Chapter XVI: Appendix: VIII (1)

ON THE
SCIENCES OF LANGUAGE AND OF ETHNOGRAPHY

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
_The Language and Customs of the People of Hunza_

BEING A REPORT ON AN EXTEMPORE ADDRESS

BY G. W. LEITNER, M.A., PH.D., LL.D., D.O.L., ETC.

_Publications of the Oriental Institute, Woking._

LONDON
SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO.
PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1890

ON THE SCIENCES OF LANGUAGE AND OF ETHNOGRAPHY:

_With special reference to the Language and Customs of the People of Hunza._[149]

The time has long passed since grammar and its rules could be treated in the way to which we were accustomed at school. Vitality has now to be breathed into the dry bones of conjugations and declensions, and no language can be taught, even for mere practical purposes, without connecting custom and history with so-called “rules.” The influences of climate and of religion have to be considered, as well as the character of the people, if we wish to obtain a real hold on the language of our study. Do we desire to make language a speciality, the preparation of acquiring early in life two dissimilar languages, one analytic and the other synthetic, is absolutely necessary, because if that is not done, we shall always be hampered by the difficulty of dissociating the substance from the word which designates it. The human mind is extremely limited, and amongst the limits imposed upon it are those of, in early life, connecting an idea, fact, or process, with certain words; and unless two languages, at least, are learnt, and those two are as dissimilar as possible, one is always, more or less, the slave of routine in the perception and in the application of new facts and of new ideas, and in the adaptation of any matter of either theoretical or practical importance. It is a great advantage, for linguistic purposes, which are far more practically important than may be generally believed, that the study of the classical languages still holds the foremost place in this country; because, however necessary scientific “observation” may be, it cannot take the place of a cultured imagination. The stimulus of illustration and comparison, which, in the historical sense of the terms, is an absolutely necessary primary condition to mental advance, is derived from classical and literary pursuits. The study of two very similar languages, however, is not the same discipline to a beginner in linguistics; _e.g._, to learn French and Italian is not of the same value as French and German, for the more dissimilar the languages the better.

Again, if you desire to elicit a language of which you know nothing, from a savage who cannot explain it and who does not understand your language, there are certain processes with which some linguists, no doubt, are familiar, and others commend themselves in practical experience; for instance, in pointing to an object which you wish to have, say, a fruit which you want to eat, you may not only obtain the name for it, but the gesture to obtain it, if you are surrounded by several savages whose language you do not know, may also induce one of the men to order another to get it for you,—I suppose on the principle that it is easy for one to command and for others to obey; but, be that as it may, this course, to the attentive observer, first obtains the name for the required thing and next elicits the imperative; you hear something with a kind of inflection which, once heard, cannot be mistaken for anything else than the imperative. Further, the _reply_ to the imperative would either elicit “yes,” or “no,” or the indicative present. This process of inquiry does not apply to all languages, but it applies to a great many; and the attitude which you have to assume towards every language that you know nothing about, in the midst of strangers who speak it, is that, of course, of an entirely sympathetic student. You have, indeed, to apply to language the dictum which Buddhist Lamas apply to religion—never to think, much less to say, that your own religion (in this case your own language) is the best; _i.e._, the form of expression in which you are in the habit of conveying your thoughts, is one so perfectly conventional, though rational in your case, that the greatest freedom from prejudice is as essential a consideration as the wish to acquire the language of others. In other words, in addition to the mere elementary acquisition of knowledge, you have to cultivate a sympathetic attitude; and here, again, is one of the proofs of a truth which my experience has taught me, that, however great knowledge may be, sympathy is greater, for sympathy enables us to fit the key which is given by knowledge. Gestures also elicit a response in dealing, for instance, with numerals, where we are facilitated by the fingers of the hand. Of course, one is occasionally stopped by a savage who cannot go, or is supposed not to be able to go, beyond two, or beyond five.

I take it that in the majority of cases of that kind, a good deal of our misconception with regard to the difficulty of the inquiry lies in ourselves—that ideas of multitude connected with the peculiar customs of the race that have yet to be ascertained, are at the bottom of the inability of that race to follow our numeration. For instance we go up to ten, and in order to elicit a name for eleven, we say “one, ten;” if the man laughs, change the order, and say “ten, one;” the chances are that the savage will instinctively rejoin “ten _and_ one,” and we then get the conjunction. Putting the fingers of both hands together may mean “multitude,” “alliance,” or “enmity,” according as the customs of the race are interpreted by that gesture.

I am reminded of this particular instance in my experience, because I referred to it in a discussion on an admirable paper on the Kafirs of the Hindukush by the eminent Dr. Bellew. If you do not take custom along with a “rule,” and do not try to explain the so-called rule by either historical events or some custom of the race, you make language a matter entirely of memory, and as memory is one of the faculties that suffers most from advancing age, or from modes of living and various other circumstances, the moment that memory is impaired your linguistic knowledge must suffer—you, therefore, should make language a matter of judgment and of associations. If you do not do that, however great your linguistic knowledge or scholarship, you must eventually fail in doing justice to the subject or to those with whom you are dealing.

The same principle applies as much to a highly civilised language like Arabic, one of the most important languages in the way of expressing the multifarious processes of human thought and action, as to the remnant of the pre-historic Hunza language, which throws an unexpected light on the science of language.

