FOOTNOTES:

[9] In Greek, Rhæmata=words.

[10] Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

[11] Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. vi. part 2.

[12] Prichard, vol. iv.

[13] "The Chinese as they are," p. 319.

[14] Prichard, vol. iv.

[15] Prichard, vol. iv.

[16] Buchanan, Asiatic Researches.

[17] Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. iv. part 2.

[18] Such are the primitive habits, still in use from the Konki to the Monash and which are most worthy of study and record, as being primitive and as being common to two people, the Bodo and Dhimál, though abandoned by the Kámrúpian and most numerous branch of the Bodo.

[19] Ai or Aya is the goddess Kámákyá of Kanirup, vis genetrix naturæ, typed by the Bhaga or Yoni.

[20] Dhámi, in Bodo. Dom, in other allied dialects.

[21] Decline and Fall, vol. viii.

[22] Klaproth, Memoires relatifs à l'Asie, iii.

[23] Zeuss, v. Avari.

[24] Decline and Fall, vol. v.

[25] Lucian, Toxaris 31. From Zeuss, v. Alani.

[26] 1. The determination of the language to which the name of any nation mentioned in history belongs is of primary importance. Perhaps there is not one fourth of the tribes described by writers, either ancient or modern, whereof the name is native; e.g., the terms Welsh and German are unknown in Wales and Germany; whilst an Englishman is a Saxon in the Principality and in Ireland. For ascertaining whether a name be native or not the two following rules are useful.

Rule 1. When two different nations speak of a third by the same name the primâ facie evidence is in favour of that name being the native one.

Rule 2. When one nation speaks of two others under the same name, the primâ facie evidence is against that name being the native one.

Thus, according to Rule 1, if a Chinese and a Greek each call a tribe which invades their country, Hun, it is nearly certain that the invading tribe called itself Hun also. Of course, in cases, where the two nations using the common term might have borrowed it one of another, or from a third language, the probabilities are modified. Still the general rule holds good.

The second rule may be illustrated by the term Welsh. It is given by the nations of the Gothic stock to the Cambrians of Wales, the Italians of Italy, and the Wallachians of Wallachia. We know that with none of these it is native. I consider, however, that, given the geographical position of Germany, Wales, Italy, and Wallachia, the same might have been inferred.

[27] Wrangell, from Prichard, vol. iv.

[28] Transactions of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1846.

[29] Ermann, from Prichard, vol. iv.

[30] Reise um der Erde.

[31] Saxon (German) wine.

[32] Asia Minor and Thrace.

[33] Many parts of Russia.

[34] Germania, 45.

[35] Zeuss, v. Finni, and p. [157].

B.
DIOSCURIAN MONGOLIDÆ.

The term Dioscurian is taken from the ancient sea-port Dioscurias. Here it was that the chief commerce between the Greeks and Romans, and the natives of the Caucasian range took place. According to Pliny,[36] it was carried on by one hundred and thirty interpreters, so numerous were the languages. Without raising the number thus high, the great multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues is still one of the characteristics of the parts in question. And this fact has determined the application of the term. To have used the word Caucasian would have been correct, but inconvenient. It is already mis-applied in another sense, i.e., for the sake of denoting the so-called Caucasian race, consisting, or said to consist, of Jews, Greeks, Circassians, Scotchmen, ancient Romans, and other heterogeneous elements. In this sense it has been used in more than one celebrated work of fiction. In such, and in such only, it is otherwise than out of place.

DIOSCURIAN NATIONS AND TRIBES.

Physical Conformation.—Modified Mongol.

Languages.—Paurosyllabic,[37] agglutinate; of all the tongues not Seriform, the nearest approaching to an aptotic state.

Area.—The range of Mount Caucasus.

Chief Divisions.—1. The Georgians. 2. The Lesgians. 3. The Mizjeji. 4. The Irôn. 5. The Circassians.

In few, perhaps, in no part of the present volume, am I on more debateable ground than the present. So long has the term Caucasian been considered to denote a type of physical conformation closely akin to that of the Iapetidæ, (i.e., preeminently European,) that to place the Georgians and Circassians in the midst of the Mongolidæ, is a paradox. Again, the popular notions founded upon the physical beauty of the tribes under notice, are against such a juxtaposition; the typical Mongolians, in this respect, having never been mentioned by either poet or painter in the language of praise.

