Mundas and Australians.
By Sten Konow.
It is a well-known fact that the population of Northern India
is not uniform. According to Mr. Risley, The Tribes and Castes
-of Bengal, Vol. i, Calcutta 1891, pp. xxxi & ff., we can "distinguish
two extreme types of feature and physique, which may be pro-
■visionally described as Aryan and Dravidian".
The principal home of the so-called Dravidian type is Southern
India. The word Dravidian is commonly used to denote a distinct
linguistic family, and I do not think that Mr. Risley was right in
applying it to an anthropological type. The tribes representing
the type speak languages which have usually been considered as
belonging to two diflFerent families, one of which is known as the
Dravidian. The application of this name to the anthropological
type is therefore open to the same objection as the use of the
term Aryan to denote the race which is also known as the Indo-
European. It is used in a much wider sense by anthropologists
than by philologists.
Most "Dravidian" tribes speak languages which belong to one
and the same philological family — the so-called Dravidian. About
three millions, however, use several closely connected forms of
speech which appear to be quite different. They have been known
under diflferent names. Messrs. Hodgson and Logan described them
as North Dravidian and as dialects of the Kol language. The name
Kol , however , only comprises a portion of the dialects concerned.
It is, moreover, an ethnical term, and is also applied to tribes who
speak Dravidian languages proper.
Max Miiller was the first who clearly distinguished between
the Dravidian languages proper and the dialects in question, which
he proposed to call the Munda family. I have retained that
denomination (though it is far from being appropriate), because it
will be adopted in the Linguistic Survey of India, and it is of
no interest for my present purpose whether the denomination is
strictly correct or not. The common name Kolarian was coined b}-
Sir George Campbell, but it has no foundation whatever. In modern
10*
148 Konow, Mundäs and Australians.
times a fourth name was proposed by the Rev. L. Skrefsrud, and
has been adopted by Prof. Thomsen of Copenhagen. Santhal tra¬
ditions assert that the Santhals, Mundaris, Birhor, Bhumij and Ho
once formed one people, and that they were then called Kherwärs.
Messrs. Skrefsrud and Thomsen therefore use the name Kherwarian
to denote the whole family. I have not adopted this name because
some of the dialects belonging to the family are spoken by tribes
which do not appear to have been comprised under the denomi¬
nation Kherwar.
The Munda languages aro principally spoken in the Chota
Nagpur plateau. They must, however, have once extended much
farther to the west, for we find an important Munda dialect, the
so-called Kflrku, in the Mahadeo Hills, and it is probable that the
Bhils are descended from tribes which once used a Munda form
of speech.
The principal Munda languages are, 1. Santall; 2. Mundari,
with Bhumij and Birhor; 3. Ho; 4. Turi; 5. Asurl; 6. Korwäj
7. Ködä; 8. Kürkü; 9. Khariä; 10. Juäng; 11. Savara; 12. Gadaba.
Santäli, Mundari, Ho, Türi, AsurT, Korwä, and Ködä are all
closely connected. They represent the various forms of speech
now used by the descendants of that tribe which the Santhal
traditions call Kherwar.
The Munda languages have no connexion whatever with the
Dravidian forms of speech. On the other hand, there are many
important points in which they agree with the Mon-Khmer langu¬
ages of Further India, the dialects of the Sakeis and Semangs in
the Malay Peninsula, and Nancowry.
About ten years ago. Professor Thomsen of Copenhagen tried
to show that connected forms of speech can be traced much farther
to the south and east. In a paper entitled Bemcerknmqer om de
khervariske (kolariske) Sprogs Stilling, in the Oversigt over det
Kgl. Danske Videnskabs Selskabs Forhandhnger , 1892, pp. 231
and ff., he says, —
"Points of connexion with the Kherwarian languages can be
traced much farther towards the south-east, and, more especially,
I wish to draw attention to a series of very remarkable coin¬
cidences between them and several of the .... aboriginal langu¬
ages of the southern part of the Australian Continent , such as
Dippil and Turrubul in Southem Queensland; Kamilaroy, Wira-
dilrei , Lake Macquarie , Wodi -Wodi , and others in New South
Wales ; the languages spoken in the neighbourhood of the Encounter
Bay and about Adelaide , and also Pamkalla , spoken to the west
of Spencer's Gulf in South Australia; and, lastly, several languages
of West Australia. These (South) Australian languages cannot,
though they greatly difl'er from each other , be separated from
each other, but they must be supposed to have some common origin.
