Page:Aboriginesofvictoria02.djvu/23

Rh The late Mr. William Hull, at one time Member of the Legislative Council of Victoria, was, I believe, one of the first to direct attention to certain apparent resemblances between some few words in the Australian tongues and the Sanscrit. Such resemblances are curious, and invite enquiry; but it is, to say the least, doubtful whether they have a philological or ethnological value. In a communication to the Athenæum (No. 2545, 5th August 1876), entitled "Pre-Historic Names for Man and Monkey," Mr. Hyde Clarke states "that in Eastern Australia, as in Europe, the names for extinct races are applied to ghosts and fairies; but further in Australia, such a name is exhumed and applied to a new race. Thus wunda, a name of thousands of years, is applied to the newly-come Europeans. Makoron is only another word of the same kind, being koro, a man. Wunda is, however, a root having wider relations, and so are murri and koro. These words, and others used for man, serve not only to name man, but monkey, lizard, and frog—all four-footed or four-handed. In making some comparisons of animal names of Bribri, Tiribi, &c., of Costa Rica, Central America, which correspond with the African, as do such American names generally, it appeared that lizard, frog, and monkey interchanged. I had long suspected that monkey names were related to those for man, but the evidence was not strong until the group now pointed out was got together."—[Here follow the examples.] Mr. Clarke goes on to say that one "thing is certain, that the Aryan languages are the languages of blacks, as are most of the languages of the world; and the words supposed to represent an Aryan civilization are those of the civilization of the pre-historic blacks and savages. Looking to the facts, the differences between the languages of the Aryan stock are not all due to phonetic degradation. One chief point on this head is that roots were independently selected; and as the variations of pronunciation are found in the pre-historic languages, the probability is that some of these have been transmitted. Thus the Aryan languages are not to be regarded as the descendants of one Aryan stock, but as the languages of an amalgamation of various tribes, which having been brought together, have been subjected to what we understand as Aryan influences. Whether this was effected by the influence of white men in various black or mixed tribes assembled is a matter to be investigated. At all events, white men learned their languages from black men, and from them acquired their primitive mythology. With regard to the words wunda, &c., the question will naturally be put by some, what bearing they have on the Lemurian doctrine, so strongly advocated for ethnology by Prof. Huxley, philological arguments in favor of which were brought forward by the late distinguished scholar. Dr. W. H. Bleek. The facts here brought together, which form only a small part of the mass, showing how the names of animals, weapons, tools, and tribes are common to the old world and the new, well illustrate the early stages of language. . . . . The community of name of man with those animals here mentioned extends very much further among four-footed beasts; and birds were named from beasts. We have thus the probable origin of totems and totem-worship, as likewise in pre-historic philology we have the verbal origin of tree, serpent, and other kinds of worship, as I have shown in my late paper on Sibu and Siva worship." Mr. Clarke's paper is very curious and interestiuginteresting [sic].