemorial carried on trading expeditions, westerly to Africa and easterly to the Moluccas, a circumstance that can neither be stated of the natives of the rest of Hindustan nor of any of the Malayan states. The original seat of the great Barata race can then be only fairly sought for or denoted in South India, which commands the routes east to Malayo-Polynesia, west to Madagascar, and whose population, eminently maritime, were competent to the task of navigation. Thus we are led to the same conclusion as stated in my previous essays.^‡

In my researches I have had to scrutinise the Sanscrit terms, several of the Asiatic and African-Arabic dialects, Bask, Finnic, Magyar, Turkish, Circassian, Georgian, Mongolian, Muntshu and Japanese languages, without finding analogies. I have also examined twenty languages of Australia, and, amongst these, instances of but very exceptional and remote affinities

are detected, and none such as would indicate connection. The Barata language must therefore be held to be a purely tropical one, its offshoots seldom extending above thirty degrees from the equator. With Chinese, exceptional analogies have been found, but these are either doubtful or accidental.

A fit sequel to this present paper (I suggest) will be found in Appendix II., where I have compared the languages of the Malayan Archipelago with that of Samoa or the Navigators Islands in Polynesia. I am enabled to do this by the recent publication of a Samoan Grammar and Dictionary, by the Rev. George Pratt, edited by the Rev. S. J. Whitnee, F.R.G.S. This portion of the subject is the more interesting as Samoa is the reputed Hawaiki^* of the Maori.

It will be observed by the comparative vocabulary given in Appendix II, that all objects known in the Samoan Islands and the Malay Archipelago are, almost without exception, represented radically by the same words in either region. Objects unknown to the Polynesian as a matter of course are not represented—such as deer, gold, honey, iron, monkey, etc. And the locality where these Malayo-Polynesian affinities exist is not difficult to point out, viz., the Moluccas; thus of the 94 analogies represented, 24 are found in Ceram, 11 in Matabello, 7 in Borou, 7 in Amboyna, 7 in Sula Islands, 7 in Sangair, 6 in Celebes^†. Again of the 114 words contained in the whole list only 26 are Malay. Thus on our premises we would infer that the population of Samoa was not directly derived from Malaya (Sumatra or Malay Peninsula) but from the Moluccas. In other words, in the diffusion of the blood of the Barata race, while Malaya may have acted as a vein or path—the Moluccas acted as a gland or stepping-stone.

For this purpose no region could be more appropriate than the Moluccas, for here were the spices and rare birds so attractive to commerce, to be found. From time immemorial here would be the great rendezvous of Barat, that is, western adventurers and conquerers, and from whence their more enterprising spirits would venture further east. Thus, if it be said that the Moluccas were the stepping-stone to Barata emigration, so also is it said that Samoa was the focus of Polynesian dispersion.

That we have not found a language in the Malayan Archipelago completely analogous to Samoan is consistent with our theory—for in the preceding part of our paper neither has there been found a language in Hindustan completely consistent with the Malagas-malayo-polynesian dialects. In both cases, however, the unquestionable evidence of root or fossil

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]