The correspondence which has been supposed to exist between
them and the Dravidian languages, must certainly be dismissed
(compare Fr. Miiller, Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, II, i,
pp. 95 and ff.). On the other hand, I think there is unquestio¬
nably a certain connexion between the Australian and Kherwarian
languages.
It is not only possible to show that there are correspondences
in vocabulary, but especial stress must be laid on the fact that
the analogy extends to the whole principle of the structure of
the language and to the relations and ideas which have found their
expression in grammatical forms. There seems also to be an un¬
mistakable similarity in some details of these forms, if it be allowed
to draw any conclusions in tbis respect so long as we are quite
ignorant of the phonetical development of the languages in question.
We cannot, however, expect to find any obvious analogy in gram¬
matical details throughout, the less so when we remember how
much the Australian languages themselves differ from each other
in this respect".
Professor Thomsen thinks that such points of analogy must
be explained by the supposition that Indian Mundas, or some
closely connected tribe, have formerly emigrated to the Australian
Continent.
G. V. d. Gabelentz in his book Die Sprachwissenschaft, Leipzig
1891, pp. 274 & f., also states that there is a connexion between
the Munda family and the Australian languages. He even thinks
that we are justified in speaking of a "Kolarian-Australian family
of languages". He does not, however, adduce any facts in support
of his view.
In preparing the Munda portion of the Linguistic Survey of
India, I have had to occupy myself with the supposed connexion
between Mundäs and Australians. I have examined Prof. Thomsen's
arguments, and I have been unable to adopt his view of the matter.
The points of analogy which he has found are, so far as I can
see, uncertain, and, at all events, too few and unimportant to prove
anything. Moreover, they are of such a kind that similar coin¬
cidences can be shown to exist between languages which are in
no way connected with each other. I have had the same materials
at my disposal as Prof. Thomsen, and I am quite aware that they
are not sufficient for arriving at a final decision. So far as I can
see , however, nothing is as yet known which contradicts my con¬
clusions.
Vocabulary. Prof. Thomsen's first argument is based on
the supposition of a certain correspondence in vocabulary.
In the first place he compares the first two numerals in Munda
with some forms in Australian languages, viz. Santäli mit\ one,
with Wodi-Wodi mitufi, Kamilaroy mal; Santäli bar, two, with
Lake Macquarie buloära, Kamilaroy, Dippil, Wodi-Wodi bulär &c.
1 i
150 Konow, Mundas and Australians.
The correspondence is far from being evident, and it is further
weakened by a consideration of the corresponding forms in other
Australian languages. The most common word for "one" in New
South Wales is wäkul. Other forms are marai, marawa (Tas¬
mania) , bur (Victoria) ; mo , mata , mada , metata (on the Murray
River near Wentworth and Euston); waichola (middle course of
the Darling) ; mala (Upper Murray) ; yalh, (Monero Plains) ; meden-
dal (Moruya); mitong (Murrumbidgee); metann (Jervis Bay); metong
(Goulbourn Plains); mitung (Illawarra district); mal (Liverpool
Plains); malanda (Wellington); by äda, muray, baja, by äya (Southern
Queensland); motu, warat, wadat (Northern territoi-y of South
Australia) ; numbai (Wiradurei) ; pieya (Kingki) ; kunar (Turrubul) ;
kalim (Dippil) ; kuma (Adelaide) ; kain, gain (West Australia), and
so forth.
It is difficult to find any form from which all these numerals
can be derived. The base in many of them seems to be ma, which
bears some resemblance to Santali mi(.
Most Australian languages have forms such as bula or bulo
for "two". According to Mr. John Praser in his curious introduc¬
tion to An Australian Language ... by L. E. Threlkeld, Sydney
1892, "the word bula is universal; with various changes of ter¬
mination, it exists from Tasmania in the extreme south, right on
to the Gulf of CariDcntaria". Compare Lake Macquarie buloära;
Wiradurei bula; Kamilaroy, Dippil, and Wodi-Wodi bülär; Wail-
wun bulugur; Kingki büdela; Turrubul büdelä; Lake Tyers bülü-
man; Lake Hindmarsh pullet; River Yarra bolowln; Jajowerong
bülaitsh; Witouro bullait; Toungurong bullarbil. Now I do not
think that the similarity with Santali bar is unquestionable. It
may reasonably be doubted whether the b of bar is a prefix or
belongs to the root. Compare Lernet ar, Khassi är, two, and the
ar which is used in the dual suffixes in Khariä.
There is, however, some similarity in the sound of the two
first numerals in Munda and Australian. The significance of that
fact, however, considerably loses in importance when we remember
that forms which bear the same, or even a stronger, similarity to
the Mundä numerals occur in the heart of Africa. Compare
Herero mue , one; vari, two; Maba bar, two. How cautious we
must be in such comparisons is vividly brought home to us when
we remember that ek is "one" in the language of the Mixteques in America, just as in Hindustäni.
Moreover, every trace of analogy disappears when we go beyond
the numeral "two". Most Australian languages only possess nume¬
rals so far as "three". In the Mundä family, on the other hand, we find separate forms so far as "ten", and higher numbers are
counted in twenties. The antiquity of the first ten numerals is
warranted by the close correspondence with the forms in use in
the Mon-Khmer languages.
1 S
I therefore think that we are on the safe side when we con¬
sider the similarity in sound between the two first numerals in
Mundä and Dravidian as merely accidental, at least so long as no
new facts force us to assume a connexion between both groups.
With regard to pronouns Prof Thomsen compares Santäli in,
Mundäri id, aih, I, with forms containing an ii in many Australian
languages, such as nai in Dippil, Turrubul, Kamilaroy, Adelaide,
and Pamkalla.
Now I do not attach any importance to the fact that the
characteristic element of the Mundä pronoun probably is a palatal
»5, but a velar n in the Australian forms. But I think a com¬
parison of the Mundä forms improbable for other reasons. Forms
of the personal pronoun of the first person containing a velar n
are found in many languages which cannot be considered as related,
and, on the other hand, the n of the Australian forms does not
appear to be a necessary part of the pronoun.
I do not propose to give a list of all such languages as have
foi-ms for "I" containing a velar ri. It is quite sufficient to mention
Tibeto-Burman na; Melanesian nu, n; Mande (Africa) n; Bullom
(Africa) yah.
Moreover, the element h can apparently be dropped in Austra¬
lian. Compare Lake Macquarie na-toa, 1; tia, me; emmo-uri to
me. The final ith of emnio-uh, to me, is a suffix; compare niro-uh,
to thee , Biraban-nun , to Biraban. Similarly we sometimes also
find pronominal suffixes of the first person singular without the h ;
thus, Wiradurei ha-du, I, to which correspond the suffixes du and
tu; Encounter Bay hä-pe, hä-te, I, and the suffixed forms ape,
ap, an, ate.
If we compare Lake Macquarie ha-toa , I; hin-toa, thou;
Wiradurei ha-du, I; hin-du, thou, and so forth, we shall find
that the h is also used in the pronoun of the second person.
Bishop Caldwell has long ago compared the Australian forms ha,
I ; ni, thou, with the Dravidian na-, I ; ni-, thou. I do not think
that the comparison proves anything. The bases of the Dravidian
pronouns are probably e or yä, I, and i, thou. The fact, however,
that the n is used in the pronoun of the second person as well
as in that of the first, shows that it is not the characteristic ele¬
ment of the pronoun "I". It is probably a prefix of uncertain
meaning, and it also occurs in forms such as Lake Macquarie ha-li,
this very; na-la, this; ha-loa, that. In the Mundä languages, on
the other hand, n is the real pronoun and cannot be dropped.
Professor Thomsen further compares Santäli alifi, he and I,
with Dippil hu-lih, a-len, Kamilaroy hu-le, Wiradurei ha-li. Lake
Macquarie (oblique) ha-lin, Adelaide and Parnkalla ria-dli, West
Australian ha-li, we two, and so forth.