Lastly, it so happens that some of the latest researches in comparative philology have been undertaken with the special object of making the philological position of the Dioscurians coincide with their anatomical one, i.e., of proving that the languages of the Georgians and the Irôn are to be connected with that of the Greeks and Latins, just as was the case with their skeletons.

For the sake of laying before the reader the amount of fact and argument, in contradistinction to the amount of mere opinion, that is opposed by the position here assumed for the Dioscurians, I will analyse the grounds for the current belief under two heads:—

1. The connexion of the Dioscurian nations with those of Europe, as determined by the evidence of Physical Conformation.—The really scientific portion of these anatomical reasons consists in a single fact; which was as follows.—Blumenbach had a solitary Georgian skull; and that solitary Georgian skull was the finest in his collection: that of a Greek being the next. Hence it was taken as the type of the skull of the more organized divisions of our species. More than this, it gave its name to the type, and introduced the term Caucasian. Never has a single head done more harm to science than was done in the way of posthumous mischief, by the head of this well-shaped female from Georgia. I do not say that it was not a fair sample of all Georgian skulls. It might or might not be. I only lay before critics the amount of induction that they have gone upon.

2. The connexion of the Dioscurian nations with those of Europe as determined by the evidence of language.—Here I can only give a sample of the philology which would connect the Georgian with the Indo-European tongues. It consists in the proof that the Georgian numerals are the same as the Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Gothic, Slavonic, and Lithuanic.

English.Georgian.Mingrelian.[38]Suanic.[38]Lazic.[38]
Oneerthiarthies`guar.
Twoorishirijerudzur.
Threesamisumisemidshumi.
Fourothchiotchiwors`tchoatch.
Fivechuthichuthiwochus`ichut.
Sixekhwssiapchs'uiusgwaas`.
Sevens'widi'sqwithiis`gwits`kit.
Eightrwaruoaraovro.
Ninezehruc`choroc`charac`choro.
Tenathiwithije`stwit.

One=Es`gu, Suanic=êka, Sanskrit; jek, Persian, the ἑκα- in ἑκά-τερος, and ἕκ-αστος, Greek.

One=erthi, Georgian; arthi, Mingrelian; ar, Lazic. Here the forms are different from the Suanic esg`u, and have a different origin. Esgu is a true cardinal, just as one is a true cardinal. The Georgian, Mingrelian, and Suanic forms, are not originally cardinal, but derivative from the ordinal, just as would be the case in English, if, instead of saying one, two, &c., we said, first, second, &c. Now the root of the ordinal cardinal of the Georgian, Mingrelian, and Lazic ar, is the πρ- in the Greek, πρῶ-τος, the p-r- in the Lithuanic pir-mas, the fr- in the Mœso-Gothic, fr-ums, and the pr- in the Sanskrit pr-atamas; the initial p having been lost, just as the initial s in the Sanskrit sru,=to flow, is lost in the Greek ῥέω, and the Latin ruo. Hence, arti=, by rati metathesis, just as the Lithuanic pirmas=the Latin primus. The t is the τ of πρῶ-τ-ος.

Two=Ori, Georgian; dva, Sanskrit; δι-, Greek; duo, Latin, &c.

Three=sami, Georgian; dschumi, Lazic; tre, Sanskrit; τρία, Greek; tres, Latin; three, English, &c. Here t becomes s, r is ejected, and m is added, upon the assumption of reflected ordinal.[39]

Four=wors`tcho, Suanic. A transposition of tchowors=the Sanskrit ćatvâras.—Here, remember the Gothic and Welsh forms, fidvôr, and pedwar, respectively.

Five=wochus`i, Suanic. The wo- of this form is the pa- of the Sanskrit pa-nća, whilst the -chu- is the ća of the same word. The -t- is the t of the Slavonic forms, fya-tj=five; ses-tj=six; devja-ti=nine, and desja-ti=ten.

Six=ekhwssi, Georgian=sas, Sanskrit; csvas, Zend; achses, Trôn.

Seven=swidi, Georgian. A transposition of siwdi=supta, Sanskrit; septem, Latin; ἕπτα, Greek, &c. It is stated of the numbers six and seven that "their Indo-European origin is preeminently capable of proof."

Eight=rwa, ruo, &c.=as`ta, Sanskrit. Here the s is lost, as in Hindostani, and Bengali, ât`, and ât; t becomes d; and d is changed to r.

The numeral nine is let alone.

Ten=jest, Suanic=das`a, Sanskrit.

I do not say that there may not be letter-changes which make all this feasible. There may or may not be. I only lay before critics, the amount of change assumed.

In 1845, I announced, at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, that the closest philological affinity of the Dioscurian languages was with the Aptotic ones. This I had brought myself to believe from a comparison of the words only. Soon afterwards, Mr. Norriss, of the Asiatic Society, instead of expressing surprise at my doctrine, said that, upon grammatical grounds, he held the same opinion.

How far these views are founded on fact, may be seen from the forthcoming samples of two Dioscurian grammars, and of a short Dioscurian vocabulary, compared with those of the Seriform tongues. The two together form but a small fraction of the evidence that can be adduced. It is as much, however, as is admissible in a work like the present.

Physiological objections, based upon the symmetry of shape, and delicacy of complexion, on the part of the Georgians and Circassians, I am, at present, unable to meet. I can only indicate our want of osteological data, and remind my reader of the peculiar climatologic conditions of the Caucasian range; which is at once temperate, mountainous, wooded, and in the neighbourhood of the sea—in other words, the reverse of all Mongol areas hitherto enumerated. Perhaps, too, I may limit the extent of such objections as a matter of fact. It is only amongst the chiefs where the personal beauty of the male portion of the population is at all remarkable. The tillers of the soil are, comparatively speaking, coarse and unshapely.

GEORGIANS.

Divisions.—1. Eastern Georgians. 2. Western Georgians. 3. South-western Georgians. 4. Northern Georgians.

EASTERN GEORGIANS.

Locality.—The head-waters of the Kur.

Name.—Cartulinian, from the Province called Carthueli, the ancient Iberia. The Cartulinian dialect is the Georgian of Teflis, and the Georgian of the Georgian literature.

Alphabet.—Peculiar. Probably derived from the Armenian.

WESTERN GEORGIANS.

Localities.—Guriel, Imeretia, and Mingrelia, i.e., the valley of Phasis.

Name.—Mingrelian.

Language.—More like the Lazic than it is to either the Cartulinian or the Suanic.

SOUTH-WESTERN GEORGIANS.

Locality.—Lazistan.

Geographical Limits.—From the promontory of Kyemer-Burnu, east of Rizeh, east of Trebizond to the mouth of the Tchorok, south of Batoum. Not further than the Tchorok inland.

Political Relations.—Subject to Turkey.

Religion.—Mahometan; converted about 1580, A.D. Previously (at least in the reign of Justinian) Christians of the Greek Church.

Alphabet.—Arabic. Native literature none or scanty. Sub-dialects numerous, according to Rosen one for almost every valley. Greek words intermixed; some, probably, of considerable antiquity.

NORTHERN GEORGIANS.

Locality.—The head-waters of the Tzchenistoquali, or Lasch-churi; the Hippus of the ancients.

Name.—Suanic.

Conterminous with the Northern Mingrelian dialects of the Georgian, and the Absné dialect of the Circassian. Less like any of the other Georgian dialects than they are to each other. The Suanians call—

Descent.—As the Georgians may reasonably be considered to be the aborigines of the locality which they, at present, inhabit, they come before us as an ancient people. The Greek poet, who first sung of the Argonauts, knew, at least, enough of Colchis to make it a local habitation for his heroine—though that was not knowing much. The earliest navigator of the Euxine knew more; for, possibly, at a period anterior to the colonization of Asia Minor, he knew it as a real land. The Ægyptians, at the time of Herodotus, knew enough of it to claim it as a conquest of the great Sesostris. With this claim the question of purity of the Georgian race commences.

Two separate and definite immigrations have been supposed to have introduced into Colchis new ethnological elements.

1. The settlement from Ægypt under the reign of the Great Sesostris.

In §§ 103-105, of his Second Book, Herodotus writes thus:—Sesostris "overturned both the Scythians and the Thracians; and here, in my mind, the Ægyptian army reached its furthest point. Thus far the pillars in question appear; beyond, there are none. From these parts he turned back, and when he came to the river Phasis, I am unable to say truly, which of two things occurred; whether the King himself, having separated a portion of his army, left it as a settlement in the country, or whether some of his soldiers, harassed by their wanderings, stayed behind on that river. For the Colchians are evidently Ægyptians. I say this, having observed it myself, before I heard from any one else. And, whilst I was considering it, I asked both; and the Colchians remembered the Ægyptians better than Ægyptians the Colchians. The Ægyptians said, that they thought that the Colchians were from the army of Sesostris. This is what I guessed myself, from the fact of their being both black-skinned and curly-haired. This, however, goes for nothing. Others are so also. The main reason is that the Colchians, the Ægyptians, and the Æthiopians are the only men who originally practised circumcision: since the Phœnicians and the Syrians of Palestine confess that they learned it of the Ægyptians; whilst the Syrians about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, and the Macrones, who are their neighbours, say that they learned it recently, from the Colchians. Come, now, I must mention another fact concerning the Colchians, wherein they resemble the Ægyptians. They and the Ægyptians are the only ones who work flax in the same way. And the whole manner of life and language are mutually alike. The flax from Colchis is called by the Greeks, Sardonicon: that from Ægypt, Ægyptian."