Let us first take Arabic and the misconceptions of it by Arabic scholars. In 1859 I pointed out before the College of Preceptors, how it was necessary not only to discriminate between the Chapters in the Koran delivered at Mecca, and those given at Medina, but also to arrange the verses out of various Chapters in their real sequence. I believe we are now advancing towards a better understanding of this most remarkable book. But we still find in its translation such passages, for instance, as, “when in war women are captured, _take_ those that are not married.” The meaning is nothing so arbitrary. The expression for “take” that we have there is _ankohu_—marry, _i.e._, take in marriage or _nikáh_, as no alliance can be formed with even a willing captive taken in war, except through the process of _nikáh_, which is the religious marriage contract. Again, we have the passage, “Kill the infidels wherever you find them.” There again is shown the want of sympathetic knowledge, which is distinct from the knowledge of our translators who render “qatilu” by “kill,” when it merely means “fight” and refers to an impending engagement with enemies who were then attacking Muhammed’s camp. Apart from accuracy of translation, a sympathetic attitude is also of practical importance. _E.g._, had we gone into Oriental questions with more sympathy and, in consequence, more real knowledge, many of our frontier wars would have been avoided, and there is not the least doubt that in dealing with Oriental humanity, whether we had taken a firm or a conciliatory course, we should have been upon a track more likely to lead to success than by taking action based on insufficient knowledge or on preconceptions. For instance, in the _Times_ there was a telegram from Suakim about the Mahdi, to the effect that El Senousi was opposing him successfully. I do not know who El Senousi is, but very many years ago I pointed out the great importance of the Senousi _sect_ in Africa, and, unless the deceased founder of that name has now arisen, whether it is a man of that name or the now well-known sect that is mentioned, one cannot say from the telegram. The sender of the message states that as sure as the El Senousi rises to importance there will be a danger to Egypt and to Islam. It is Christian like to think well of Islam, and to try to protect it. This very few Christians do, and it shows a kind feeling towards a sister-faith, but I am not sure that the writer accurately knew what Islam is; though there can be no doubt that the rise of fanatical sects, like the Senousi, which is largely due to the feeling of resistance created by the encroachments of so-called European civilisation, is opposed to orthodox Muhammedanism. Be that as it may, I have also turned to “the further correspondence on the affairs of Egypt” which a friend gave me, and, really, I now know rather less about Egypt than I did before. For instance, I find (and I am specially referring to the blue-book in my hand) that letters of the greatest importance from the Mahdi are treated in the following flippant manner: “This is nothing more or less than an unauthenticated copy of a letter sent by the deceased Mahdi to General Gordon!” Is this not enough to deserve attentive inquiry? General Gordon would, probably, not have agreed with the writer of this contemptuous remark, which is doubly out of place when we are also told that the Mahdi was sending Gordon certain verses and passages from the Korán, illustrative of his position, which are eliminated by the translator as unnecessary, of no importance, and of very little interest! Now, considering that this gentleman knew Arabic, I think I am right when I add that with a little more sympathy he would have known more, and had he known more he would have quoted those passages, for it is most necessary for us to know on what precise authority of the Korán or of tradition this so-called Mahdi based his claim, and knowledge of this kind would give us the opportunity of dealing with the matter. Again, on the question of Her Majesty’s title of “Kaisar-i-hind,” which, after great difficulty, I succeeded in carrying into general adoption in India, the previous translators of “Empress” had suggested some title which would either have been unintelligible or which would have given Her Majesty a disrespectful appellation, whilst none would have created that awe and respect which, I suppose, the translation of the Imperial title was intended to inspire. Even the subsequent official adopter of this title, Sir W. Muir, advocated it on grounds which would have rendered it inapplicable to India. With the National Anthem similarly, we had a translation by a Persian into Hindustani, which was supported by a number of Oriental scholars in this country, who either did not study it, or who dealt with the matter entirely from a theoretical point of view, and what was the result? The result was—that for “God Save the Queen,” a passage was put which was either blasphemous, or which, in popular Muhammedan acceptance, might mean, “God grant that Her Majesty may again marry!” whereas one of the glories of Her Majesty among her Hindu subjects is that she is a true “Satti” or Suttee, viz., a righteous widow, who ever honours the memory of her terrestrial and spiritual husband—neither of those views being intended by the translator, or by that very large and responsible body of men who supported him, and that still larger and emphatically loyal body that intended to give the translation of the National Anthem as a gift to India at a cost of several thousand pounds, when for a hundred rupees a dozen accurate and respectful versions were elicited by me in India itself.

I therefore submit that in speaking of the sciences of language and ethnography, we have, or ought to have, passed, long ago, the standpoint of treating them separately; they must be treated together, and, as I said at the beginning, taking, _e.g._, Arabic, with its thirty-six broken plurals (quite enough to break anybody’s memory), you will never be able to learn it unless you thoroughly realise the life of the Arab, as he gets out of his tent in the morning, milks his female camel, &c., and unless you follow him through his daily ride or occupations. Then you will understand how it is, especially if you have travelled in Arabia, that camels that appear at a distance on the horizon, affect the eye differently from camels when they come near, and are seen as they follow one another in a row, and those again different from the camels as they gather round the tent or encampment; and therefore it is that in the different perceptions to the eye, under the influence of natural phenomena, these multifarious plurals are of the greatest importance in examining the customs of the people. Then will the discovery of the right plural be a matter of enjoyment, leading one on to another discovery, and to work all the better; whereas, with the grammatical routine that we still pursue, I wonder, when we reach to middle or old age, after following the literary profession, that we are not more dull or confused than we are at present. When one abstract idea follows the other, as in our phraseology, it is not like one scene following another in a new country which is full of stimulus, but the course which we adopt of abstract generalisations, without analysing them and bringing them back to their concrete constituents, is almost a process of stultification.

