“The Jats must belong, I suppose so at least, to the Hamite (Chamite), and more particularly to the Kuschite stratum of the Hindoo populations,[104] and for my part I do not doubt that the Gipsies, although their idiom is connected with the Aryan languages of India, belong to this same branch of the human species.--I remark, by the way, in the division made by Mr. Burton of the Jats into four tribes, that one of the districts inhabited by the second is called ‘Kach (Kutch).’[105]--But this branch is widely spread in Asia and in Africa. It would be necessary, in the Kuschite family, to remark the particular traits which distinguish, on the one hand, the Jats, on the other, the Gipsies, in all the very complex affinities allowed by ethnography, and start thence to compare them. This is what remains to be done in order to throw light upon _this part of one side_ of the question of Gipsy origin. It is useless to say that, in following out more particularly this comparison between the Gipsies and the Jats, the other points of comparison that may be furnished by other tribes, related or not to the Jats, such as that of the _Tchangar_, for example, pointed out by Dr. Trumpp in the Panjab (_Mittheil. der Anthrop. Gesellschaft in Wien_, T. II., 1872, p. 294, quoted by Miklosich in his third memoir on the _Zigeuner_, 1873, p. 2), and several others, which it would be too long to mention, must not be neglected. But all this can only be well done in India, and by a person who has specially studied the Gipsies of Europe, of Eastern Europe especially, and, if possible, those of Western Asia and even of Egypt. Unfortunately these conditions are very difficult to find. “(_Signed_) PAUL BATAILLARD.” FOOTNOTES: [97] [This letter appeared in the Academy, June 5, 1875.] [98] The notes appended to this letter are by me. [99] It has still to be proved of what tribe these Luri are: all that we can say is that they are the natives of modern Lúristán (Elymaïs). [100] A valuable authority, but still a poem. [101] The italics are mine. What does the author know about my acquaintance with the Gypsies, especially the Burton Gypsies? The “half a page” will be answered in another place. [102] This means simply that Professor Pott never saw my paper printed at Bombay. [103] Evidently a premature statement: the author knew only my communication to the _Academy_ (Chapter I.). [104] Of this stupendous Kushite theory I have something to say in a future page. (194) [105] _Proh pudor!_ I said _Kach (Kutch)_ Gandáva; and here it is confounded with Kach (Cutch) near Gujrát (Guzerát). CHAPTER III A REVIEW OF M. PAUL BATAILLARD’S REVIEWS § 1. _Preliminaries_