As no external evidence will make it probable that the Georgians, as a nation, are of Ægyptian origin, and as, on the other hand, Herodotus speaks from personal observation, the exact truth is not easily attainable. Probably, there was an Ægyptian colony on the Black Sea. Possibly—though not probably—the Colchians were not Dioscurian aborigines, but immigrants.

2. The Orpelian settlement from China.—In the thirteenth century, according to those who are most willing to allow a comparatively high antiquity to Armenian literature, a work was composed in Armenian, by Stephen, Archbishop of Siounia. In this, it is stated that a noble family, called Ouhrbélêan, or Orpelian, entered Georgia, settled on the frontiers of Orpeth, and became the founders of one of the great families of Georgia; to which family the historian himself belonged. Finally, it is added, that this family came from Djenasdan or China. This is probably a mere tradition; one which, even if true, would denote an immigration wholly unconnected with the real ante-historical relations between Caucasus and the Seriform area.

The true elements of intermixture with the Georgian family have been Greek, Persian, Armenian, Turk, and Russian; as may be collected from the history of the country. The amount of Lesgian, Irôn, Mizjeji, and Circassian blood is uncertain.

The safest view to be taken of the history of Georgian civilization is to remember that, different as may be the languages of Georgia and Armenia, the political history and the local relations are alike, and have generally been so. The Christianity of Georgia was from Armenia; so was its literature; so also its alphabet—although in their present rounded form its letters are very unlike the square and angular characters of Armenia.

THE LESGIANS.

Locality.—Eastern Caucasus, or Daghestan.

Name.—No native general name. Called by the Circassians Hhannoatshe; by the Tshetshentsh, Suéli.

Dialects.—1. Avar, spoken by the tribe who call themselves Marulan,=mountaineers, from Marul=mountain. Falling into the Anzukh, Tshari, Andi, Kabutsh, Dido(?), Unso(?) sub-dialects. 2. Kasikumuk. 3. Akush—sub-dialect Kubitsh. 4. Kura of South Daghestan.

THE MIZJEJI.

Locality.—West and north-west of the Lesgians.

Name.—Not native.

Divisions.—1. Galgai, Halha, or Ingúsh. 2. Kharabulakh or Arshte. 3. Tshetshentsh. 4. Tushi.

THE IRÔN.

Locality.—Central Caucasus; conterminous with the Mizjeji on the East, the Georgians on the south, the Circassians on the north, and Imeretia on the west.

Name.—Called by themselves Irôn, by the Georgians, Osi (Plural Oseti).

As the single skull of the Georgian female did all the mischief in the physiological ethnography of Caucasus, an Irôn vocabulary has been the prime source of error in the way of its philology. Klaproth considered that the number of words common to the Irôn[40] and Persian languages was sufficient to place the former amongst the Indo-European languages. More than this, there were historical grounds for believing that the Irôn was the ancient language of Media[41]—also of the Alani of the later Roman empire. No man believed all this more than the present writer until the appearance of Rosen's sketch of the Irôn (Ossetic) grammar. He now believes that the Irôn is more Chinese than Indo-European.

Assuming, however, that Klaproth's position is correct, it follows that as the Georgian is undoubtedly akin to the Irôn, it may be Indo-European also. This is the view taken by Professor Bopp, from whose work, in favour of this position of the Georgian, the criticism relating to the numerals was taken. The method is as exceptionable as the result. If the Georgian be Indo-European, the Chinese is Indo-European also; and if the vaunted laws concerning the permutation and transition of letters lead to such philological leger-de-main as is to be found in more than one work of the German school, our scholarship is taking a retrograde direction.

However, the character of the Irôn grammar is as follows:—

The declension of nouns is simple; being limited to two numbers and four cases. Herein the inflection expressive of number can be separated from the inflection expressive of case—as fid-i=of a father, fid-t`-i=of fathers. Furthermore, the sign of case follows that of number. Such is the structure of case and number in Irôn, and such the sequence of the respective inflections expressive of each.

