The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-27 00:00:00

THE AUSTRALIAN EXPLORING EXPE-

DITION.

Some months ago, we drew the attention of our
readers to the contemplated expedition for the explora-
tion of Northern Australia—a scheme originally proposed
in the early part of last summer, by Mr. Haug, in a
memorial to the Royal Geographical Society. All per-
sons who have interested themselves in the matter will
have observed, with great surprise and regret, that, in
the report of the society's committee on this subject, all
mention of that gentleman's name is studiously omitted;
and the carefully framed plan which he had laid before
the society, and which has formed the basis of all the
subsequent proceedings with respect to the expedition,
is merely referred to as " a proposal," without the
slightest allusion to its able and enterprising author. The
motives for this strange and unworthy treatment of a
gentlemin to whom the British public and the Royal
Geographical Society itself, are so deeply indebted for
successfully stirring a question alike interesting to the
statesman, the merchant, the emigrant, and the man
of science, we do nut care to inquire. But, whatever
difference of opinion may havearisen between Mr.Haug
and the committee, it will be universally felt that this
attempt to deprive him of the honour which is so emi-
nently his due, is, to say the least, as discreditable to the
society as it is unjust to that gentleman.
We trust, however, that notwithstanding the injustice
with which Mr. Haug has been treated by the body
which professes to represent the interests of geographical
science, his name will yet be formally and officially con-
nected with the great work on behalf of which he has
so energetically and indefatigably laboured. The ex-
ploration
of North Australia has now been under-
taken by the Government, and we cannot doubt
that, in the organisation and conduct of the pro-
posed expedition, the Colonial-office will avail itself
of the knowledge, the abilities, and the zeal of
the man to whose labours--labours, let us add, in-
volving a large pecuniary expenditure—the whole,
enterprise is essentially due. It is, for obvious reasons,
impossible to appoint a foreigner to the command of an
expedition officially undertaken by the Government ;
but we are persuaded that Mr. Haug's high claims will
nevertheless be adequately recognised. We feel assured
that the Colonial Minister will be anxious to secure his
valuable services as a member of the exploring party,
in some post worthy of his talents, his energies, his
practical knowledge, and, above all, of the devoted and
disinterested zeal which he has expended on this most
important public enterprise. —Morning Chronicle.

ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY.