Coming now to one of the most primitive, and certainly one of the remnants of pre-historic languages, that of Hunza, which I had the opportunity of examining twenty-three years ago, while Gilgit was in a state of warfare, and where I had to learn the language, so to speak, with a pencil in one hand and a weapon in the other, and surrounded by people who were waiting for an opportunity to kill me, I found, that on reverting to it three years ago, the language had already undergone a process of assimilation to the surrounding dialects, owing to the advance of so-called civilisation, which in that case, and which in the case of most of these tribes, means the introduction of drunkenness and disease, in this instance of cholera, for we know what has been the condition of those countries which lie in the triangle between Cashmere, Kabul, and Badakhshan, and to which I first gave the name of Dardistan in 1866.

Now, what does this language show us? There the ordinary methods proved entirely at fault. If one pointed to an object, quite apart from the ordinary difficulties of misapprehension, the man appealed to, for instance, might say “your finger,” if a finger were the thing of which he thought you wanted the name. If not satisfied with the name given in response, and you turned to somebody else, another name was obtained; and if you turned to a third person, you got a third name.

What was the reason for these differences? It was this, that the language had not emerged from the state in which it is impossible to have such a word as “head,” as distinguished from “my head,” or “thy head,” or “his head”; for instance, _ak_ is “my name,” and _ik_ is “his name.” Take away the pronominal sign, and you are left with _k_, which means nothing. _Aus_ is “my wife,” and _gus_ “thy wife.” The _s_ alone has no meaning, and, in some cases, it seemed impossible to arrive at putting anything down correctly; but so it is in the initial stage of a language. In the Hunza language under discussion, that stage is important to us as members of the Aryan group, as the dissociation of the pronoun, verb, adverb and conjunction from the act or substance only occurs when the language emerges beyond the stage when the groping, as it were, of the human child between the _meum_ and _tuum_, the first and second persons, approaches the clear perception of the outer world, the “_suum_,” the third person. Now, during the twenty years referred to “his” (house), “his” (name), and “his” (head) are beginning to take the place of “house,” “name,” “head,” generally, in not quite a decided manner, but still they are taking their place. When I subsequently talked to the Hunzas, and tried to find a reason for that “idiom,” if one may use the term, it seemed very clear and convincing when they said, “How is it possible for ‘a wife’ to exist unless she is somebody’s wife?” “You cannot say, for instance, if you dissociate the one from the other, ‘her wife,’ or ‘his husband.’ ‘Head,’ by itself, does not exist; it must be somebody’s head.” When, again, you dissociate the sound which stands for the action or substance from the pronoun, you come, in a certain group of words, to another range of thought connected with the primary family relation, and showing the existence of that particularly ancient form of endogamy, in which all the elder females are the mothers and all the elder men are the fathers of the tribe. For instance, take a word like “mother;” “m” would mean the female principle, “o” would be the self, and the _ther_ would mean “the tribe;” in other words, “mother” would mean: “the female that bore me and that belongs to my tribe.” Now, fanciful as this may appear to us, it is the simple fact as regards the Hunza language, which, when put the test of analysis, will throw an incredible light on the history of Aryan words. For instance, taking Sanskrit as a typical language, you will, I believe, find how the early relations grew, and you will get beyond the root into the parts of which the root is made up; each of which has a meaning, not in one or two instances, but in most. I am not going to read you the volume which I am preparing for the Indian Government, and which is only the first part of the analysis with regard to this language, and only a very small portion indeed of the material that I collected in 1866, 1872, and 1884 regarding that important part of the world, Dardistan, which is now being drawn within the range of practical Indian politics—a region situated between the Hindukush and Kaghan (lat. 37° N. and long. 73° E. to lat. 35° N. and long. 74·3° E.) and comprising monarchies and republics, including a small republic of eleven houses—a region which contains the solution of numerous linguistic and ethnographical problems, the cradle of the Aryan race, inhabited by the most varied tribes, from which region I brought the first Hunza and the first Káfir that ever visited England, and of which region one of its bigger Chiefs, owing to my sympathy with the people, invested me with a kind of titular governorship. In that comparatively small area the questions that are to be solved are great, and it is even now in some parts, perhaps, as hazardous a journey as, say, through the dark continent. Whether you get to the ancient Robber’s Seat of Hunza, where the right of plundering is hereditary, or into the recesses of Kafiristan or the fastnesses of Pakhtu settlers; whether you proceed to the republics of Darel, Tangir or Chilás, or proceed to the community where women are sometimes at the head of affairs, and which is neither worse nor better than others, an amount of information, especially ethnographic, is within one’s reach which makes Dardistan a region that would reward a number of explorers. I may say, in my own instance, if my life is spared for ten years longer, all I could do would be to bring out the mere material in my possession in a rough form, leaving the theories thereon to be elaborated by others. My difficulties were great, but my reward has been in a mass of material, for the elaboration of which International, Oriental, and other Congresses and learned societies have petitioned Government since 1866. My official duties have hitherto prevented my addressing myself to the congenial task of elaborating the material in conjunction with others. In 1886, I was, however, put for a few months on special duty in connexion with the Hunza language, at the very time that Colonel Lockhart was traversing a portion of Dardistan. But I think you will be more interested if, beyond personal observations, I tell you something about that little country of Hunza itself, which in many respects differs from those surrounding it, not only in regard to its peculiar language, which I have mentioned, but in other respects also. Unfortunately, it is also unlike the surrounding districts, in being characterised by customs the absence of some of which would be desirable. The Hunzas are nominal Muhammedans, and they use their mosques for drinking and dancing assemblies. Women are as free as air. There is little restriction in the relation of the sexes, and the management of the State, in theory, is attributed to fairies. No war is undertaken unless the fairy (whom, by the way, one is not allowed to see) gives the command by beating the sacred drum. The witches, who get into an ecstatic state, are the journalists, historians, and prophetesses of the tribe. They tell you what goes on in the surrounding valleys. They represent, as it were, the local _Times_; they tell you the past glories, such as they are, of raids and murders by their tribe; and when the _Tham_ or ruler, who is supposed to be heaven-born (there being some mystery about the origin of his dynasty), does wrong, the only one who will dare to tell him the truth is the Dayal, or the witch who prophesies the future, and takes the opportunity of telling the Rajah that, unless he behaves in a manner worthy of his origin, he will come to grief! This is not a common form of popular representation to be met with, say, in India. Grimm’s fairy-tales sometimes seem to be translated into practise in Hunza-land, which offers material for discussion alike to those who search for the Huns and to those who search for the very different Honas.

