If so, and if the Raibansi Kooch be so closely allied to them as they are described to be, they must, although speaking a dialect closely allied to the Assam Bengali, be monosyllabic in origin.
The whole details, however, of the Kooch may be found in Mr. Hodgson's Dissertation.
The Chinese civilization must be taken as the measure of the moral development of the monosyllabic nations; a form to which the non-culture of the tribes represented by the Bodo and Garo, stands in prominent contrast. I do not think it necessary to tell the reader what Chinese civilization is. It is sufficiently known in itself; its affinity with that of the Indo-Chinese nations is known also; and equally well-known is its distinct character, as compared with the other civilizations of the world—Asiatic as well as European.
A point of more ethnographical importance, is the question as to its antiquity; since this involves the higher question still—as to the extent to which it is a self-developed phenomenon, or one effected by influences from without. I am prepared to admit without much criticism, the statements of travellers as to the possession, on the part of the Chinese, of several of the most important arts and discoveries belonging to the civilization of Europe—of the art of printing, of paper-money, of a certain amount of astronomical knowledge, of the mariner's compass, and even of gunpowder. There is no reason why the Chinese, when once civilized, should not have worked out an average amount of discovery in the way of detail. The point upon which I doubt is the antiquity of that civilization, and still more the self-evolution of it; a necessary consequence of such antiquity.
Within the historical period, three civilizing influences have, at different times, been introduced into China, and each has had time to do its work in.
I begin with the latest, the European.
1. The Portuguese, Dutch, English, and American.—This may be disposed of briefly. It has not changed the Chinese cultivation in anything essential.
2. The Nestorian Christians.—Date between 600 and 1200 A.D. The extent of the influence of these early missionaries will be examined in the section upon the Syrians. It is the second of the great external civilizing influences that have acted upon China. Without carrying my scepticism so far as to limit the antiquity of the Chinese history to the epoch of the Nestorians, I cannot but put a high importance on the introduction of Syrian literature, Syrian theology, and Syrian science.
3. The Buddhism of India.—This is generally believed to have been introduced into China in the first century after Christ. I have not seen the translation of the Annals of the Han Dynasty by the Archimandrite Hyacinth; so that I cannot say at what period they profess to represent cotemporary events. Whatever, however, that period may be, it is the extreme date of Chinese history: now this cannot be earlier than B.C. 200; that being the epoch when the Han dynasty began to reign.
Viewed in respect to our reasons for concluding that such or such a fact took place, there are five grounds of belief:—