a guide to austro asiatic languages
TRANSCRIPT
-
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/ -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
2/217
Oceanic
Linguistics
Special
Publication
No.
23
A
Guide
to
Austroasiatic
Speakers
and Their Languages
Robert Parkin
University of Hawaii Press
Honolulu
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
-
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
Austroasiatic-speaking
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
Austroasiatic-speaking
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
Austroasiatic-speaking
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
5/21/2018 A Guide to Austro Asiatic Languages
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