Then with regard to religion, as I said before, though nominally Muhammedan, they are really deniers of all the important precepts of true Muhammedanism, which is opposed to drunkenness, introduces a real brotherhood, and enjoins great cleanliness as absolutely necessary before the spiritual purification by prayer can take place. The people are mostly Muláis, but inferior in piety (?) to those of Zébak, Shignán, Wakhan, and other places. Now, what is that sect? It is represented by His Highness Prince Aga Khan, of Bombay, a person who is not half aware of his importance in those regions, where, till very recently, men were murdered as soon as looked at. One who acknowledges him or has brought some of the water with which he has washed his feet, would always be able to pass through those regions perfectly unharmed! I found my disguise as a Bokhara Mullah in 1866 to be quite useless, as a protection at Gilgit, whence men were kidnapped to be exchanged for a good hunting dog, but in Hunza they used to fill prisoners with gunpowder, and blow them up for general amusement. His Highness, who is much given to horse-racing, confines his spiritual administration to the collection of taxes throughout Central Asia from his followers or believers, and the believers themselves represent what is still left of the doctrine of the Sheik-ul-Jabl or the Ancient of the Mountain, the head of the so-called Assassins, a connexion of the Mahdi, if he was the Mahdi, or the supposed Mahdi in the Soudan. I consider he was not the Mahdi as foretold in Muhammedan tradition; but, be that as it may, the 7th Imám of the Shiahs has given rise to the sects both of the Druses in the Lebanon and to the Hunzas on the Pamir. They are the existing Ismailians, who, centuries ago, under the influence of _Hashish_, the Indian hemp, committed crimes throughout Christendom, and were the terror of Knight-Templars, as “Hashîshîn,” corrupted into “Assassins.”

Now, I have been fortunate enough, owing to my friendship with the head of their tribe, to obtain some portions of the Kelám-i-pîr volume, which takes the place, really, of the Korán, and of which I have got a portion here. I thought it might not be unworthy of your society to bring this to your knowledge, as a very interesting remnant which throws, _inter alia_, considerable light not only on their doctrine, but also on the Crusades. By a similar favour, I have had the opportunity of hearing the Mitháq, or covenant of the Druses, and that covenant of the Druses is a kind of prayer they offer up to God, not only in connexion with the Old Man of the Mountain, the head of the assassins who began about 1022, but also with those mysterious rites which also take place in what I may call the fairy-land of Hunza. With regard to the covenants, or one of them, which the “U’qelá” or the “initiated” or “wise,” as distinguished from the “Juhelá” or “ignorant” “laity,” among the Druses, offer up every night, this was used by a so-called educated Druse, one who had been converted to Protestantism,—a very good thing: but, as often happens, with that denationalisation which renders his conversion useless as a means for the promotion of any religion, as there are no indigenous elements for its growth. Such a convert is often unable to obtain a knowledge of the practices of his still unconverted countrymen, as nobody can be looked upon with greater distrust than that native of a country who has unlearnt to think in his own language, and who cannot acquire a foreign language with its associations, which are part of the history of that language; he does not become an Englishman with English associations, but ceases to be a good native with his own indigenous associations. Therefore, in my humble opinion, of all the unfortunate specimens of mankind, the most degraded are those who, under the guise of being Europeanised and, therefore, reformers, have themselves the greatest necessity for reform. Their mind has become completely unhinged, thereby showing us that if we Europeans wish to do good among Orientals we can do so best by living good lives in the midst of professors of other religions, this being also in accordance with the 13th edict of Asoka.

This Druse covenant makes the mad Fatimite ruler of Egypt, Hákim, the “Lord of the Universe.” As I said before, the present “Lord of the Universe”. for the Hunzas is the lineal descendant of the 7th Imám, a resident of Bombay, one to whom the Muláis make pilgrimages, instead of going to Mecca or to Kerbelá. You may imagine that, even as regards the Druses, there must be something higher than _their_ “Lord of the Universe;” but, such as he is, it is with him that this covenant is made. Reverting to his living colleague, the Indian “Lord,” it may be stated that there are men scattered throughout India of whose influence we have only the faintest conception. I pointed out in 1866 that if anyone wanted to follow successfully my footsteps is Dardistan, he would have to get recommendations from His Highness Aga Khan of Bombay, and I am glad to say that Col. Lockhart has taken advantage of that recommendation. The Druse “Lord of the Universe” is regarded as one with whom nothing can be compared. The Druses are to render him the most implicit obedience, and to carry out his behests at the loss of everything, good name, wealth, and life, with the view of obtaining the favour of one who may be taken to be God; but the sentence is so constructed as to make him, if not God, only second to God; in other words, only just a discrimination between God as the distant ruler of the Universe and, perhaps, some lineal descendant of Hákim, or rather, Hákim himself as an ever-living being, as the ruler of _this_ world. This and some other prayers, with some songs, one amongst which breathes the greatest hatred to Muhammedanism, and speaks of the destruction of Mecca as something to look forward to, seems to be deserving of study. There are also references in them to rites connected with Abraham. A full translation of these documents, compared with invocations in portions of the Korán, would, indeed, reward the attention of the student.

