Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the human species—in other words, that this earlier population must have been spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at a later period.
That the divisions of such an earlier population were, at least, as closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to suppose that they were more closely connected; since the date of their diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of mankind.
If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of which remains may still survive.
Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities—
1. Parts beyond the limits of the area occupied by the so-called Indo-Europeans.
2. Parts within the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring population.
What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions?
a. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and Slavonic areas, i.e. the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders.
b. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, i.e. the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be) whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit.