Page:The Indian Antiquary Vol 1.pdf/292

 258

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

faith in the general correctness of the data on which I have proceeded : but there is nothing I desire more than that any mistakes I may have committed should be rectified, and that others may thus be prevented from falling into the same errors. Ac tuated by these feelings, as soon as I saw a report of the discussion in the Bombay papers, I wrote a private letter to Dr. Bhau Daji, in which I explain ed to him that I was preparing for the press a se cond edition of my “History of Architecture,” and how undesirable it was for the good cause we both had at heart that these errors should go uncorrected, and promising the fullest acknowledgment of any assistance he might give me in ascertaining the truth. That letter he has had in his possession now for a twelvemonth at least, but he has not yet condescended to take the slightest notice of it ; and I am therefore induced to ask him publicly to make good his statement ; inasmuch as by doing it in print and in the form of an answer to this letter, he will secure to himself, without dispute, all the credit due to his superior knowledge and sagacity. London, 5th July 1872. JAS. FERGUSSON. NOTE ON THE “ GAULI RAJ.”

I AM glad to see this subject noticed by Mr. Sinclair, (p. 204), and I should wish to see more contributions to our stock of information on the

subject. If every reader of the Indian Antiquary who knows anything, however small, bearing on the question would but contribute his mite, our store of knowledge might be considerably in creased. I have come across many traces of the so-called Gauli Rāj in Gondwana, but the subject has never emerged out of the phase of misty tradition in which it is enveloped. The easiest solu tion of the mystery is to refer to it an ante-Aryan period, easiest, I say, as being incapable of con tradiction by actual proofs, but this cannot be ac cepted for many reasons. All over the Baitool and Chindwara districts are found groups of monumen tal stones, three or four feet high, and sculptured over with equestrian and other figures. On enquiry, these are always referred by the people to the Gauli Rāj; at most these stones cannot be above a century or two old.

The modern race of Gaulis and Ahirs

do not erect such monuments, but the Gadris or goatkeepers and the analogous tribe of “Bhurwars” in Gujarat do erect somewhat similar monuments, only of wood instead of stone. It is quite clear

that the villagers of the Săthpūra highlands fully

[AUGUST 2, 1872.

pedigrees which they show go back to a very remote period. The story told me by the present represen tative of the eldest branch of the family is, that his ancestors were formerly in the service of the Gond Rājas as military retainers, and that on some occasion of want of means to pay their dues the Rāja gave them permission to take

and plunder the fort ofChindwarathen held by Gauli chiefs. This they proceeded to do, and they have lived in the fort to this day. I could get no docu mentary corroboration of the story, but if true it makes the Gauli Rāj cotemporary with the Gond Rāj. It may be quite possible that the term Gauli

Rāj expresses nothing more than that at some past day the upland plains of the Săthpurāsand adjoining lands were chiefly occupied by shepherd tribes who

monopolized all the wealth of the country, and who no doubt carried arms to save their herds from

being harried. The aborigines of the country would be in a state of serfdom to them, and look

up to them as their rulers, and talk of their “raj." I think this is a more rational solution than to

conjure up the ghost of some lost dynasty—a task about as hopeless as that of identifying the lost ten tribes of Israel.

This however is but a humble

suggestion, and I shall feel happy if I can succeed in

provoking further enquiry and eliciting some inter change of ideas on this ethnological problem. Bombay, 22nd July 1872. W. RAMSAY. THE KHAJUNA LANGUAGE.

SIR,--I have lately confirmed some observations formerly made by me as to the classification of the Kaju na h language, of which Dr. Leitner has been a chief exponent. This language has hitherto remained unclassified, and the reason is a simple one, because it has no neighbouring congeners. It certainly has no con nexion with those languages with which it is inter mixed in Dr. Leitner's vocabularies.

The group of languages which furnish the key to it is that of the A g a w s, Wa ags, F a la s h as (Black Jews), Fert i ts, Dizz e las, and S h a n k a l is of Abyssinia; but with these are also con

nected those of the A b k h as s in Caucasia, of

the Rodiy as of Ceylon, of the Gale las, &c., of the Indian Archipelago.

A Siberian class and two

American classes are also related.

The Ro di ya, the language of the Pariahs of Ceylon, was also unclassified. It will be seen that it belongs to the same general family as the Ka ju in a h. There is little direct resemblance between the Kajun a h and the A b k h as s, or between the

believe in the existence in former times of a Gauli

Kajun a h and the Ro di ya, but the relationship

Rāj, but they can throw no further light on the sub ject. The following is the only tale I have ever heard making any definite allusion to the rule of the Gaulis, and it is curious inasmuch as it seems to

of each is rather with the Abyssinian class. One chief reason for calling the attention of the readers of the Indian Antiquary to the subject is for the purpose of inviting their attention to these sources for the early philology, ethnology, and history of India. The group which I have named at present —the Siberio-Nubian—must have had possession of

bring the rāj within the range of a comparatively recent historical epoch. The Chaudris or hereditary Patels of Chindwara are a well-to-do family of

Rakbansis, an offshoot of the Rajput stock, and the

the whole of India before the Dravidians.

St. George's Sq., 24th Feb., 1872.

HYDE CLARKE.