Singular.Plural.
Nom.fid[42]fid-t`-a
Gen.fid-ifid-t`-i
Dat.fid-énfid-t`-am
Abl.fid-éifid-t`-éi.
Nom.moi[43]moi-t`a
Gen.moi-imoi-t`i
Dat.moi-énmoi-t-am
Abl.moi-éimoi-t`-éi.

The comparative degree is formed by the addition of -dar; as chorz=good, chorz-dar=better. This has an Indo-European look. Compare it with the -τερ of the Greek comparatives. No superlative inflection.

The true personal pronouns (i. e., those of the two first persons) are as follows;—

A.

1. Az=I. Defective in the oblique cases.

2. Man, or ma—Defective in the nominative singular.

A.
Sing.Plural.
Nom.——mach
Gen.man-imach-i
Dat.man-anmach-én
Accus.manmach
Abl.man-éimach-éi.
B.
Nom.disi-mach
Gen.daw-i[44]si-mach-i
Dat.daw-onsi-mach-én
Accus.dawsi-mach
Abl.da-wéisi-mach-éi.

The signs of the persons are considered to be eminently Indo-Germanic. They are -in, -is, -i; -am, -ut`, -inc`; e. g.

Qus-in = aud-ioQus-am = aud-imus
Qus-is = aud-isQus-ut` = aud-itis
Qus-i = aud-itQus-inc` = aud-iunt.

I am as little prepared to deny as to affirm the likeness.

The addition of the sound of t helps to form the Irôn preterite. I say helps, because if we compare the form s-ko-t-on=I made, with the root kan, or the form fé-qus-t-on=I heard, with the root qus, we see, at once, that the addition of t is only a part of an inflection. Nevertheless, I am as little prepared to deny as to affirm its identity with the Persian d.

Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of the word to make; thus used as an auxiliary. The perfect and future seem similarly formed, from the auxiliary=be.

This may be collected from the following paradigms.

1.

2.

3.

Root, kus = hear.

INDICATIVE.
Sing.Plural.
Present,1. Qus-inQus-am.
2. Qus-isQus-ut`
3. Qus-iQus-inc`.
Imperfect, 1. Qus-ga-k`o-t-onQus-ga-k`o-t-am
2. Qus-ga-k`o-t-aiQus-ga-k`o-t-at`
3. Qus-ga-k`o-t-aQus-ga-k`o-t-oi
Perfect,1. fé-qus-t-onfé-qus-t-am
2. fé-qus-t-aifé-qus-t-at`
3. fé-qus-t-afé-qus-t-oi
Future,1. bai-qus-g'in-anbai-qus-g'i-stam
2. bai-qus-g'in-asbai-qus-g'i-stut`
3. bai-qus-g'én-ibai-qus-g'i-sti
CONJUNCTIVE.
Present,1. qus-onqus-am
2. qus-aiqus-at`
3. qus-aiqus-oi
Imperfect, 1. qus-ga-k`an-onqus-ga-k`an-am
2. qus-ga-k`an-aiqus-ga-k`an-at`
3. qus-ga-k`an-aqus-ga-k`an-oi
IMPERATIVE.
1. ——bai-qus-am
2. bai-qusbai-qus-ut`
3. bai-qus-abai-qus-oi

Infinitive, qus-in.

Participles, Qus-ag, qus-gond, qus-in-ag.

It may safely be said, that no Dioscurian language is more Indo-European than the Irôn.

CIRCASSIANS.

Locality.—West Caucasus.

Divisions.—1. True Circassians, calling themselves Adigé. 2. Absné.

Sub-divisions of the Absné. 1. Absné. 2. Tepanta (or Altekesek).

It may safely be said that no Dioscurian language is less Indo-European than the Circassian. Such being the case, its grammar forms a proper complement to that of the Irôn.

In respect to its sounds, it has the credit, even in Caucasus, of being the most harsh and disagreeable language of the Caucasian area; consonants being accumulated, and hiatus being frequent.

The declensional inflections are preeminently scanty. In English substantives there is a sign for the possessive case, and for none other. In Absné there is not even this—ab=father, ácĕ=horse; ab ácĕ=father's horse, (verbally, father horse). In expressions like these, position does the work of an inflection.