Now alin means "I and he", and Lake Macquarie ha lin , "I and thou". I do not, however, think that that difference is of much
152 Konow, Mundäs and Australians.
weight. It is of greater importance that, while the Santali lih is
the essential part of the pronoun, the Australian li seems to be
an ordinary dual suffix which can be used after other pronouns as
well. Compare Lake Macquarie ba-lt, we two; bu-la, you two;
Encounter 13ay ne-le, we two; hur-le, you two.
A similar remark can be made regarding Prof. Thomsen's
comparison of Santäli alä, we, i. e. I and they, and Turrubul
nu-le, Adelaide ha-dlu, we. According to Mr. Fraser na-dlu is
an indefinite form which can be used both as a singular and
as a plural.
The apparent similarity between the forms for "we two" and
"we" is, I think, outweighed by the fact that the Australian lan,-
guages have nothing to correspond to the double set of dual and
plural forms of the personal pronoun of the first person , one in¬
cluding and the other excluding the party addressed. Compare
Santäli alin , I and he ; aian , I and thou ; alä, I and they ; abon,
I and you. If the person addressed is to be excluded, the Austra¬
lian languages suffix a pronoun of the third person to the ordinary
dual. Thus Lake Macquarie bali, we two, i. e. I and thou; ba-li-
noa, I and he ; ba-li-boun-toa, I and she.
Moreover, the parallelism between Mundä and Australian does
not extend to the personal pronoun of the second person. Forms
corresponding to Mundä am , thou , are , on the other hand, found
in many languages. Compare Melanesian mu, m; Bullom mua,
moa, thou.
Prof Thomsen also compares Santäli uni, nui, he, this (ani¬
mate beings), noa, this; ona, that (inanimate) with Lake Macquarie
noa, he, that; uni, unoa, that; Dippil unda, Turrubul wunal, he,
and so forth. I am afraid that even this point does not prove
much, because the demonstrative pronouns are formed according
to quite different principles in the two families. In Mundä there are
two difi'erent sets, one denoting animate beings and another refer¬
ring to inanimate objects. On the other hand, there are no different
forms for the masculine and the feminine. The Australians di¬
stinguish masculine and feminine pronouns, but use the same form
to denote animate beings and inanimate objects.
Moreover, a comparison of the Hindi bases in and un shows
how cautious we must be in such matters. Compare Santali in-kin,
these two ; un-kin , those two ; Hindi in-mi, among these ; wn-»il,
among those.
In the face of such facts I do not think that we can attach
much importance to Prof Thomsen's remaining comparisons. They
are as follows.
Santäli 7nät', Kamilaroy, Wiradurei mil, Wodi-Wodi mer, eye.
Santäli mu, Kamilaroy, Dippil mürü, Turrubul mUro, uose.
Santäli jahga, Wiradurei dinan, Kamilaroy dina, Dippil
jinun, foot.
Santäli här, Kurku kora, Lake Macquarie kore, Encounter
Bay kom, man.
Santäli bah, Dippil ba, not.
The number of similar words in both families is apparently
very small, and I do not think that they prove more than does the
curious list of phonetic coincidences in Mandshu and Greek and
Latin which has been printed by Prof Max Miiller in his Letter
to Chevalier Bunsen on the Classification of the Turanian Lan¬
guages, p. 95.
Moreover, I think that some of Prof Thomsen's comparisons
are far from being striking.
The similarity between Santäli mät', eye, and Australian forms
such as mil, mer, is far less than that between the Santäli word
and mat, mata, meta, eme, and so forth, in numerous Oceanic
languages. Compare also the word for "eye" in Tibeto-Bui-man
languages, where we find forms such as mik, mit, mi, myak, and
«0 forth.
The Mundä word for nose is mu. The Australian words
«ompared by Prof Thomsen are probably compounds. Compare
Lake Macquarie nu-koro, nose, but koro, windpipe.
The similarity between the words for "foot" in the two families
seems to me to be slight. Compare also Laka Macquarie tina, the
toes, the foot.