I will now again revert from the Druses of the Lebanon to the Muláis in the Himalayas. I obtained the poem in my hand from the head of that sect, and the wording is such that it denies whilst affirming the immortality and transmigration of souls. It says, “It is no use telling the ignorant multitude what your faith is.” That is very much like what Lord Beaconsfield said—that all thinking men were of one religion, but they would not tell of what religion!—a wrong sentiment, but one that is embodied in the above poem. “Tell them,” continues the poem in effect, “if they want to know, in an answer of wisdom to a question of folly: ‘if your life has been bad you will descend into the stone the vegetable, or the animal; if your life has been good you will return as a better man. The chain of life is undivided. The animal that is sacrificed proceeds to a higher life.’ You cannot discriminate and yet deny individual life, and apportion that air, stone, or plant, to the animal and to man, but you ought to be punished for saying this to others!” And on this principle, at any rate, the Druses also act or acted, that that is no crime which is not found out; and a good many people, I am sorry to say, elsewhere, think much the same; whereas in Hunza they have gone beyond that stage, and care extremely little about their crimes being found out. The Mitháq and other religious utterances of the Druses and the Kelám-i-Pîr of the Hunzas, if published together, with certain new information which we have regarding the Crusade of Richard Cœur-de-Lion, would, I think, were time given and the matter elaborated, indeed deserve the attention of the readers of the “Transactions.” It also seems strange that where such customs exist there should be a prize for virtue, but there is one in Hunza for wives who have remained faithful to their husbands, something like the French prize for _rosières_.

Formerly Suttee was practised, but Suttee had rather the meaning of Sáthi or companion, as both husband and wife went to the funeral pyre. Prizes are similarly given to wives who have not quarrelled for, say, a certain number of years with their husbands. The most curious custom which seems to permeate these countries is to foster relationship in nursing, where a nurse and all her relations come not only within the prohibited degrees, which is against the spirit of Muhammedanism, but also create the only real bond of true attachment that I have seen in Dardistan, where other relatives seemed always engaged in murdering one another.

Nearly all the chiefs in Dardistan give their children to persons of low degree to nurse, and these and the children of the nurse become attached to them throughout life and are their only friends. But this foster-relationship is also taken in order to get rid of the consequences, say, of crime; for instance, in the case of adultery, or supposed adultery, the suspected person who declares that he enters into the relationship of a son to the woman with whom he is suspected, after a certain penalty, is really accepted in that position, and the trust is in no case betrayed. It is the only kind of forgiveness which is given in Dardistan generally to that sort of transgression; but, further than that, drinking milk with some one, or appointing some one as foster-father, which is done by crossing two vases of milk, creates the same relationship, except amongst the noble caste of Shins, who were expelled by the Brahmins from India or Kashmir, and who hold the cow in abhorence as one of their religious dogmas, whereas, in other ways, they are really Brahmins, among whom we find Hinduism peeping out through the thin crust of Muhammedanism.

The subject of caste, by the way, is also one which is generally misunderstood, and which, if developed on Christian lines, would give us the perfection of human society, and solve many of the problems with which we are dealing in Europe in more advanced civilisations. I have just read with concern some remarks against caste by Sir John Petheram, who has been in India some three or four years. I think that before people speak on subjects of such intricacy, they should take the position of students of the question, learn at least one of the classical and one of the vernacular languages of India, and then alone assume the role of teachers whilst continuing to be learners; even in regard to such subjects of infant-marriage and the prohibition of widow re-marriage, there is a side of the question which has not yet been put sufficiently before the British public. Infant-marriage, when properly carried out in the higher castes, is an adoption of the girl into the family where she and the husband grow up together and join in prayer in common, which is necessary for their respective salvation; there is much to learn in the way of tenderness, charity, and love, from some of the households in India, where we find a community constituted on the noblest principles of “the joint family,” with an admirable and economical subdivision of labour, which enables them to live for a mere trifle, and yet so to prepare their food that in every dish you can see the tender care of the woman who prepares it for the good of the husband and of the household.

Then, as to the widow re-marriage, it has not been sufficiently pointed out to the British public that spiritual marriage renders the re-marriage of the Hindu widow impossible, because she is necessary for the spiritual salvation of the husband, and because as the representative of his property she may be called on to be the head of the family, for many of them _are_ at the head of the family, and their position, therefore, renders it simply impossible for them to re-marry. These are matters that we should treat with respect, especially if we seek to adapt them to the spirit of the age. There are also differences amongst Muhammedans as great as there are between a Christian who tries to follow the Sermon on the Mount and a nominal Christian. Science and religion, according to a Muhammedan saying, are twins, and if I understand the object of this Society, it is in order to make this twinship (if I may be allowed to use the expression) more real that your labours have been initiated, and that, under Providence, they have been carried to the successful results that have followed them both here and abroad.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Strabo II. I., XV. I.—Arrian de Exped. Alex. V. 4 Indica c. 5.—Dio-Chrysos. Orat. XXXV.—Philostrat. de vitâ Apollon. Tyan. VI. I.—Clem. Alex. Paed., II. 12.—Aelian de Nat. An. XV. 14.—Harpokrat, s. v. χρυσοχοεῖν, Themist. Orat. XXVII.—Heliodor. X. 26.—Tzetz. Chil. XII. 330-340.—Pseudo Kallisth. II. 29.—Schol. ad Sophocl. Antig., v. 1,025.

