a guide to austro asiatic languages

5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages

1/217

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oceanic Linguistics SpecialPublications.

http://www.jstor.org

A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their LanguagesAuthor(s): Robert ParkinSource: Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, No. 23, A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and

Their Languages (1991), pp. i-v, vii-ix, 1-9, 11-35, 37-39, 41-115, 117-133, 135-198Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20006738Accessed: 10-08-2014 20:01 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.131.19.100 on Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:01:59 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20006738http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20006738http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/


2/217

Oceanic

Linguistics

Special

Publication

No.

23

A

Guide

to

Austroasiatic

Speakers

and Their Languages

Robert Parkin

University of Hawaii Press

Honolulu

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/217

?

1991

University

of Hawaii

Press

All

rights

reserved

Printed

in the United

States

of

America

Library

of

Congress

Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Parkin,

Robert.

A

guide

to

austroasiatic

speakers

and their

languages

/ Robert

Parkin.

p.

cm.

?

(Oceanic linguistics special publication

;

no.

23)

Includes

bibliographical

references and index.

ISBN 0-8248-1377-4

(alk. paper)

1.

Austroasiatic

languages.

I.

Title.

II.

Series.

PL4281.P37

1991

499'.2?dc20

90-15572

CIP

Camera-ready

copy

for

this

book

was

prepared

under the

supervision

of the author.

University

of Hawaii

Press

books

are

printed

on

acid-free

paper

to meet

the

guidelines

for

permanence

and

durability

of the

Council

on

Library

Resources



4/217

CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Introduction 1

a)

The Austroasiatic

Peoples.

1

b)

The Establishment of Austroasiatic. 3

c)

Austroasiatic

and

Other

Language

Families.

4

d)

The

Sub-Families

and Branches of

Austroasiatic. 5

e)

Problem

Languages.

7

I: Munda

Sub-Family

11

A. North Munda

Branch.

13

B.

South

Munda

Branch.

25

C.

Nihal

Branch

.

33

II:

Nicobarese

Sub-Family

37

III:

Aslian

Sub-Family

41

D. Jahaic

Branch. 44

E.

Senoic

Branch.

50

F.

Semelaic

Branch. 54

IV:

Mon-Khmer

Sub-Family

57

G.

Khasi

Branch. 58

H. Monic Branch. 60

J.

Khmeric

Branch.

63

K. Pearic

Branch.

65

L.

Bahnaric

Branch

.

68

M. Katuic

Branch

.

83

N.

Viet-Muong

Branch.

89

P.

Khmuic

Branch.

95

Q.

Palaungic

Branch.

104

iii



5/217

Notes

117

Introduction.

117

Chapter I. 118

Chapter

II. 122

Chapter

III. 122

Chapter

IV. 125

Bibliography

135

Preface

.

135

Introduction.

135

Chapter

I. 140

Chapter

II.

151

Chapter

III.

152

Chapter

IV. 159

Index

to

Names

of

Ethnic

Groups,

Languages

and

Language

Families

185

IV



6/217

List of Tables and

Figures

Table 1. The Austroasiatic Language Family: Main Divisions 6

Figure

1.

The North

Munda

Branch.

12

Figure

2. The

South Munda Branch.

12

Table 2. The Nicobar

Islands:

Population

and

Language

...

38

Figure

3.

The

Aslian

Sub-Family.

43

Figure

4.

The

Jahaic

Branch.

44

Figure

5.

The

Senoic Branch.

50

Figure

6. The Semelaic

Branch.

55

Figure

7.

The

Palaungic

Branch. 105

Figure 8. The Waic Languages. 108

Figure

9.

The

Lawa

Languages.

109

Figure

10.

The Wa

Languages

.

110

Figure

11.

The Samtau

Languages.

113

List of

Maps (At end)

1.

Munda

Languages

2.

Nicobarese

and

Shompen

3.

Aslian

Languages

4.

Khasi

Dialects

5.

Khmeric

and

Pearic

Languages

6.

Monic

Languages

7.

South

Bahnaric

Languages

8.

North

Bahnaric

Languages

9.

West Bahnaric

Languages

10.

Katuic

Languages

11.

Viet-Muong

Languages

12. Khmuic

Languages

13.

Palaungic

Languages

v



7/217

PREFACE

This book is intended

as

an

introductory

guide

to

speakers

of

Austro?

asiatic

languages

in

South

and

Southeast

Asia.

It

originated

as a

draft

chapter

of

my

thesis

on

Austroasiatic

kinship

(Parkin

1984),

but be?

cause of its

length

was omitted and the information tabulated instead.

Nevertheless,

it

seemed desirable

to

place

a

revised and

slightly

expan?

ded version

of the

original

in

the

public

domain for the

guidance

of

other

researchers

into

a

language

family

many

of

whose

populations

are

still but

dimly

known,

even

to

specialists

in

these

areas.

Possession

of

an

Austroasiatic

language

is

the

sole

criterion

for

inclu?

ding

any

particular

ethnic

group

in

the

book.

The introduction

sketches

the

scholarly

treatment

of the

linguistic

classification

of

Austroasiatic,

and its final section deals with

languages

which have

occasionally

been

suggested as Austroasiatic in the past but which must now be dis?

missed

as

certainly

or

more

probably

classifiable elsewhere

on

current

knowledge.

The

remaining

chapters

each

deal with

one

of

the

four

sub?

families into which Austroasiatic

is

conventionally

divided:

Munda,

Nicobarese,

Aslian

and Mon-Khmer.

The first

of

these

also

appears,

slightly

modified,

in

my

The Sons

of

Man

(Parkin

forthcoming-a,

Ch.

2).

It

and the last

two

chapters

are

further

divided

into

sections

corre?

sponding

to

the

various branches

into

which each

sub-family

(except

for

Nicobarese)

is

subdivided;

each

branch carries

a

separate,

upper-case,

letter

(e.g.

M for

Katuic).

Below this is the

level

of

individual Austro?

asiatic

languages,

each

language

receiving

in

principle

(i.e.

according

to

present

knowledge)

a

separate entry.

Each

such

entry

carries

an

ita?

licized

arabic

number

(e.g.

J^8

for

Mon)

to

facilitate

cross-referencing

elsewhere in the

text

(these

numbers

are

not

italicized in

the

index,

tables

and

figures).

Dialectal

variation,

where

known,

is

covered

only

within

the

text

of

each

entry,

with

the

proviso

that

some

very

clo?

sely

related

languages

with

separate

entry

numbers

may prove

to

be,

or

considered

by

some

authorities

to

be,

merely

dialects

of

a

common

language.

Each

entry

covers

such

topics

as

the

geographical

location

of the

ethnic

group,

the

alternative

ethnonyms

used

for it

and

by whom,

ap?

proximate

population

figures,

an

idea

of the

language-use

situation of

vn



8/217

the

group

and,

where

appropriate

or

of

special

interest,

a

sketch

of

its

recent

history.

At

the

end

of

each

entry

is

appended

a

brief

guide

to

the ethnographic literature available on the group concerned. Where

no

remarks

are

offered

the

reader

should

conclude

that

there

is

no

such

literature

specifically

on

that

group.

Some

groups

are

dealt with

only

in

the

more

general

and/or

comparative

literature

on

the

areas

concer?

ned;

such works

are

listed in

the

introductory

sections

of the

relevant

chapters.

As far

as

I

am

aware,

the

only

attempt

to

review all

the

eth?

nographic

literature

relating

to

all

Austroasiatic-speaking

populations

is

my

own

thesis

(Parkin

1984),

which is

concerned

with

kinship

alone.

Parkin

forthcoming-c

deals with

Austroasiatic

kin

terms.

Attention should also be drawn to the standard anthropological bi?

bliographies

on

these

areas.

On

India,

there

is

Elizabeth

von

F?rer

Haimendorf's

four-volume

bibliography

(1958,

1964,

1970,

1976)

for

works

up

to

about

1970,

and

on

Southeast

Asia

the

bibliographies

of

Embree

(1952)

and

Embree

and

Dotson

(1950)

are

good

up

to

about

1950.

Although

the

focus

of this

work

is

a

particular

language

family,

no

deliberate

attempt

has been

made

to

include

works

on

linguistics

here. This has

been

rendered

unnecessary

by

the

appearance

of

Huff?

man's

comprehensive

bibliography

on

mainland

Southeast Asian

langu?

ages (1986),

which

should

also be

consulted for

ethnographic references,

especially

on

less

well-known

groups.

There

have

been

considerable

political

upheavals

in

parts

of this

re?

gion

since

the

Second

World

War,

rendering

fieldwork

difficult

if

not

impossible

in much of

it.

Moreover,

and

as a

partial

consequence,

the

only

material

we

do have

on

some

of these

groups

is

now

several deca?

des

old

and

belongs essentially

to

the

colonial

period

(all

this is

most

obviously

true

of

Burma,

least

true of

India,

on

the

whole).

Thus

use

of the

ethnographic

present

must

be

assumed

throughout.

Although

I

am aware

of

others'

occasional strictures

(e.g.

Leach

1954;

Ardener

1972)

concerning

the

use

of

language

to

classify

human

populations,

I

take

no

particular

position

concerning

issues

of

ethnicity

here.

Langu?

age

is

often

an

important

marker

of

identity

for the

people

themselves

(see

my

brief

remarks

under

Temiar

41

an


9/217

in the

course

of

my

doctoral

research,

which

was

funded

by

the then

United

Kingdom

Social

Science

Research

Council

(now

Economic

and

Social Research Council), and supervised by Dr N.J. Allen, Lecturer in

the

Social

Anthropology

of South

Asia in the

University

of

Oxford;

I

gratefully acknowledge

their

support

in

particular.

I would also like

to

thank

Claudia

Gross,

Aasha

Mundlay,

Hilary

Standing,

Piers

Vitebsky

and Professor Norman

Zide for their

help

over

data

concerning

parts

of the

chapter

on

Munda;

Professor

Dr

Georg

Pfeffer

of the

Institut

f?r

Ethnologie,

Freie

Universit?t

Berlin,

for

providing

the facilities

for

revising

and

typing

the

manuscript;

and Lukas

Wert

h for his

help

over

the

transfer

of the

original

typescript

to

computer.

Naturally,

these

individuals and

institutions

are

absolved

from

any responsibility

for

the

contents

of

this

version.

I

have

preferred

throughout

the

term

'Cambodia'

to

'Kampuchea',

since

it is

better

established in the

literature,

and

during

the

course

of

1989

was

readopted

by

the

Heng

Samrin

government

as

the

official

name

of

the

country.

The

term

'Indie' is

a

conventional

designation

for

those

languages

of the

Indo-Aryan

branch of

Indo-European spoken

in

South Asia

as

opposed

to

Iran,

Afghanistan

and the

western

parts

of

Pakistan.

The

following

conventions

are

used

on

the

maps.

Lower-case

place

names

denote

towns

and

cities,

and

occasionally

other

geographical

features.

Upper-case

names

denote

states

(in

India),

countries and

sea

areas.

Austroasiatic

groups

are

indicated

by

their

entry

numbers

in

the

text.

Numbers in

parentheses

denote

Austroasiatic

groups

of branches

different from

that

to

which the

current

map

is

devoted. Numbers

wit?

hin

chevrons

denote lines

of latitude

and

longitude.

Lower-case

names

in

parentheses

denote

major

neighbouring

non-Austroasiatic

groups.

R.J.P.

Berlin,

July

1990.

IX



10/217

INTRODUCTION

a)

The

Austroasiatic

Peoples

Austroasiatic

is

a

linguistic

classification,

not

a

social

or

cultural

or

ra?

cial

one,

for there is little other

than

language

that is

common

to

all the

speakers of this language family. They are scattered in a considerable

sweep

of

tropical

and

sub-tropical

Asia,

from

Nimar

(in

southwestern

Madhya

Pradesh)

in

the

west

to

the

Vietnamese

shore of the

South

China

Sea

in

the east

and from Yunnan in the

north

to

the Endau river

in

the

south. None

are

found

in

the

islands

except

for the

Nicobars,

but

Austroasiatic

speakers

are

represented

in

every

nation

state

of continen?

tal

Southeast

Asia

(Burma,

Thailand,

West

Malaysia,

Vietnam,

Laos,

Cambodia)

as

well

as

in southern

China, India,

Nepal,

Bhutan

and

Bangladesh.

But

despite

covering

such

an

extensive

area,

they

are

gen?

erally low in numbers (the Vietnamese are the obvious exception) and

hence

interspersed

with

other,

often

dominant

groups

speaking

Indo

European,

Tai,

Tibeto-Burman,

Austronesian

or

Miao-Yao

languages.

Culturally

and

socially they

tend

to

have

more

in

common

with their

immediate

neighbours

than with

one

another

over

this

vast

area.1

The total


population

is

probably

to

be

pla?

ced

at

over

80

million,

but

the

majority

of

these

(over

65 million

as

of

1988)

are

Vietnamese.2

The

next

largest

group

are

the

Khmer

(cur?

rently

perhaps

about six

million,

a

drop

of

some

two

million

since the

1970s, thanks

to

the activities of the Pol Pot regime), the third largest

the

Santal,

one

of the

largest

tribes in

India,

with

nearly

four

million.

The

Santal

alone

are

roughly

equivalent

in

population

to

all the

remai?

ning

Austroasiatic

groups

(i.e.

apart

from the

Vietnamese and

Khmer),

of whom

maybe

as

many

as

150

can

be

identified

on

the

basis of

lan?

guage,

with

populations

ranging

from

less than

a

hundred

to

several

hundred

thousand.

The

basis of

this

identity

is

language

or

in

some

cases

dialect,

a

circumstance which

accords

not

only

with

the

terms

of

reference of this

book but also with indigenous conceptions to some extent (see e.g. the

Mon,

^7).

Complete

assimilation

to

locally

dominant

groups,

which

1



11/217

is

taking

place

all

the

time

in

many

areas

(e.g.

Thailand,

Cambodia)

but is resisted

in

others

(e.g.

the

Vietnamese

highlands),

typically

in?

volves loss of the native language, even though other factors may also

be involved

(e.g.

intermarriage

or

religious

conversion).

The

pressures

of assimilation

may

be

resisted

by

groups

dwelling

in the

hills

or

jun?

gles,

migration

to the

plains

often

leading

to

a

change

in

ethnic

status,

especially

in

subsequent

generations.

The

attitudes

of

national

govern?

ments

may

also be

significant,

though

this

differs

from

state to

state.

Some

recognize

and

even

protect,

in

effect

if

not

by

design,

the

eth?

nic

identities

of

minority

groups

through legislative

or

administrative

action

(India,

Malaysia,

China).

In

Thailand,

on

the

other

hand,

the

pressures

to

assimilate

are

particularly

intense. All

children, regard?

less of

ethnic

origin,

are

taught

Thai

language

and

culture,

and

in

the

politically

sensitive

northern

areas

the

Border

Patrol

Police

maintain

special

schools

for

tribals

whose

purpose

is

political

as

much

as

educa?

tive.

Thai

government

censuses

recognize

no

ethnic

divisions,

all

being

just

'Thai'.

It

is

thus

hardly

surprising

that

Thailand,

though

in

the

heart

of

the


area,

has

relatively

few

speakers

of

Austroasiatic

at

the

present

day.

In

Cambodia

too

the

pressures

to

assimilate

are

considerable,

though

here

the dominant

group

are

them?

selves

Austroasiatic

speakers.

Such

pressures

also exist

in

Laos,

though

here

they

have

been

less

successful,

especially

in the

south,

over

which

the Lao

have

really

only

established

control

within

the

past

century

(this

was

in

reality

the

end

of

the

Tai

migrations

into

Indo-China

from

the

north

which

started

in

the

thirteenth

century

ad).

In Vietnam

and

Burma,

assimilation

has

been

slowed

down

or

prevented

by

the

lateness

or

failure

of

the

central

government

to

establish

control

over

remote

areas.

This

is

especially

true of

Burma,

much

of

which

is

to?

day

effectively

autonomous from

Rangoon,

and

some

of which

(e.g.

the

Wa

States)

has

never

been

effectively

administered

at

all,

not

even

by

the British.

However,

this has not

prevented

assimilation for prestige

reasons,

e.g.

of

Palaung

(118)

to

Shan

in

the

north;

and

in

the

south,

where

the

government

has

more

control,

assimilation

has

taken

place

extensively,

e.g.

of

Mon

(48)

to

Burmese.

In Vietnam the

government

seems

content

to

recognize

the existence

of

ethnic

minorities,

for

many

of whom

(especially

in

the

highlands)

close

contact

with

the

Vietna?

mese

is

a

very

new

experience,

i.e.

dating

only

from

the

Vietnam

War

and the

operations

of

the

Viet

Cong;

Chinese

policy

is

broadly

similar.

2



12/217

b)

The

Establishment

of Austroasiatic

It was Wilhelm Schmidt who established the existence of Austroasia?

tic,

and

his

achievement

still

stands,

despite

having

been

criticized,

even

dismissed, by

later

writers.

The

main

argument

concerns

the

na?

ture

of

the

relationship

between the

two

main

branches

of Austroasiatic

brought

together

by

Schmidt

-

Munda,

consisting

of

languages

spoken

chiefly

in

eastern

India,

and

Mon-Khmer,

consisting

of

languages

scat?

tered

throughout

continental

Southeast

Asia.

The

status

of Vietnamese

(99)

as a

Mon-Khmer

language

has

also

given

rise

to

controversy.

Crucial

early

steps

were

taken

by

Logan,

who

established

the

exi?

stence of a 'Mon-Anam' family (broadly Mon-Khmer plus Vietnamese)

separate

from

Tibeto-Burman;3

and

by

Sten

Konow,

who

rejected

ear?

lier theories

that

the

Munda branch

was

related

to

Dravidian

or

to

certain Australian

languages.4

But

it

was

Schmidt's

work

which

repre?

sented

the

major

advance,

at the

same

time

stimulating

considerable

debate,

sometimes

in

the form of alternative

theories.

Among

these

were

attempts

to

link

Munda

with

Basque,

Burushaski,

various

Bantu

languages

(chiefly

on

the

basis

of

numerals)

and Turkish.5

However,

the

most serious

challenge

came

from the

Hungarian

writer Wilhelm

von

Hevesy, who tried to connect Munda with Finno-Ugrian instead of with

Mon-Khmer

and

later,

under

the

pseudonym

of F.A.

Uxbond,6

linked

Munda

with

both

Maori

and

Hungarian,

the

latter,

in this

formulation,

not

being

Finno-Ugrian.

Despite

'this

whimsical

extravaganza',

as

Se

beok

characterized

it, Hevesy

was

'generally

believed'7

in the 1930s and

1940s

to

have

established

a

stronger

connection

between

Munda

and

Finno-Ugrian

than

had

Schmidt

between

Munda

and

Mon-Khmer.

A

number

of

contemporaries

agreed

with

Hevesy,8

not

to

the extent

of

supporting

his

wilder

speculations,

but

at

least

in

finding

fault

with

Schmidt's

methods.

Many points

of

detail

also

diminished

the

force

of

Schmidt's

argument

at

the

time,

for

Munda

and

Mon-Khmer

are

opposed

in

most

major

typological

respects.9

On

the

other

hand,

his

theories

were

supported

to

some

extent

by

the existence

of

two lan?

guages

intermediate between

the

two

main

groups,

Khasi

with Mon

Khmer

affinities,

and

Nicobarese

with

Munda

ones.

Moreover,

vowel

harmony,

animate/inanimate

nominal

categories,

postpositions, agglu?

tination

etc.,

on

which

Hevesy

relied

heavily

in

making

his

comparisons,

are

not

so

unusual

and

are

found

in

a

number

of other

language

groups

also.10

Thus

ultimately

it is

Schmidt's

work

which

has

prevailed

over

He

vesy's,

now

merely

one

of the

curiosities

of

ethnological

history.

As

Pinnow

points

out,

it

was

Schmidt's

classification

of Austroasiatic

that

3



13/217

was

unsatisfactory,

not

his

linking

of

Munda and

Mon-Khmer

in

the

first

place.

The

differences

between the

two

branches

can

be

explained

partly

by

the

differing

influences of

the surrounding non-Austroasiatic langu?

ages:

'when the

respective

foreign

components

are

distinguished,

the

common

Austro-Asiatic

core

of both

groups

becomes

clear.'11

Indeed,

it is

thanks

largely

to

Pinnow's work that

Schmidt's

theory

is

generally

accepted

today

by

both

major

groups

of

modern scholars

working

on

Austroasiatic

languages

(one

a

Summer

Institute

of

Linguistics-based

group

working

on

Mon-Khmer,

the other centred around

Professor Nor?

man

Zide

at

Chicago working

on

Munda),

and

there

have

been

a

number

of conferences and

publications

devoted

to

and

otherwise

validating

the

existence of

Austroasiatic

in

recent

years.

c)

Austroasiatic and

Other

Language

Families

Having

established

his Austroasiatic

language

family,

Schmidt

went

on

to

link

it

with Austronesian

in

a

super-family

called

'Austric',

though

this

was,

and

still

is,

much

more

problematic.12

There has

been

no

shor?

tage

of

similar

ideas,

some

complementing,

some

contradicting

the Aus?

tric

one.

Briggs gives

a

partial

list

('Conrady's

Austric-Indo-Chinese;

Matsumoto's Austro-Asiatic-Japanese; Przyluski's Sumerian-Austric;

.

. .

Rivet's

Austric

Oceanic-California

theory'),13

but

none can com?

pare

with

Schmidt's

in

terms

of evidence marshalled and

presented,

nor

in

plausibility.

The

range

of affiliates that

might

be

suggested

is

shown

by

the similiarities unearthed

by

Przyluski

between Austroasia?

tic and

Indo-European,

Oceanic,

Japanese,

Riou-Kiou,

Sumerian

and

some

Himalayan

Tibeto-Burman

languages.14

The chief

rival

to

Austric

has

come

from Benedict's 'Austro-Thai'

theory,

which

leaves Austroasiatic

as

a

language

family separate

from

Austronesian and replaces it with Tai

as

the latter's main affiliate,

though

in

some

versions Austroasiatic is

accepted

as

a

'substratum';

Kadai and Miao-Yao

are

also included

as

co-ordinate

branches.15

This

theory

has

come

under

fire

from

all

sides: from

Gedney,

a

specialist

in Tai

languages;

from

Diffloth,

who

attacked

the substratum

theory;

from

Shorto,

who

emphasized

the

possibility

of loans

rather than

a

ge?

netic

connection;

and

from

Sebeok,

who

clearly

likes Benedict's

ideas

no more

than

Schmidt's.16

As indicated

above,

Benedict himself

seems

to

have

changed

his

views. He

still

accepted

Schmidt's

Austric in

1942,

but made

a

major

division between

Mon-Khmer-Vietnamese

and

Tai

Kadai-Indonesian.

By

1966

he had

abandoned

this

in favour of Austro

Thai,

with

a

substratum of Austroasiatic

to

account

for

the

similarities

between the

two.

By

1975

he had inverted

this,

postulating

Austro-Thai

4



14/217

as

a

substratum

of Austroasiatic instead.17

Shafer

raises

the

possibility

'of

some

sort of

relationship

between

the

Tibeto-Burman

and

Mon

Khmer languages, for which Annamese [i.e. Vietnamese]

seems

often

to

be

a

link',

but

he offers

no

firm evidence

or

conclusions.

Gorgo

niev

too seeks

some

archaic

but

basic link between Mon-Khmer

and

Tibeto-Burman.18

Not

all

relationships

between

groups

of

languages

are

genetic,

of

course:

they

may

take

the form of

cross-influences

within

a

single

area.

Chinese

seems

to

have influenced

a

number of

the

more

northerly

Mon

Khmer

languages,

especially

Vietnamese,

into

adopting

semantic

tone,

monosyllabism

and

a

tendency

to

lose

final

consonants,

such features

also

being

found

in other

language

families of the

area

(Tibeto-Burman,

Tai,

Miao-Yao).19

Headley

mentions

the

phonological

convergence

of

some

Mon-Khmer,

Tai

and Austronesian

languages.

Other

Southeast

Asian areal

tendencies

include

numeral classifiers

and

onomatopoeic

reduplication.20

In

India

too,

the Munda

group

shares with

Indo-European

and Dra

vidian

a

number

of

linguistic

features

'which

may

be

considered

spe?

cifically Indian',21 although

perhaps

to

a

lesser

extent

than

was once

thought.

In

1948

Kuiper

considered that 'Munda

and Dravidian

now

constitute

an

Indian

linguistic

league

(Sprachbund)

in

which,

in

a

lesser

degree,

the

Indo-European

languages

are

also

involved'.22

In

a

more

re?

cent

and

thorough

study,

however,

Masica

found

that

'the

Austroasiatic

languages

are

somewhat

more

deficient in Indian

features than

others,

the extreme

case

being

Khasi in

Assam,

which

seems

in fact

to

lack

most

of them.

. . .

'

This

sharing

of

specific

features

by

the different

language

families in

India

is

purely

the result of

convergence,

borrowing

and

cross-influence between

them;

there is

no

question

of

any

genetic

connections.23

But

Masica's

statement

should

not

lead

one

to

think that

Munda has

not

played

its

part

in this

process

of

convergence.

For

ex?

ample,

the Dravidian

language

Kurukh

(spoken

by

the

Oraon)

shares

with Munda such

features

as

checking,

aspirated

consonants,

and

some

infixes and inflectional terminations

that

are

found

only rarely,

if

at

all,

in

other Dravidian

languages.24

Shahidullah

and

Bhowmik

consider

Bengali

to

show the

influence

of

Munda

in

phonology, morphology

and

syntax,

and

some

Munda

vocabulary

has

entered Indian

lexicons.25

d)

The

Sub-Families

and

Branches

of

Austroasiatic

The

internal

configuration

of

Austroasiatic itself has

a

history

of

con?

troversy

which is still

far from

settled and

which will

not

be covered

here,

but

the most

widely accepted

modern

version would

appear

to

be

5



15/217

Sub-Family

Branches

Entry

numbers

I:

MUNDA A. North

Munda

1-10

B. South Munda 11-19

C.

Nihal

20

II:

NICOBARESE Not

yet

established

21-28

III:

ASLIAN

D.

Jahaic

29-38

E.

Senoic

39-42

F.

Semelaic

43-46

IV:

MON-KHMER

G. Khasi

47

H.

Monic

48-49

J.

Khmeric

50

K.

Pearic

51-55

L.

Bahnaric

56-83

M. Katuic

84-98

N.

Viet-Muong

99-118

P. Khmuic

119-130

Q.

Palaungic

131-149

Table

1.

The

Austroasiatic

Language

Family:

Main

Divisions

that

set

out in

Table

1,

and

is

basically

the

one

adopted

here.

This

breakdown is based mainly on Diffloth, though he included Aslian in

with

Mon-Khmer.26

The

question

of

the

exact

relationship

of

Aslian

and

Nicobarese to

Mon-Khmer

is

still

unresolved,

but

the main

rea?

son

for

their

separation

here

is

their

low

cognate

percentages

with it.

Thus

one

study

shows

Temiar,

a

major

Senoic

language

(^i),

to

have

only

11-16%

of

cognates

with

Mon-Khmer

languages,

and

Nicobarese

only

6-11%.27

In the

latter

case

this

may

be

due

in

part

to

the

well

known lexical

instability

of

Nicobarese

for cultural

reasons,

especially

the

practice

of

naming

a

person

after

any

lexical item in

the

language,

which then

becomes

tabooed after

that

person's

death.28

Aslian is also

internally quite

differentiated.29

Shorto

assesses

them both

to

be

closer

to

Munda

than

to

Mon-Khmer

'in

their overall

structural

pattern'.30

Munda

is

reckoned

to

be the

most

conservative

sub-family

in

vo?

cabulary

and

morphology.

It is

more

unified

than

Mon-Khmer,

which

alone

has

over

two-thirds

of the

separately

identifiable

Austroasiatic

languages.

The

nine

branches

of

Mon-Khmer

are

roughly equidistant,

with

cognate

percentages

of

20-30%,

though

Matras

and

Ferlus

have

revived

an

earlier

view,

not

followed

here,

in

arguing

that

Khmuic and

Palaungic

should

be

regarded

as

one

large

branch.

Bahnaric, Palaungic

and

Viet-Muong

have

developed

the

greatest

degrees

of

internal

diffe?

rentiation,

Katuic,

Khmuic

and

Nicobarese less

so,

and Monic

and

Kh?

meric least

of

all.31

The

dates

of

the

probable

separation

of the

various

6



16/217

Mon-Khmer

branches

from

one

another

are

difficult

if

not

impossible

to

establish

with

certainty,

for

with

no

written

records

one

must

rely

on

glottochronology,

but

one

suggested period

is

some

time

in the

second

millenium

BC.32

This

means

that

the

separation

of the

main

sub-families

from Proto-Austroasiatic

would

have

been

even

earlier.

The

term Austroasiatic

is

often used

synonymously

but

wrongly

with

Mon-Khmer.

Przyluski's

Austroasiatic is

equivalent

to

Schmidt's

Austric,

i.e.

to

Austroasiatic

plus

Austronesian.

Cced?s,

Heine-Geldern

and

others

even use

Austroasiatic

to

characterize

a

type

of civilization

with reference

to

archaeology

and

prehistory,

i.e.

as a

racial

or

cultural,

not

a

linguistic

category,

but

this

has

no

real

meaning

and

is not

to

be

encouraged.

In

French,

one

encounters austroasien

as

well

as

austro

asiatique

as

translations

of 'Austroasiatic'

(nb,

not

austron?sien,

which

translates

'Austronesian').

e)

Problem

Languages

The

populations

dealt with

in this

book

speak languages

which

are

definitely

or

with

a

high degree

of

probability

members of

Austroasiatic,

but others

have been

suggested

from

time

to

time

as

possible

candidates

for this language family. They

are

not dealt with in the body of the

book,

for

they

can

all be

dismissed

as

non-Austroasiatic,

but

I

will

review

them

briefly

here.

Schmidt

included

the

Chamic

languages

of south-central

Vietnam

(Rhad?,

Jarai,

Cham

etc.)

and the

Proto-Malay

languages

of the Ma?

lay

peninsula

in

Austroasiatic,

though

both

groups

are now

recognized

to

be Austronesian.

Aceh

(the

modern

Indonesian

spelling;

also

Atjeh,

Acheh,

Achinese)

has

been

a

more

persistent

problem,

with

suggesti?

ons

of

an

Austroasiatic

substratum,

and

even

that it

is,

in

fact,

an

Austroasiatic

language.

More

likely, though,

it is

simply

an

Austro?

nesian

language

that has

come

under

some

Austroasiatic

influence,

a

factor which

might

also

explain

Schmidt's

confusion

over

Cham

and

Proto-Malay.33

Many

have

considered the

Miao-Yao

languages

of southern

China

and

northern Indo-China

to

be

Mon-Khmer.34

Wiens

goes

so

far

as

to

say

that 'the

term

"Man"

appears

to

be

a

phonetic

rendition

of

the

term

"Mon"

as

used

in

Mon-Khmer,

to

which

ethnic classification

the

Miao

belong'.

This

suggests

he

is

at

least

partly

thinking

of

a

racial

rather

than

a

linguistic

classification.

However,

he

regards

Yao

as

having

little

in

common

with

Austroasiatic and

as

being

closer

to

Austronesian

and

Tai.35

Although

unlike

most

Mon-Khmer

languages

(except Vietnamese)

in

having

tones

and

lacking

affixes,

the

Miao-Yao

7



17/217

family

resembles it

phonetically,

morphologically

and

syntactically.36

In

Forrest's

view,

the

vocabulary

of Miao 'does not

seem

to

contain

any

identifiable cognates with other Mon-Khmer vocabulary', though, as he

himself

admits,

the

problem

is

that

'in

dealing

with

languages

where

monosyllabism

is

the

rule,

and

where

consonontalism

is much

impover?

ished,

fortuitous

resemblances

are

painfully

easy

to

find'.37

Haudricourt

regards

both Miao-Yao and Karen

(further

south,

in

southeast

Burma)

as

possible

links

between

Tibeto-Burman and

Mon-Khmer,

but

this

is

very

uncertain.38

Whatever the

affiliation of these

two

language

groups

eventually

proves

to

be,

if

any

-

and both

are

problematic

for

other

reasons

-

there

is

no

good

reason

to connect

them

with

Austroasiatic

on

present

evidence.

Davies

regarded

Minchia,

of

the

Tali

area

of western

Yunnan,

as

possibly

Mon-Khmer,

though

he

also detected

Tibeto-Burman

and

Chi?

nese

influences

in it.

Eberhard

too wrote

about

'the

Minchia Austro

asiatics',

while

Fitzgerald

divided

the

language

into

a

non-Sinitic

sub?

stratum,

a

stratum of

old

Chinese

loans,

and

one

of

modern loans from

the Yunnanese

dialect

of Mandarin. Hsu

regards

them

as a

separate

group

that

is

very

assimilated

to

the

Chinese

in all

respects

save

lan?

guage

and

whose

members

usually

seek

to

deny

their

'true'

origin.

On

the other

hand, Egerod implies

that Minchia

is

a

Chinese

dialect with

a

substratum

of

the Tibeto-Burman

languages

Moso and

Lolo. Forrest

also doubts its

status

as an

independent

language,

saying

that almost

all

its

recorded

vocabulary,

as

well

as

its

morphological

and

syntactic

features,

can

be traced

to

Chinese.

Thus it is

very

probably merely

a

Chinese

dialect,

and

although

it has

some

vocabulary

not

assignable

to

Chinese,

this

is

a

phenomenon

associated

with other

Chinese

dialects

also.39

Other

suggested

Austroasiatic

languages

in

this

general

area

include

Eberhard's

Liao and

Kelao40

and

Gorgoniev's Suoy

of

Taiwan.41

None of

these

suggestions

are

supported

by

other

writers,

however,

who

regard

the first

two

as

probably

Tai

and

the

third,

though sharing

its

name

with

a

Pearic

group,

(55)

as

Austronesian.

Also,

pace

Scott,

Padaung

is

Tibeto-Burman,

not

Mon-Khmer

(he

may

be

confusing

them with

the

Palaung

[131],

a

mistake also made

by

George

Orwell

in his novel

Burmese

Days).42

It

is

probably

less

likely

now

than it

once

seemed that

yet

other

Munda

languages

remain

to

be discovered

apart

from those

mentioned

in the

next

chapter,

for

example

in the

remoter

parts

of

Orissa.43

No?

netheless,

there

are

many

other

groups

that

have

occasionally

been

clai?

med

to

be

Munda,

often in

a

racial

rather than

a

linguistic

or

cultural

sense.

They

include

the

Chero,

landowners

of

Palamau

and other

parts

8



18/217

of Bihar

and

West

Bengal;

the

Lohar

or

Lohra, traditionally

weavers

of

Ranchi;

the

Jadua

Patua and

Gorait

(the

latter

is

really

a

standard

local

term for

village

watchmen and

messengers);

and the

Lodha,

an

'ex-criminal' tribe of

Midnapore

who claim

descent

from the

ancient

Savara

(see

the

Sora, below,

13).

All these

are

said

to

speak

Santali

(2)

or

Mundari

(3)

as

well

as

an

Indie

language

and

are

perhaps

tri

bals who

have

only

become

identified

with these

castes

in the

past

few

generations.44

Sometimes

a

Munda

language

may

have

been

adopted by

a

pre?

viously

non-Munda-speaking

group.

According

to

the

Linguistic

Survey

of

India 'the Kurukhs

[speakers

of

a

Dravidian

language]

in the

neigh?

bourhood

of the town

of

Ranchi

have

adopted

Mundari

as

their

mother

tongue'.45

Chatterji

speculates

that the

Koli

of

Rajasthan

and Kandesh

(northern

Maharashtra)

may

once

have been

Munda

speakers,

but

he

is

clearly

relying

only

on

the

similarity

of

their

name

to

Kol,

the

pejo?

rative

alternative

to

Munda. The

'Kol' studied

by

Griffiths

are

clearly

Indie

speakers,

of

Rewa

and

Jabalpur

in

Madhya Pradesh,

and he

is

careful

to

distinguish

them from

the

Munda.46

The

Kisan of

Jashpur

have been

linked

with

the

Munda,47

and

the

Bhil have

also been

the

target

of

such

speculation,48

despite

the fact

that

there is

no

evidence

that

they

have

ever

spoken

anything

other

than

the Indie

language

they

use at

present.

Finally,

the older view that the so-called

'pronomina

lized' Tibeto-Burman

languages

of

the

Himalayas

were

connected

in

some

way

with

Munda

has

now

been

abandoned in

favour of

one

of

se?

parate

development

to

explain

those

similarities

that do

occur

between

them.49

9



19/217

I:MUNDA

SUB-FAMILY

The

term Munda

is

of

Sanskritic

origin

and

appears

to

represent

a

root

meaning

'substantial,

wealthy';

later it

came

to

mean

'head'

and

from

this

'headman',

still

its

meaning

in

a

number

of

North

Munda

languages.1 Less favoured is Przyluski's view, that it represents an al?

ternative

root

(munda

'shaven')

present

in

Indo-European

but of Aus?

troasiatic

origin.

Tedesco

refuted

this

suggestion,

arguing

that

this

too

is of

Indo-European

origin

and that it is

the

Santali

forms cited

by

Przyluski

that

are

the

loans.2

British administrators

first

applied

the

word

to

one

particular

tribe of

Munda

speakers

(5, below)

in

the

early

nineteenth

century,

and it has

since become

established

not

only

in

administration

but

also in

scholarship

and

even

in

the tribe

itself

to

an

increasing

extent.

Subsequently,

its

use was

extended

to

become

also the normal scholarly designation for the whole group of related

languages

and those who

speak

them.

The

term

Mundari

normally

de?

signates

the

particular language

(5),

though

it

is

recorded

once

as an

ethnonym.3

Many

Munda

groups,

especially

the North

Munda,

are

also

desig?

nated

Kol

etc.

by

their

neighbours,

but this

is

regarded

as

insulting

by

the

people

to

whom

it is

applied:

e.

g.

Oriya

kolho

means

'hypocrite'.4

It

may

in

fact be

a

corruption

of hor

etc.,5

a

North

Munda

cognate

meaning

'man'

and

much

preferred by

these

groups

themselves.

Kol,

sometimes

Kolarian,

entered

the

language

of

scholarship

at

an

early

date,

but this

usage

is

now

old-fashioned

and in view

of

its

pejorative

connotations

is best avoided.

Figures

1

and

2

shows the internal

structure

of this

sub-family.6

There

are

two

major divisions,

North Munda

and

South

Munda,

of

which the latter is

generally

considered

to

be the

more

conservative.

Each

division

is itself

divided into

two:

North Munda

into

Korku

and

Kherwarian,

and

South

Munda into

Central

Munda

and

Kora

put

Munda.

Further

proto-languages

appear

in

Koraput

Munda

before

we

reach the level

of

existing

languages.

Bhattacharya's

alternative

suggestion,

that

Sora

and

Gorum

(North

Koraput)

be linked

with

Cen?

tral Munda rather

than

with

South

Koraput,

does

not

seem

to

have

prevailed.7

11



20/217

NORTH MUNDA

Korku

Proto-Kherwarian

Santali

Mundari

Asuri

Ho

Bhumij

Bihori

Turi

Korwa

Kora

Figure

1.

The

North Munda

Branch

SOUTH

MUNDA

Central

North

South

Munda

Koraput

Koraput

Kharia Juang Sora- Gorum Gutob- Proto

Juray

Remo

Gataq

Sora

Juray

Gutob

Remo

Gataq

I

II

Figure

2.

The

South

Munda

Branch

12



21/217

Many

of these

designations

are

also

the

'real'

ethnonyms,

that

is,

those used

by

each

group

for its

own

members

rather than those

given

to them by neighbours or administrators or other outsiders. A num?

ber of these

or

similar

names,

especially

Bhumij,

Kharia, Asur, Turi,

Korwa,

Savara

or

Saora

(Sora)

and

Gadaba,

are

used of

groups

speaking

Dravidian

or

Indie

languages

as

well

as

Munda

speakers. Population

figures

have been arrived

at

by

taking

into

consideration

Stampe's

figu?

res

(1965,

1966)

and

those of the

1961

and 1971

Censuses

of

India,

but

inevitably they

must

be

regarded

as

approximate

(the

1981

Census

had

not

produced

any

ethnically

or

linguistically

based

figures

at

the

time

of

writing).

In

total,

there

are

around six million

speakers

of Munda

languages.

Studies

on

each Munda

group

will be reviewed in the

appropriate

places,

and here

I will mention

simply

the

more

comparative

work

on

these

groups.

On

kinship

there

are

the relevant

parts

of Karv?'s Kins?

hip Organization

in India

(1965);

the

present

author's The

Sons

of

Man

(Parkin

forthcoming-a)

and

an

entry

in the

forthcoming

Encyclopaedia

of

World

Cultures

(Parkin

forthcoming-b),

following

two

earlier

articles

now

much in need of revision

(Parkin

1986a,

1988a);

and

Bhattacharya's

1970 article

on

Munda kin

terms,

which

consists

mainly

of

etymological

lists rather than

analysis

(for

the latter

see

Parkin

1985,

later

revised

as

Chapter

7

of The

Sons

of

Man).

On

religious

traditions there

is

Mukhopadhyay's

indifferent The

Austrics

of

India

(1975).

Other

com?

parative

work

mainly

covers

Indian tribes

generally,

not

just

the

Munda,

but note

especially

here

Pfeffer

1982

and

1983.

On

language,

Huffman's

new

and excellent

bibliography

(1986)

covers

Munda,

even

though

these

languages

are

strictly

outside the

area

of

Southeast

Asia

indicated in the

book's title.

Elizabeth

von

F?rer-Haimendorf 's

general

anthropological

bibliographies

on

India

(1958,

1964, 1970,

1976)

are

equally

valuable

for work

up

about

1970.

A.

North

Munda

Branch

A

(i)

Korku

Sub-Branch

1.

Korku

The Korku

are

geographically

isolated

from

other

Munda

groups,

being

found

mainly

in southwest

Madhya Pradesh,

some

500

miles

to

the

west;

they

are,

in

fact,

the

most

westerly


group.

They

are

said

to

have

become

isolated

in

this

way

by

the

same

nor?

thern

expansion

of

Dravidian-speaking

Kui,

Gond

and

Kurukh

that,

13



22/217

it is

claimed,

drove the

other Munda

tribes

eastward

and

northward

about

five

or

six

hundred

years

ago.8

But

despite

this

isolation their

language is still recognizably close to Kherwarian. Its roughly 200,000

speakers

live

in

the Mahadeo

and

Satpura

ranges,

in

the

districts

of

Berar,

Nimar, Betul,

Hoshangabad

and

Chhindwara;

there

are

also

some

in

Indore,

Dewas

and

Bhopal,

in

the

Vindhya

range;

in

Mandla,

in the

Maikal

Hills;

in

Sahore, Raisen,

Nargingpur,

Balaghat,

Durg

and

Raipur

districts,

Madhya

Pradesh;

and in the

Amravati,

Akola,

Wardha,

Yeotmal and

Chanda

districts

of

Maharashtra.9

Sahay

deri?

ves

the

ethnonym

from kodaku

'young

man';

more

probably

it consists

of kor

'man'

-

a

term

which has

cognates

in other

North

Munda lan?

guages

-

plus

the

plural

suffix

-te.10

Ali and

Fuchs

distinguish

two

endogamous

groups,

the

Raj

or

Deshi

(landowners)

and the

Potharia,

presumably

labourers

and/or

tenants.

There

are

also

four

'sub-castes',

named

Muasi,

Bawasi

or

Bawaraia,

Ruma

and

Baidoya

(also

Bondoya,

Bondhi,

Bhovadaya, Bhopa,

Bopchi);

these

are

territorial

groups

and

are

endogamous according

to

Fuchs

-

certainly

the Muasi

are

of

higher

status

than

the

Ruma.

They

are

found

respectively

in the

Mahadeo

and

Satpura

ranges;

in

Betul;

in

Amravati

and

Nimar

districts;

and

in the

Jaitgarh

area

of Wardha

district;

the

last-named number

only

a

few hundred.

According

to

Stampe, 'Muasi,

which

is

not

a

separate

language

or

dialect

but

merely

an

alias,

is

to

be included

in

Korku;

on

the

other

hand Koraku

[or

Kodaku],

also called

Korku,

spoken

in

district

Surguja

of

Madhya

Pradesh,

is

a

separate

language

apparently

akin

to

Korwa

[q.

v.

7].'

The

14,768

speakers

of

'Korku'

enumerated

for the

Surguja

district in the

1961

Census

are

in

reality

Kodaku.11

The

ethnography

on

the Korku in

English

consists of

Fuchs'

recent

monograph

(1988)

plus

some

articles and information in

general

books

(e.

g.

Chattopadhyay

1946,

Pandye

1962,

Ali

1973,

Fuchs

1966).

In

German,

Hermanns' three-volume

work

on

this

area

(1966)

has

a

long

section,

mainly

on

Korku

religious

ideas and ritual.

A

(ii)

Kherwarian

Sub-Branch

According

to

Santal

traditions,

Kherwarian is the

name

of the

peo?

ple

from which

most of the

Munda

tribes

stem.12

It

actually

refers

to

certain

North

Munda

origin

myths

in

which

a

kher

or

goose

plays

an

important

part.

It

occasionally

appears

as an

ethnonym

(e.

g.

in the

1961

Census,

where 647 'Kherwari'

are

enumerated, pp.

clxxx

ff.),

but

it does

not

clearly

designate

any

identifiable

group

and

should

not

be

used

as

such. There is

no

longer

a

Kherwarian

language,

but

the

name

is used

by

linguists

to

designate

the

proto-language

from which

all the

14



23/217

North

Munda

languages

apart

from

Korku

have

evolved,

as

well

as

the

sub-branch

formed

by

these

languages

(see

Figure

1).

Speaking

of this

sub-branch, Stampe says:

'their

degree

of

mutual

intelligibility.

. .

is

so

high

as

to

qualify

many

of

them

as

dialects,

rather

than

distinct

langu?

ages.'

This

excludes

Santali,

however,

which

is

not

mutually

intelligible

with

the

other

dialects,

though

it is

linked

to them

by

Karmali

and

Mahali

according

to

Leuva,

by

Asur

and

Turi

according

to

Grierson,

or

possibly

by

Birhor

(discussed

below,

6).13

2.

Santal

The Santal are by far the largest Munda tribe and one of the largest in

India:

only

the

Gond

and

the

Bhil

are more

numerous,

and

neither

of

these

seems

to

be

regarded,

or

to

regard

themselves,

as

quite

so

unified

as

the

Santal.

They

number about

four

million

and

thus

outnumber

all

the

remaining

Munda-speaking

groups

together

by

about

two

to

one.

They,

like other

Munda,

may

once

have

occupied

parts

of

the

Gangetic

plain,

having

been

pushed

into

Chotanagpur

subsequently

by

Hindu

ex?

pansion,

but

their

history

before

the

mid-eighteenth

century

is obscure.

Following

the famine of

1770,

which

decimated

the local

Hindu

popula?

tion, they moved

into

the Rajmahal

Hills

under

the double

impetus

of

overpopulation

in

Chotanagpur

and

East

India

Company

policy.

This

area was

eventually

to be

reserved

for

them

as

the

Santal

Parganas,

first

as a

part

of

Bengal

but

later

transferred

to

Bihar.

Between 1838

and 1851

its

population

rose

from

3,000

to

82,000,

and

today

some

85%

of

its

population

are

Santal

-

88%

if

the

closely

related

Mahali

and Karmali

are

included.

They

have

a

strong

tribal

identity,

marked

by

hostility

to

Hindus,

advancement

of the

Santali

language

and tradi?

tional

culture,

and

political

activity

through

the

Jharkhand

Party

for,

inter

alia,

a

specifically

tribal

province.14

According

to

tradition,

there

was a

taboo

on

crossing

to

the south

bank of the

river

Damodar

in

northern

Bankura,

but

today

Santal

are

found

throughout

this district

and in

Midnapore

and northern

Balasore.

Other concentrations

in and around

Chotanagpur

include

Birbhum,

Bhagalpur, Monghyr,

Hazaribagh

and Manbhum.

They

form

about

50%

of the

population

of

Mayurbhanj,

and

there

are

about

7,000

next

door in

Keonjhar.15

This

certainly

does

not

exhaust

their

distribution,

however.

According

to

Gautam

they

can

be

found

in

Bihar,

Bengal,

Orissa, Assam,

Meghalaya,

Tripura,

southeast

Nepal,

northwest

Bang?

ladesh and

southern

Bhutan,

and

yet

others

are

reported

in

Manipur

and

the

Andaman

Islands. This

expansion

seems

to

have

originated

with the second Santal

rebellion

of

1855-6,

whereafter

many

Santal

15



24/217

crossed

the

Ganges

into

northern

Bengal

and the

Assam

tea

estates.

Those in

Nepal

seem

to

have

crossed

into

Morang

in

the

late

1920s,

following

the abolition of

slavery there. These

are

clearly the

same as

the

semi-nomadic

Satar

mentioned

by

Bista;

the

eight

clan

names

he

cites

are

certainly

Santal,

as

is

majhi,

their

name

for

'headman',

and

he

also

says

that

their

language

is

unique

to

the

area,

though

he

gives

no

idea

of

its

affiliations.16

There

are

two

closely

related

variants of

standard

Santali,

spoken

respectively

in

the north

(Bhagalpur,

Monghyr,

Santal

Parganas,

Birb

hum,

Bankura,

Hazaribagh,

Manbhum)

and

south

(Midnapore,

Bala

sore)

of

the central

area.

There

are

two

further

dialects,

Mahali and

Karmali, each associated with

an

endogamous sub-tribe rather than any

particular

area.17

The

Mahali

seem

to

be

an

outcasted

group

of

San?

tali and

Mundari whose

traditional

occupations

as

palanquin-bearers,

basket-makers

and

drummers

are

regarded

as

degrading

by

the

San?

tal

proper;

they

are

themselves divided

into

at

least five

endogamous

sections.

Found

throughout

the central

Santal

area,

they

are

said

to

have

come

from

the west.

According

to

the 1901

Census

they

were

to

be

found

mainly

in

Chotanagpur,

Santal

Parganas

and

Orissa,

but

there

were

28,233

in West

Bengal

in

1961

and

47,247

in

1971.

In this

state

many speak Bengali,

but

Munda-speaking

Mahali

live

in

Jalpai

guri,

Midnapore,

24

Parganas,

Malda,

West

Dinajpur,

Burdwan

etc.,

and

formerly,

at

least,

Birbhum.

There

may

also be

some

in

Ranchi

and

Manbhum,

and the

name

also

appears

as

one

of

a

number of

al?

ternatives for

a

Mundari

sub-group

(q.v. 3).

Some barber

castes

in

Berar

(Madhya

Pradesh)

are

also called

Mahali,

but these

are

almost

certainly

a

separate

group

entirely.

Nor

are

they

to

be confused

with

the

Dravidian-speaking

Maler

or

Mai

Pahariya

of

Santal

Parganas.

The

name

is also that of

a

Birhor

clan.18

The

Karmali

are

traditionally

ironsmiths

and

are

found

in

Manbhum,

Hazaribagh

and

Santal

Parganas.

They

too

may

be

partly

Mundari

in

origin:

their

headmen,

for

instance,

are

known

by

the

Mundari word

munda,

not the

Santali

term

manjhi.19

Indeed,

it is

possible

that in

myth

or

in fact both

groups

originated

in

intermarriage

between

Santal

and

Mundari, contrary

to

the

normal

rule of

tribal

endogamy,

and

that

this

is the main

reason

for

their

separation. They

may

not

be

the

only

low

castes to

speak

a

Santali dialect

(see

Introduction,

e).

Many

Santal

speak Hindi,

Bengali

or

Oriya

in addition

to

Santali.20

Early

writers derived

Santal

from

'Samanta'

or

'Saont',

the

latter

being

the

name

of

a

village.

The

Santal

themselves

derive it from

another

toponym,

Silda

in

Midnapore

District,

where

they

were once

concentrated. Because

Hindus

use

it

for

them,

'they

show dislike of

16



25/217

the

term

"Santal"',

greatly

prefer

hor

hopon

or

'the

sons

of

man',

and

generally

call

themselves

hor

('man').21

However,

this

is shared

by other Munda groups, and 'Santal' is better established in the lite?

rature.

One

other

ethnonym

is

Manjhi,

a

word also

used

for

'village

headman'

(cf.

munda

as

used

by

the

Munda,

3 and

above).

Another

is

Kherwal,

a

reference

to

the

origin

myth

in

which

the

first

Santal

were

ha

a guide to austro asiatic languages

Documents