Lake Macquarie kore. Encounter Bay kom, are strikingly like
Kürkü koro, man. The o of the Mundä words is however open,
that of the Australian ones seems to be pronounced almost as a
u, for we also find kuri in the Lake Macquarie dialect. And forms
such as Kamilaroy giwir, Wiradurei gibir , Victoria kül-lnt, man,
make the probability of a connexion with the Mundä word rather
small. The Lake Macquarie nominative kuri-ko might ,)ust as well
be compared with Fulbe (Africa) gor-ko, man.
Dippil ba, not, no doubt resembles Santali bah. Ba, not, is
however, also found in Hausa; and other Australian negatives such
as Lake Macquarie kora, Wiradurei karia, Kamilaroy kämil, Adelaide
yalco. West Australian bart, not, remind us that it is necessary to
be cautious.
I have now examined all those points in which Prof Thomsen
states that the Australian languages agree with the Mundä family.
I do not think that they are numerous or important enough to
make a connexion between the two families probable.
It remains to see whether Prof. Thomsen is righto in statine o
that the structure of each set of languages follows the same prin¬
ciples, and that the grammatical forms give expression to the same
ideas in the two families. I regret that my knowledge of the
Australian dialects is very limited, and it is possible that I have
overlooked many important points. It is however necessary to
state my case as best I can.
1 6 «
154 Konow, Mundäs and Australians.
Phonology. — The phonetical system of the Australian lan¬
guages is extremely simple. There are no aspirates, no sibilants,
no h, and probably originally no soft mutes such as b, d, g. All
that is quite diflFerent in the Mundä languages. Those latter forms
ef speech possess all the various consonants of the Indo - Aryan
vernaculars, and also a peculiar set of semi-consonants, checked con¬
sonants without the o£F-glide.
Formation of words. — The Australian languages make use
of suffixes in order to form new words from already existing bases.
Thus Lake Macquarie bun-ki-ye, a fighting man; bun-to-ara, a
wounded man; bun-kilU-kan, a striker; bun-killi-kan-ne, a cudgel;
bun-killi-to, the stroke; bun-killi-ta, the striking; bun-killi-hd, a
pugilistic ring. The use of suffixes is also a well-known feature
of the Mundä languages. Their number is, however, limited, and
most of them are apparently pronominal. On the other hand, the
Mundä languages to a great extent use infixes in order to form
new words. The same is the case in the Mon-Khmer languages
and others, but nothing of the kind has been shown to exist in
Australian. Compare Santali dal, to strike; da-pa-l, to strike each
other: but Lake Macquarie bun, to strike; bun-kilän , to strike
each other.
I cannot therefore find that the structure is the same in
Mundä and Australian.
Inflexional system. — Mundä nouns are of two kinds, such
as denote animate beings and inanimate objects respectively. The
distinction of the two natural genders , on the other hand , is not
reflected in grammatical forms. Pairs such as kora, hoj; .kuri,
girl, are, of course, due to Aryan influence and are not a regular
feature of the Mundä languages.
The state of affairs is apparently different in Australian. There
is a difference between masculine and feminine forms. Compare
Lake Macquarie niu-woa, he; boun-toa, she; rnakoro-ban, a fisher;
makoro-bin, a fisher-woman; yinal, son; yinäl-kun, daughter. It
seems, however, as if this difference does not really affect the
grammar. On the other hand, there is apparently no difference
between such nouns as denote animate beings and inanimate objects,
respectively. In the Minyung dialect, the form of the adjective is
sometimes changed so as to agree with the qualified noun. Thus
kumai, big, large, can be used in connexion with all sorts of nouns.
If the qualified noun denotes a man, it is however more common
to use the form kumai-bin. The corresponding feminine form is
kumai-na-gun , while Icumai-nyon is used if tlie qualified noun
denotes an inanimate object. So far as I can see , there is no
parallelism between the Minyung principle and that prevailing in
Mundä.
Both the Mundä languages and the Australian ones distinguish
between three numbers, the singular, the dual, and the plural. The
1 6 *
Mundä languages usually denote the number by means of suffixes,
at least in the case of animate beings. The rule in Australian,
on the other hand, is to leave the dual and the plural of nouns
unmarked. Thus kuri in the Lake Macquarie dialect means both
"man" and "men". In Adelaide and Encounter Bay, however, dual
and plural suffixes are used as in Mundä. Thus Encounter Bay
kom, man, dual kom-eiik, plural kom-ar; Adelaide nahki, woman,
dual nariki-dla, plural hanki-na.