[2] Propert. Eleg. III. 13.—Pomp. Mel. III. 7.—Plin. H. N. XI. 36, XXXIII. 21.—Solin, c. 30.

[3] Indeed, there _is_ no other country between Kaspatyros and the Paktyan country excepting Dardistan.

[4] This is the Bunji of recent Chilás fights (1893).

[5] General A. Cunningham very kindly sent me the quotation last year. It runs as follows: Κασπάπυρος πόλις Γανόπρικὴ, Σκυθὼν άκτὴ.

[6] Who refers to my “Results of a Tour in Dardistan, Kashmir, Little Tibet, Ladak, etc., in 1867-70,” and other papers in his pamphlet on the origin of that legend.

[7] “Dardistan,” or the country of the Daradas of Hindu mythology, embraces, in the narrowest sense of the term, the Shiná-speaking countries (Gilgit, &c.); in a wider sense, Hunza, Nagyr, Yasin, and Chitrál; and in the widest, also parts of Kafiristan. (See my “Dardistan,” part III.)

[8] “Yatsh” means “bad” in Kashmiri.

[9] The father’s name was Mir Khan. The daughter’s name was Birani. The bridegroom’s name was Shadu Malik of Nagyr, of Phall Tshatshe race, and the place of the wedding was Buldar Butshe.

[10] Elsewhere called _tshi_.

[11] Eating meat was the process of _incarnation_.

[12] The story of the famous horse, the love-making between Azru and the Princess, the manner of their marriage and other incidents connected with the expulsion of the tyrant deserve attention.

[13] Possibly this legend is one of the causes of the unfounded reputation of cannibalism which was given by Kashmiris and others to the Dards before 1866, and of which one Dardu tribe accuses another, with which, even if it should reside in a neighbouring valley, it may have no intercourse. I refer elsewhere to the custom of drinking a portion of the blood of an enemy, to which my two Kafirs confessed.—(“Dardistan,” Part III.)

[14] Elsewhere called “Shiribadatt” in one name.

[15] Words inviting attention, such as “listen,” “explain,” etc., etc., are generally put at the end of riddles.

[16] The abbreviations “G.” and “A.” stand respectively for “in the Gilgiti dialect” and “in the Astori dialect.”

[17] Not very many years ago the Albanian robbers in attacking shepherds used to consider themselves victorious if they had robbed more sheep than they had lost men.

[18] “Tré” = “three” is pronounced like “tshé.”

[19] Ae = (_Gilgiti_) mouth; aru = in the mouth; ázeju = against the mouth. Aze = (_Astori_) mouth; ázeru = in the mouth; azeju = against the mouth.

[20] [Her father was a Mirza and she was, therefore, called Mirzéy.]

[21] Khān is pronounced Khann for the sake of the metre.

[22] Term of familiarity used in calling a daughter.

[23] Mutshutshul is a narrow pass leading from Gakutsh to Yassen.

[24] Doloja is a village ahead of Mutshutshul.

[25] [To fear is construed with the Dative.]

[26] More probably “rey” is the pine called the Picea Webbiana.

[27] Part II., page 16, gives the following for “Birch.” “Birch? = Djônjî (the white bark of which is used for paper) in Kashmîr where it is called the book-tree “Burus kull” lit: Burus = the book; kúll = plant, tree.”

[28] “Tshikkí” is a black fragrant matter said to be gathered under the wing-pits of the hawk; “djónji” is, to me, an unknown tree, but I conjecture it to be the birch tree. “Gas” is a princess and “mal” is added for euphony.

[29] [“Mulayi” for woman is not very respectful; women are generally addressed as “kaki” sister, or “dhì” daughter.]

[30] _Na?_ is it? is it not so? _na_ seems generally to be a mere exclamation.

[31] The people of Astor are mostly Sunnis, and the Gilgitis mostly Shiahs, the Chilásis are all Sunnis.

[32] A reed which grows in the Gilgit country of white or red colour.

[33] It is rather unusual to find the nightingale representing the beloved. She is generally “the rose” and the lover “the nightingale.”

[34] Possibly Ali Sher Khan, also called Ali Shah, the father of Ahmed Shah, the successful and popular Rajah of Skardo in the Sikh days—or else the great Ali Sher Khan, the founder of the race or caste of the Makpon Rajahs of Skardo. He built a great stone aqueduct from the Satpur stream which also banked up a quantity of useful soil against inundations.

[35] Murad was, I believe, the first Skardo Rajah who conquered Gilgit, Nagyr, Hunza and Chitrál. He built a bridge near the Chitrál fort. Traces of invasion from Little Tibet exist in Dardistan. A number of historical events, occurring at different periods, seem to be mixed up in this song.

[36] The veneration for the name is, of course, also partly due to the fact that it means “the lion of Ali,” Muhammad’s son-in-law, to whose memory the Shiah Mussulmans are so devotedly attached. The Little Tibetans are almost all Shiahs.

[37] “Sar” is Astori for Gilgiti “Djor.”

[38] The defile of the Makpon-i-Shang-Rong, where the Indus river makes a sudden turn southward and below which it receives the Gilgit river.

[39] The Shiah Rajahs of Skardo believed themselves to be under the special protection of Ali.

[40] The “Harginn,” a fabulous animal mentioned elsewhere.