Judging from Rosen's example, the use of prepositions is as limited as that of inflections, sara s-ab ácĕ ist`ap I my-father horse give, or giving am; abna amus`w izbit=wood bear see-did=I saw a bear in the wood; awinĕ wi as`wkĕ=(in) house two doors; ácĕ sis`lit=(on) horse mount-I-did.

Hence declension begins with the formation of the plural number. This consists in the addition of the syllable k`wa.

Acĕ= horse;ácĕ-k`wa= horses.
Atsla= tree;atsla-k`wa= trees.
Awinĕ = house;awinĕ-k`wa = houses.

In the pronouns there is as little inflection as in the substantives and adjectives, i. e. there are no forms corresponding to mihi, nobis, &c.

1. When the pronoun signifies possession, it takes an inseparable form, is incorporated with the substantive that agrees with it, and is s- for the first, w- for the second, and i- for the third person singular. Then for the plural it is h- for the first person, s`- for the second, r- for the third: ab=father;

S-ab= my father;h-ab= our father.
W-ab= thy father;s`-ab = your father.
T-ab= his (her) father; r-ab= their father.

2. When the pronoun is governed by a verb, it is inseparable also; and similarly incorporated.

3. Hence, the only inseparable form of the personal pronoun is, when it governs the verb. In this case the forms are:

Sa-ra = IHa-ra = we
Wa-ra = thouS`a-ra = ye
Ui= heU-bart` = they.

In sa-ra, wa-ra, ha-ra, s`a-ra, the -ra is non-radical. The word u-bart` is a compound.

The ordinal=first is achani. This seems formed from aka=one.

The ordinal=second is agi. This seems unconnected with the word wi-=two; just as in English, second has no etymological connection with two.

The remaining ordinals are formed regularly, by prefixing to the radical part of their respective cardinals, -a, and affixing -nto.

Cardinals.Ordinals.
3, Chi-ba[46]A-chi-nto
4, P`s`i-baA-p`s`i-nto
5, Chu-baA-chu-nto
6, F-baF-into
7, Bis`-baBs-into
8, Aa-baA-a-nto
9, S`-baS`b-into
10, S`wa-baSw-ento.

In the Absné verbs the distinction of time is the only distinction denoted by any approach to the character of an inflection; and here the change has so thoroughly the appearance of having been effected by the addition of some separate and independent words, that it is doubtful whether any of the following forms can be considered as true inflections. They are compounds; i. e. forms like can't, won't, I'll (=I will), rather than forms like speaks, spoke, τέ-τυφ-α, &c.

Root, C'wisl= ride (equit-o).
1. Present,C'wis`l-ap= I ride[47] (equit-o).
2. Present,C'wis`l-oit = I am riding.
Imperfect,C'wis`l-an= equitabam.
Perfect,C'wis`l-it= equitavi.
Plusquamperfect, C'wis`l-chén= equitaveram.
Future,C'wis`l-as˙t = equitabo.

The person and number is shown by the pronoun. And here must be noticed a complication. The pronoun appears in two forms:—

1st. In full, sara, wara, &c.

2nd. As an inseparable prefix; the radical letter being prefixed and incorporated with the verb. It cannot, however, be said that this is a true inflection.

1.
Sing. 1. sara s-c'wisl-oit = I ride
2. wara u-c'wisl-oit = thou ridest
3. ui i-c'wisl-oit= he rides.
2.
Plur. 1. hara ha-c'wisl-oit= we ride
2. s`ara s`-c'wisl-oit = ye ride
3. ubart r-c'wisl-oit= they ride.

Original area.—The northward extension of the present Circassian area is limited by the Russians and the Nogay Turks. Now, as each of these areas has encroached, it is reasonable to believe that, at an earlier period, Circassian tribes may have extended further northward than at present. At the same time we must be careful not to carry them too far; otherwise we infringe the area of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and other nations of antiquity; who, whatever else they were, were not very likely to have been Circassian. Some point between the Cuban and the Don is the likeliest limit for the most northern Circassians. The old line of frontier on the Caucasian side is incapable of determination.

Amongst the ancestors of the present Circassians are, most probably, the Zychi (Achæi), Abasgi, Heniochi, Cercetæ, Makropogones, Sindians, &c.

The question as to the original population of the country which now separates the nearest point of the Dioscurian area from the Seriform, will be considered in the section upon the distribution of the Iranian portion of the Indo-European division of the Iapetidæ. The following is a selection of words common to the Dioscurian and Aptotic languages:—