There is a great diflTerence between Mundä and Australian
languages in the formation of cases. The Mundä languages use
the same form to denote the subject of transitive and intransitive
verbs. The Australian forms of speech, on the other hand, distin¬
guish the active subject of transitive verbs from the subject of
intransitives by adding a separate _ suffix. Thus Lake Macquarie
uni ta tibhin, this is a bird ; but tibbin-to ta-tan, the bird (agent)
eats; iiatun noa bon yinal-lo wii/ä, and he him son-by said, and
the son said to him; uni emmoumba yinal tetti kakulla, this my
son had died.
The Mundä languages have no cases to denote the direct and
indirect object but incorporate them in the verb by means of
pronominal infixes. Even the genitive case is often expressed in
the verb in the same way. Compare Santäli apat-tä£ -da ac'-rän
golam-ko-e met-at'-ko-a, the-father his servants-he said-to-them, the
father said to his servants; apum-da uni posao damkäm-ä gur-
ked-e-a, thy-father the fatted calf-he killed-it, thy father has
killed the fatted calf; mit' här-rän barea kora hapan-kin tahä-
kan-tae-a, one man-of two boy child-they-two were-his , a man
had two sons.
The Australian languages, on the other hand, have a dative-
accusative like the Indo-Aryan vernaculars. Thus Lake Macquarie
makoro bi nuwa, fish thou gi\e ; piriwal-ko, to the chief ? nän-to
bön bün-kulla tetti kulwun? hän-nun? Biraban-nuri , whom-by
him smote dead stift'? Whom? Biraban. Who smote him deadV —
Whom ?— Biraban.
The West Australian genitive suffixes dk and aii resemble
the Mundä suffix ak'. I do not, however, think that the corre¬
spondence can be anything but accidental.
The Australian languages possess a richly varied system of
verbal forms. In this respect they agree with the Mundä dialects,
but also with languages belonging to quite different linguistic
families , such as Tnrkish. It is also possible to point to some
suffixes which resemble each other in sound in both families.
Thus the present suffix an in Lake Macquarie , in, un, tn in En¬
counter Bay, can be compared with Santäli en and an. The suffix
e or J of the past tense in Wiradurei might correspond to Santäli
et'. The pluperfect suffixes ükean in Lake Macquarie , and lain,
156 Konow, Mundäs and Australians.
Un in Kamilaroy, might be compared with Santäli akan, len,
respectively. I do not, however, think that such coincidences are
more than accidental. Santäli an, en, are passive suffixes, while
the Australian an, in, en, is used in an active as well as in a
passive sense.
On the whole, the conjugational principles are, so far as I
can see, quite different in the two families.
The Mundä languages have separate forms to denote the passive
and the middle voices. Compare Santäli dal-ke(-q-n, I struck; dal-en-
q-u, I was struck; dal an-q-ü, I struck for myself The Australian
languages distinguish the active from the passive by using various
pronouns as subject or object. Thus Lake Macquarie han-to bin
bün-kulla, whom-by thee struck? who struck thee? nan-nun,
bün-kulla, whom struck? who was struck?
The Mundä tense bases can be used as nouns, adjectives, and
verbs. No suffixes are added in order to change them into relative
participles. In the Australian languages, on the other hand, verbal
nouns and participles are formed by means of special suffixes.
Both families agree in using pronominal suffixes in order to
indicate the person of the verb, and those suffixes are sometimes
added to a word preceding the verb in the Australian languages,
as is the common rule in Mundä. Compare yäp-ap el-in , fuel-I
go, I go to fetch fuel, in the dialect spoken on the Encounter
Bay. The parallelism is, however, of too general a description
to prove anything whatever. Exactly similar constructions are
e. g. also used in the language of the Hottentots; thus, tst-b ma,
and-he gives. The Australian languages have a double set of such
suffixes, one denoting the agent and another denoting the subject
of intransitive verbs. It has already been remarked that the Mundä
languages do not make any such distinction.