[41] The beautiful songs of “My little darling ornaments will wear,” “Corn is being distributed,” “I will give pleasure’s price,” “My metal is hard,” “Come out, oh daughter of the hawk,” will be found on pages 2, 4, 10, 11, and 37, of this pamphlet respectively and need not therefore be quoted in this place.

[42] “Powder” is called “Jebati” in Astóri and in Gilgiti “Bilen,” and is, in both dialects, also the word used for medicinal powder. It is made of Sulphur, Saltpetre and coal. Sulphur = dantzil. Saltpetre = Shór in Astori, and Shorá in Ghilgiti. Coal = Kári. The general proportion of the composition is, as my informant put it, after dividing the whole into six and a half parts to give 5 of Saltpetre, 1 of coal, and ½ of Sulphur. Some put less coal in, but it is generally believed that more than the above proportion of Sulphur would make the powder too explosive.

[43] By the people of Gilgit.

[44] A few remarks made under this head and that of music have been taken from Part II, pages 32 and 21, of my “Dardistan,” in order to render the accounts more intelligible.

[45] The drawing and description of this scene were given in the _Illustrated London News_ of the 12th February, 1870, under the heading of “A Dance at Gilgit.”

[46] Wine is called in Gilgit by the same name as is “beer” by the Astoris, _viz._: “Mō.” The wine press is called “Mōe Kùrr.” The reservoir into which it flows is called “Mōe Sán.”

[47] These are the strange sect of the Muláis about whom more in my “Handbook of Hunza, Nagyr and a part of Yasín.”

[48] This is said to be no longer the case, except in those Dard republics, where foreigners have not yet interfered. In monarchical Yasin, and, above all, in Hunza, sexual laxity has ever been great. Where Sunni rulers have substituted dancing-boys for the dancing of men (formerly both men and women danced together), a worse evil has been introduced. A most sacred relationship is the one created by the foster-mother. The linguistic portion of “The of Hunza-Nagyr Handbook,” as also of Parts I. and II. of “Dardistan” solves the questions of whether and where polygamy, endogamy, etc., existed among the Dards, who, in appearance and sentiment as regards women, as also in legendary lore, are very “European,” but whom invasion will convert into strict Muhammadans and haters of the “Firenghi.”

[49] The “brother in the faith” with whom raw milk has been drunk, _Vide_ page 41.

Betrothal, = balli = pumpkin in Gilgiti, Soél—Astóri
Bridegroom, = hileléo, Gil. hiláleo. Astóri.
Bride, = hilal
Bridegroom’s MEN, = garóni, Gil. hilalée, Astóri.
Marriage شادي = garr, Gil. Kàsh. Astóri
Dowry, = “dab,” Gil. and Astóri

(the grain, ghee and sheep that may accompany the betrothal-present is called by the Astóris “sakáro.”)

Husband, = baráo, Gil. baréyo, Astóri.
Wife, = Greyn, Gil. gréyn, Astóri.

Wedding dinner “garéy tíki” in Gilgiti. “Kajjéyn bai kyas,” in Astori (?) [“tikki” is bread, “bai” is a chippati, kyas = food].

[50] The Turks say “a girl of 15 years of age should be either married or buried.”

[51] Is celebrated in Autumn when the fruit and corn have become ripe. For a detailed account of this and other festivals see “Hunza-Nagyr Handbook,” and Parts II. and III. of the “Languages and Races of Dardistan.”

[52] I have already related that a foreign Mulla had found his way to Gilgit, and that the people, desirous that so holy a man should not leave them and solicitous about the reputation that their country had no shrine, killed him in order to have some place for pilgrimage. Similar stories are, however, also told about shrines in Afghanistan. My Sazîni speaks of shrines in Nagyr, Chilâs and Yasin, and says that in Sunni Chilâs there are many Mullahs belonging to all the castes—two of the most eminent being Kramìns of Shatiál, about 8 miles from Sazîn. About Castes, _vide_ page 62.

[53] I refer to the Khajuná, or Burishki, a language also spoken in Nagyr and a part of Yasin, whose inhabitants are Dards.

[54] I refer to the practice of “Taqqîah.” In the interior of Kabul Hazara, on the contrary, I have been told that Pathan Sunni merchants have to pretend to be Shiahs, in order to escape being murdered.

[55] Since writing the above in 1867, a third Kafir from Katár has entered my service, and I have derived some detailed information from him and others regarding the languages and customs of this mysterious race, which will be embodied in my next volume. [This note was written in 1872.]

[56] I have heard this denied by a man from Sazîn, but state it on the authority of two Chilâsis who were formerly in my service.

[57] My Sazîni says that only a portion of the Fort was blown up.

[58] _Vide_ “History of Dardistan” for details of the contending dynasties of that region, pages 67 to 110.

[59] Major Montgomery remarks “the coins have the word Gujanfar on them, the name, I suppose, of some emblematic animal. I was however unable to find out its meaning.” The word is غضنفر , Ghazanfar [which means in _Arabic_: lion, hero] and is the name of the former ruler of Hunza whose name is on the coins. In Hunza itself, coined money is unknown. [For changes since 1866, see “Hunza and Nagyr Handbook, 1893.”]

[60] This was the _name_ of the grandfather of Amán-ul-Mulk, the present ruler of Chitrál (1877). Cunningham says that the _title_ of “Kathor” has been held for 2000 years. I may incidentally mention that natives of India who had visited Chitrál did not know it by any other name than “Kashkar” the name of the principal town, whilst Chitrál was called “a Kafir village surrounded by mountains” by Neyk Muhammad, a Lughmáni Nîmtsha (or half) Mussulman in 1866.

[61] This is the plausible Gilgit story, which will, perhaps, be adopted in Hunza when it becomes truly Muhammadan. In the meanwhile, my endeavour in 1866 to find traces of Alexander the Great’s invasion in Dardistan, has led to the adoption of the myth of descent from that Conqueror by the Chinese Governor or the ancient hereditary “Thàm” of Hunza, who really is “_ayeshó_,” or “heaven-born,” owing to the miraculous conception of a female ancestor. “Mogholot” is the direct ancestor of the kindred Nagyr line, “Girkis,” his twin-brother and deadly foe, being the ancestor of the Hunza dynasty. (See Genealogy on pages 69 and 111.)

[62] This designation is really that of the Minister of Finances.

[63] This was written in 1866.

[64] I refer only to the present rule of Kashmir itself and not to the massacres by Kashmir troops in Dardistan, of which details are given elsewhere.

[65] _Vide_ my comparison between Dardu buildings, etc., and certain excavations which I made at Takht-i-Bahi in Yusufzai in 1870.

[66] Seduction and adultery are punished with death in Chilâs and the neighbouring independent Districts. Morality is, perhaps, not quite so stern at Gilgit, whilst in Yasin, Hunza, and even in Nagyr before 1886, great laxity is said to prevail.

[67] Since writing the above I have discovered that the people of Kandiá—an unsuspected race and country lying between Swat and the Indus—are Dards and speak a Dialect of Shiná, of which specimens are given elsewhere in the “Races of the Hindukush.” (See Appendix IV.) The tribe living on the left bank of the Kandiá river is called by its neighbours “Dard.”

[68] The word ought to be transliterated “Gilgit” گلگت and pronounced as it would be in German, but this might expose it to being pronounced as “Jiljit” by some English readers, so I have spelt it here as “Ghilghit.”

[69] In a restricted sense “Shîn” is the name of the highest _caste_ of the Shîn _race_. “Róno” is the highest official caste next to the ruling families.

[70] My Sazîni says that they are really Shîns, Yashkuns, Dôms and Kramins, but pretend to be Afghans. _Vide_ List of Castes, page 62. Kholi-Palus are _two_ Districts, Khóli and Palus, whose inhabitants are generally fighting with each other. Shepherds from these places often bring their flocks for sale to Gilgit. I met a few.

[71] This name is also and properly given by the Baltis to their Dard fellow-countrymen. Indeed the Little Tibetans look more like Dards than Ladákis.

[72] _Place aux dames!_ For six years I believed myself “the discoverer” of this fact, but I find that, as regards Kartakchun in Little Tibet, I have been nearly anticipated by Mrs. Harvey, who calls the inhabitants “Dards,” “Dâruds” (or “Dardoos.”)

[73] My Sazîni calls the people of his own place = Bigé; those of Tórr = _Manuké_, and those of Harbenn = _Jure_.

[74] The two Kafirs in my service in 1866, one of whom was a Bashgali, seemed inoffensive young men. They admitted drinking a portion of the blood of a killed enemy or eating a bit of his heart, but I fancy this practice proceeds more from bravado than appetite. In “Davies’ Trade Report” I find the following Note to Appendix XXX., page CCCLXII. “The ruler of Chitrál is in the habit of enslaving all persons from the tribes of Kalásh, Dangini and Bashghali, idolaters living in the Chitrál territory.”

[75] Both my Gilgiti follower, Ghulam Muhammad, and the Astóri retainer, Mirza Khan, claimed to be pure Shîns. The former returned to my service some years afterwards and was measured together with other Dards. (See Appendix V.)

[76] My Sazîni says that the Dôms are below the Kramìns and that there are only 4 original castes: Shîn, Yáshkunn, Kramìn [or “Kamìnn”] and Dôm, who, to quote his words, occupy the following relative ranks: “The Shîn is the right hand, the Yáshkunn the left; the Kramìn the right foot, the Dôm the left foot.” “The other castes are mere names for occupations.” A Shîn or Yáshkunn can trade, cultivate land or be a shepherd without loss of dignity—Kramìns are weavers, carpenters, etc., but not musicians—as for leather, it is not prepared in the country. Kramìns who cultivate land consider themselves equal to Shîns. Dôms can follow _any_ employment, but, if a Dôm becomes a Mulla, he is respected. Members of the several castes who misbehave are called Mîn, Pashgun, Mamin and Môm respectively. “A man of good caste will espouse sides and fight to the last even against his own brother.” Revenge is a duty, as among Afghans, but is not transmitted from generation to generation, if the first murderer is killed. A man who has killed another, by mistake, in a fight or otherwise, seeks a frank forgiveness by bringing a rope, shroud and a buffalo to the relatives of the deceased. The upper castes can, if there are no Kramìns in their villages, do ironmonger’s and carpenter’s work, without disgrace; but must wait for Kramìns or Dôms for weaver’s work. The women spin. The “Dôms” are the “Rôms” of Gipsy lore.

[77] These legends should be compared with the Chitrál Fables published by Mihtar Nizám-ul-Mulk in the _Asiatic Quarterly Review_ of January, 1891, namely: “the vindictive fowl,” “the golden mouse,” “the mouse and the frog,” “the quail and the fox.” See Appendix III. as also Legends in “The Hunza-Nagyr Handbook.”

[78] The scrupulousness of the Gipsies in discharging such obligations, when contracted with a member of the same race, used to be notorious. The Dôms or Rôms of the Shins are the “Romany” of Europe and our “Zingari” is a corruption of “Sinkari” or inhabitants on the borders of the River or Sin = the (Upper) Indus.