On Saturday evening last Dr. R. G. Latham addressed
a full attendance of the members of the society and
visitors on the subject of" The early Occupation of cer-
tain parts of Europe by branches of the Turk Family."
The parts of Europe and Asia which the present commu-
nication is intended to illustrate where the Russian
governments of Taurida, Cherson, Ekaterinoslaw, and
Bessarabia ; also the Danubian principalities and Tran-
sylvania, ancient Scythia, with a part of ancient
Dacia. The populations under notice are the Co-
manians, lithe Petshengues, the Khazars, the
Avars, the Huns, and the Skoloti (or Scytha3) of Hero-
dotes. That the first four of these belonged to the
Turk stook, is admitted-generally ; that the Huns did
so, is partially admitted ; that the Skoloti (or Scythm)
did so, is partially admitted also. At present, the Turk
affinities of these two populations are a postulate. It is
not here that the main point of our investigation lies.
Nor yet does it lie in the fact of the preceding popula-
tions, one or more, having existed more or less exten-
sively in the parts under notice from the fourth century
B.C. to the eighteenth century A.D., when the last of the
Comanians of Hungary, who spoke the Comanian lan-
guage, died. That the Comanian was the Turk'of inde-
pendent Tartary has been shown by Klapworth, who
examined a vocabulary thereof--a vocabulary interesting
as a piece of litprature from having belonged to Pe-
trarch. The real gist of what was to follow consisted in
the assertion of the consecutive character of the history
of these populations, and the stationary character of their
occupancy, to which must be added the criticism of the
current opinions concerning them. These account for
the phenomena of the parts in question, as if they were
the result of migrations ; of a series of migrations ; of a
Comanian migration, a Hun migration, &c. Now the
present inquirer committed himself to the opinion that
not one of these migrations rested on historical evidence.
They were inferences only. That the Skoloti were indi-
genous to Europe is not believed ; it is'only asserted that
their invasion lies beyond the historic period. The rest
are all inferences. Cognate populations within a certain
area appeared to different historians at different times
under different names. The presumed change was a
change of population, implying a fresh migration ; the
real change was a change of name. With the Avars, the
really historical facts took place in countries west of the
Volga. Their origin in the remoter parts of Asia is an
inference or surmise. In respect to the Huns, the evi-
dence of the only author, Ammianus Marcellinus, who
was cotemporary with their first appearance in history as
a formidable population, is eminently capable of analysis.
The historical fact is the ejection of certain Goths from
the parts about the Dniester. The Asiatic origin is an
inference. Twenty years later, the Huns of Attila ap-
per between the Theiss and the Danube ; and Priscus
visits them. This is history. That these were the Huns
of the Dniester advancing westwards is an inference or
surmise. There is no evidence on the point. The
migrations, then, are hypothetical—matters of inference
rather than testimony—and the view that adopts them
must be critised as a hypothesis only. Further details
on this point would carry us too far ; hence the results
only of a careful investigation are given. These are as
follow :-1. No one of the earlier populations of the list
above given can be shown to have entered the ancient
Scythia Europma since the beginning of history. 2. No
one of the later can be shown to have been eliminated
therefrom. All that can be shown is a change of name;
all that need be assumed are ordinary internal move-
ments. Hence there was no succession of fresh migra-
tions from Asia, but simply details of the history of
Scythia Europma. Is there any further confirmation of
this—anything positive ? Migrations may have existed,
though the evidence of them be wanting. The opposite
hypothesis must have some facts in its favour—a few, if
not many. Now, first, the name Hun, in the fbrm Chur6,
is found in Ptolemy and in Europe, so that the Huns
were a part of European Scythia in the second century.
2. Priscus mentions that Royal Scythians of the time
of Attila, without distinguishing them from the Huns,
properly so called. 3. Skoloti and Scythm were collec-
tive names ;so was Hun. One of the details of the
former were the Catiari ; of the latter, the Cuturguri.
And one of the details of the Scythm, or Skoloti,
were the Agathyrsi. In the same locality—i, e., in
Transylvania— Priscus found the Acatziri Hunni. This
identification is Zeuss's. Now, these were in ancient
Dacia, and as Dacians they may have fought against
Trajan. To have supplied a chief, they had no better claim
than any other tribe—and no worse. Such a chief
would be more or less Turk—i.e., if he were an Aga-
thyrsan, or Acatzirian. Such a chief probably existed ;
at any rate, the name of Decebalus is Turk ; and the
first proper Turk king of history is Dizabulus. No
family has so good a claim to Decebalus the Dacian as
the Turks. Of the Turk populations, the Agathyrs6
(Acatziri Khazars) have the best. Now, let us look at
the Huns of Atilla, of whom it must be remembered
that nothing is absolutely historical. except so far as
it can be found in Priscus. The usual authority, Jor-
nandes, in his best parts, rests only on Cassiodorus,. a
Gothic historian, who had the hate of his nation against
the Huns, and one who lived half a century after the
death of Atilla; The Attila of Priscus is a very dif-
ferent character from the Attila of later historians. He
is no scourge of God, no murderer of his brother, no
king of an unlimited domain. He has not even reduced
the neighbouring Acatziri. He cannot be connected
with the Huns who conquered the Goths of the Dnieper
—i.e., he has no signs of being a conqueror who has
come from the east. He may have been in situ, solo
say, in a part of the original domain of a long line of
ancestors. We find him in a certain locality, and we
should take him as we find him. To bring him ab extra
is an inference, an hypothesis. Great stress is laid on
this. As far as evidente goes, the ancestors of Attila
may have been, in the fourth century 8.C., where Attila
was in the fifth century A.D. Where was this ? Not in
the part which a conqueror from Asia, who had the
pick of all Wallachia and Moldavia, would choose. It
was rather in the part where the remnants of a reduced
population would retreat to. ft was in the low-lands
between the Theiss and Danube. More than this, it
was in the parts between Pannonia and Dacia just
the parts that belonged to nrither province—the parts
that never were Roman. It is submitted, then, that
certain populations of the Scythm, or Skoloti, lay
far enough west to have lain within the limits of
ancient Dacia, and that they were important enoucrh
to have supplied a chief in the wars against Trajan;
that such independence as was preserves between the

Danube and the Limes Romanus was Scythian ; that
in the ejection of the Goths from the Dniester, the Goths
(ant not the Huns) were the intrusive population ; that
the acts of Attila were those of a restorer rather than a
destroyer. He was the analogue of Pelagius in Spain,
rather than of Zenghiz-Khan or Tamerlane. History
tells us little ; two-thlrds of what passes as such is in-
ference. Withont saying that this inference will give
us exactly such a phenomenon as the reconstruction of
the empire of a Decebalus by an Attila (a patriot king
instead of a barbarian conqueror), it gives us something
far liker this than the opposite extreme, which is an ex-
aggerated picture of a great and gratuitous bloodshedder,
with the scourge of God in his hands, and a whole vas-
salage of kings at his feet.