The ideas expressed by the various forms corresponding to
our tenses are, moreover, quite difi'erent in both families.
The Mundä languages have no separate form to denote future
time. There is an indefinite tense which is used as a habitual
present, a future, and so on. The Australian languages possess
an indefinite future, a definite future, and sometimes even more
future forms. Thus Lake Macquarie bün-nun bah, striking-for I,
I shall strike, at some indefinite future time ; bun-Jcln bah, I shall
strike at such and such time.
The Mundä languages have one perfect; thus Santäli dal-
akad-e-a-e, he has struck him. There are, on the other hand,
several perfects in the Australian languages. Compare 'Wiradurei
bum-al-guain, have struck; büm-al-äwan, have just struck; bum-
al-härin, have struck to-day; büm-al-guräni, have struck yester¬
day ; büm-al-gunan, have struck a long time ago. It will be seen
that such tenses are in reality compounds. They are, however^j
formed aceording to principles which are apparently unknown in
the Mundä forms of speech.
I do not pretend to say that the preceding remarks are con¬
clusive. I hope, however, to have shown that Prof Thomsen's
reasons for assuming a connexion between the Mundä family and
the aboriginal languages of Australia are insufficient. I am well
aware of the fact that it would be necessary to go much deeper
into the matter than my limited time has allowed me to do. I
hope some day to find the necessary leisure for undertaking a
thorough analysis of the materials available about the Australian
languages. I have, however, thought it better to invite discussion
of the matter at once. I should be happy if some more com¬
petent scholar would take up the question so that I could be
able to utilise the results for the Mundä section in the Linguistic
Survey of India.
Erratum.
Vol. LVI (1902), p. 651 1. 4 and 1. 4 from bottom in note read
"Telugu" for "Tamil". Vincent A. Smith.
158
Resen in Genesis 10.
Von Eberhard Nestle.
Was unsere Wörterbücher, Kommentare und Encyklopädien
über die von Nimrod gegründete Stadt Resen zu sagen wissen, geht
nahe zusammen. Ich nehme die neusten Äusserungen; von Kittel
im Artikel Nimrod PRE.'' 14, S. 103:
„Wenig gesichert ist .iedoch die Lage von Resen. Mehr als
unser Text selbst uns sagt, nämlich dass es zwischen Ninive
und Kelach gelegen sei, wissen wir auch heute nocb nicht".
In demselben Werk schreibt Alfred Jeremias im Artikel Niniveh
S. 115:
„Resen ist ebenfalls ein selbständiger Ort, der unter einem
der kleinem Trümmerhügel zwischen Niniveh und Nimrud zu
suchen sein wii'd ; es wird identisch sein mit dem von Xenophon erwähnten Larissa".
Letztere Gleichsetzung hat Bochart aufgebracht, während nach
Pinches, Dictionary of the Bible IV, 229 Byzantiner und Ptolemäus
die sprachlich näherliegende, aber geographisch unmögliche Gleich¬
stellung mit Rhesina oder Rhesaina am Chaboras (arab. Ras-el-^airi)
vertraten. Seltsamerweise führt nun aber auch Pinches nicht an,
dass es ausser diesem Rhesaina am Chaboras ein zweites, nur eine
Parasange oberhalb Ninive gelegenes Rhesaina gegeben hat, wo
noch heute Kieperts Karte ein Räs-al-'Ain verzeichnet. Und frag¬
los ist dies identisch mit dem Reseni, das zuerst Sayce in der
Academy vom 1. Mai 1880 in der Bavian-Inschrift Sanherihs nach¬
gewiesen hat. Es sind über 20 Jahre her, dass dies alles von
Georg Hoffmann in den Syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer
(Abhandlungen unserer Gesellschaft VII, 3, S. 183 f.) bekannt ge¬
macht wurde. Ausser Lagarde (Mitteilungen 3, 71) hat aber kein
einziger Forscher , soweit ich sehe , diesen Aufschluss beachtet.
Hoffmann schreibt a. a. 0.:
„Ich kann . . . nachweisen, dass die Syrer ... in den Ruinen
von Horsäbäd die Lage von Resen gesucht haben, durch
folgende Stelle aus Barbahlul, Hs. Socin II:
