A Guide To Austro Asiatic Languages

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oceanic Linguistics Special
Publications.
http://www.jstor.org
A Guide to Austroasiatic Speakers and Their Languages
Author(s): Robert Parkin
Source: 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, 135-198
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20006738
Accessed: 10-08-2014 20:01 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://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 content
in 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 support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 200.131.19.100 on Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:01:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publication No. 23
A Guide
to
Austroasiatic
Speakers
and Their
Languages
Robert Parkin
University
of Hawaii Press
Honolulu
? 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
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
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
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
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
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<3 Mon
J^8
below),
but the
situation is
undoubtedly
more
complicated,
and there are
equally
cases
(e.g.
Samre
53)
where Austroasiatic
populations
seek to hide their 'true'
identity
for reasons of
prestige
etc. The reader is therefore warned that
the classification of a
particular
ethnic
group
as
Austroasiatic-speaking
says
nothing necessarily
about the ethnic attitude of the
group
themsel?
ves,
nor of their
perception
of
any relationship
with other Austroasiatic
speakers.
The
great
bulk of the data
presented
here was
originally
collected
vin
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 (î),
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
hatched from two
eggs
of
a kherov
goose
(cf.
'Kherwarian',
above).22
In view of their
numbers,
the Santal have received a
great
deal
of
scholarly attention,
with
monographs by Biswas, Bouez,
Carrin
Bouez, Culshaw, Datta-Majumdar, Gausdal, Gautam, Kochar,
Muk
herjea, Orans, Somers,
and
Troisi,
and numerous
articles;
there
are
also
Bodding's
collections of folk tales etc. and his five-volume dictio?
nary,
which is more of an
encyclopaedia
and contains much
ethnogra?
phic
information.
Indeed,
so
great
has been the
ethnographic
attention
devoted to them that
they
have come to warrant their
own substantial
bibliography (Troisi 1976),
to which further reference should be made.
Sengupta
and the team of
Chakraborty
and Kundu have dealt with the
Mahali,
but the Karmali still await their
ethnographer.
Orans
(1955)
and
Banerjee
(1981)
have concentrated
on
Santal industrial workers.
Zide's research
group
have not
paid
much attention to their
language
except
in
comparative work, perhaps
because so much has been done
by
earlier writers
(especially
Bodding
and
Campbell).
3. Munda
The
present-day meanings
and
possible etymologies
of the word 'Munda'
have
already
been discussed. Even
among
the Munda themselves Indie
Munda is
beginning
to
replace
Mundari
Horo;
it is
pronounced
mura in
Manbhum.23
With
a
population
of
maybe 750,000,
the Munda are the second
largest
Munda tribe.
They
live
mostly
in
eastern,
southern and south?
western Ranchi
as well
as in
Singhbhum, Manbhum, Hazaribagh,
Pa
lamau and
parts
of northern Orissa and northern
Madhya
Pradesh.
Roy says
that 'it is
Azimgarh
that forms the
starting point
for their
historical
traditions',
and
many
hundred
years ago they
are
reputed
to
have been settled here and in
Ghazipur
and also further
south-west,
in
Rewa and Bundelkhand.
Subsequently they migrated, eventually
re?
aching Chotanagpur,
where
they
have remained. Since the
beginning
of the
eighteenth century they
have had to face
competition
for land
from the
Dravidian-speaking
Oraon
as
well
as
from Hindu
immigrants,
though today
the two tribes have much in common.
Many
Oraon aro?
und Ranchi have
adopted Mundari,
and some local low castes are also
17
Mundari
speakers.
Like the Santal the Munda have a
strong
tribal and
anti-Hindu
identity
and have
equally
been involved in rebellion
(espe?
cially
the Birsa Munda rebellion over
land and access to the forest in
1895-1900).
There are some
Christian Munda.24
According
to
Stampe,
Mundari has four dialects:
Hasada, spoken
in
the Khunti-Tamar-Chaibassa
triangle
in southern
Ranchi; Naguri,
spo?
ken in northern and western
Chotanagpur; Latar, spoken
in the
east,
in Tamar
Pargana,
and much influenced
by Bengali;
and
Keraq, spoken
in the Ranchi
area,
but much influenced
by
Hindi and Kurukh. Most
other authorities
give only
the first
two,
these
being
the
'purest'.
Ha?
sada, though leaning
towards
Ho,
has some
prestige
as
the
purest
of
all,
Naguri being
closer to Santali and more influenced
by
Hindi and
Sadani,
the
Indo-European-based lingua
franca of the
area,
which
many
Naguri
speakers
understand.25 The
Hasada-speaking
area
is 'the area
conside?
red, subjectively,
to be the
pure
Munda
country'.26
There are also two
endogamous divisions,
the
Kompat
or 'true'
Munda,
which also inclu?
des the
closely
related Ho
(4, below);
and the Tamaria or
Khangar (also
known as Mahali
Munda, Marang
Munda or Patar
Munda; Khangar
is
also the name of a
Birhor
clan).
The latter are the 'elder brothers' of
the former but inferior in
status; they
were
rejected
because the brother
from whom
they
are
mythically
descended
inadvertently
ate the um?
bilical cord
(i.e.
the
leavings)
of his
younger
brother.27 This
group
are
presumably
to be identified with the Latar dialect of Tamar
Pargana
(see above).
The name of Sarat Chandra
Roy
is
especially
associated with the
Munda,
the
subject
of his first
monograph (1912),
and there is also the
massive
Encyclopaedia
Mundarica of
Hoffman,
which should now at
last be
completely published.28
Later work includes
Choudhury's
1977
monograph
and two
lavishly produced
volumes
by Japanese
scholars
(Sugiyama
1969,
Yamada
1970).
Choudhury
is often out of
step
with
other writers on this
group
on
points
of detail.
Sugiyama's
book was
subjected
to a
scathing
review
by
Jordan-Horstmann
(1972a),
the main
burden of which
was that it did
nothing
to
supersede Roy's
work of
fifty
years
earlier. An East German
anthropologist, Icke-Schwalbe,
has
pro?
duced
a number of Marxist-oriented studies
comparing
the Munda with
their Oraon
neighbours
in terms of ethnic
identity,
social
organization
and
economy
(especially
1983b,
but also
1979, 1983a,
1988).
At least
two Munda have themselves
produced
work
(M. Topno 1955;
S.
Topno
1970),
and
Singh
has
published
on the Birsa Munda rebellion
(espe?
cially 1983). Hilary Standing
worked
among
the Munda in the 1970s
for a doctoral thesis and has one article on them
(1981),
both she and
Exem
(1982) having
worked
principally
on their
religion.
18
4.
Ho
There are over
400,000
Ho in
Singhbhum,
of which
roughly
half live in
Kolhan and the rest in the Seraikella and Dhalbhum
areas.
They
are
an offshoot of the Munda and
are
regarded
as 'little'
Munda,
and as
their
'younger
brothers'. Their
language
seems to have derived from the
Hasada dialect of Mundari and is
fairly homogenous throughout;
it is
with Mundari.
They
were
formerly
found further
north in
Chotanagpur
and
migrated
from there before the
appearance
of
the Oraon in the area towards AD 1700. In
migrating, they displaced
the
Bhumij
rulers of
Singhbhum; they
also rebelled
against
the British in
the
1830s,
their
militancy earning
them the name of Larka or
'fighting'
Kol. Ho is the
regular cognate
of Mundari horo and like it means 'man'.
The
pejorative alternative, Kol, is,
of
course, present
in 'Kolhan'. Some
Ho are
Christian.29
D.N.
Majumdar published
a number of articles and two
monographs
(1937
and
1950)
on the
Ho, though
the latter is
really
an
expanded
version of the former and
incorporates
much of its actual text. Earlier
there is
Chatterjee
and Das 1927 and later
Chattopadhyay
1964 and
Dhan
1961,
the last-named
being
herself a Ho. Bouez has devoted half
of his recent
monograph (1985)
to
them,
this
being
the best
analysis
of
their social structure so far.
5.
Bhumij
The
Bhumij
are a
disparate group
that has come under
varying degrees
of Hindu influence. Their name consists of the Sanskrit root bhumi
'land',
which
together
with
-aj
means 'one born of the soil'.
They
are
probably
to be
regarded
as distinct from the
Bhuiya
or
'children of
the
soil',
who at least in northern Orissa
speak
an
Indie
language
or
dialect.30
'Bhumij'
itself is so
widely applied,
to castes as well as to tri
bals,
that it must often refer to
groups
that have never been connected.
The most Hinduized have
long
lived in
Gangpur,
southern Manbhum
and
Dhalbhum, many being wealthy
and
claiming Kshatriya descent,
and most
speaking Bengali;
a lesser number are found in the northern
districts of Bihar.
Other, apparently
less Hinduized
Bhumij
are found
in
Orissa, specifically
in
Mayurbhanj
and around
Jeypore
in
Koraput,
in both of which areas
they speak Oriya.
Yet others occur in
Singhb?
hum,
Assam and West
Bengal, especially Midnapore
and
Hooghly,
and
in the
Surguja, Jashpur
and Korea districts of
Madhya
Pradesh. Ac?
cording
to
Elwin,
the
Chhattisgarhi-speaking Baiga
of
Madhya
Pradesh
may
be another offshoot.31
Thus
many
so-called
Bhumij speak only
Hindi or
Bengali
or
Oriya,
19
though
those in Bihar are
mostly bilingual, using Bhumij only
at home
and with fellow
tribespeople.
In
fact, only
about a third
actually speak
the Munda
language
that has been
given
that name.
They
are fo?
und
mainly
in northern
Orissa, Singhbhum
and
Purulia,
but not in
Manbhum,
where
they
all
speak only Bengali.32
In
1931,
Das stated
that
only slightly
over a third of all
Bhumij spoke
the
language
of that
name
(37.37%), mostly
in the
parts
of Bihar and Orissa mentioned
above. The Hinduized
Bhumij
hold themselves aloof in all
respects
from their lower status
neighbours,
and in Orissa there are said to be a
number of ranked and
endogamous
territorial and
occupational groups:
those in
Koraput,
for
instance,
are
divided between Bada and
Sano,
names also found
among
the Gadaba
(16). Many
of the lower-status
Bhumij
have been
campaigning
in recent
years
to have themselves le?
gally recognized
as a
tribe,
a trend
opposed
to the Sanskritization of
other
Bhumij.33
Because of this confusion
we cannot be
very
sure
exactly
how
many
Bhumij
there
really
are: the
101,000
of the 1951 Census had
grown
to
142,000 by
1961 and shrunk back to
51,000 by
1971. For a similar
reason,
it is not
always
clear whether
particular
items of literature deal
with tribal or more Hinduized
Bhumij,
but those dealt with
by Roy
(1935)
and Das
(1931)
seem to be
largely
the latter.
Roy's group
were
Oriya speakers
but Das's seem to have
spoken Bhumij, judging
from
their
kinship terminology (1931: Appendix II).
Ray Chowdhury (1929)
and Sahu
(1942, 1943)
seem to have dealt with more tribal
groups,
though
these are not
necessarily Bhumij speakers
and
Ray Chowdhury's
apparently spoke Oriya.
Sinha has
published
a number of works on
Bhumij
Sanskritization and acculturation
(1957, 1958b, 1962,
1966),
but there is no recent
ethnography.
6. Birhor
The Birhor
language
is close to Mundari but contains some
Santali
vocabulary,
a
fact which has led some writers to
regard
it as a dialect of
the
latter,
but
they
are
opposed by
others who
prefer
to
emphasize
the
link with Mundari.34
They
refer to themselves as the Mundas'
'younger
brothers', though
the latter
despise
them as
'scavengers'. Many
know
Sadani,
and in
Singhbhum
and Ranchi this is
rapidly replacing Birhori,
especially among
the
younger generation.
Their name means 'men
(hor)
of the forest
(bir)\
but in Orissa
they
are known as Mandiki or Mankar
Khia
Kot,
a reference to their
eating
of
monkeys.35
In
Bihar, they
are
found in southern
Hazaribagh,
southern
Palamau,
northern and northeast
Ranchi,
and
Singhbhum.
Those in the former
20
two
regions apparently
have
no contact with those in
Ranchi,
who alone
were dealt with
by Roy
in his
monograph
of 1925. There
are about 100
in
Purulia,
but no others in West
Bengal.
There is much
disparity
in census data.
Sen, following
the 1951
Census, says
that most in
Palamau and Ranchi
speak Birjhia,
an Asur dialect
(8, below),
and that
there were
only
37 Birhori
speakers, mostly
in
Hazaribagh. Stampe's
figure
of
600, apparently
based on the 1961 Census
figure
of
590,
must
refer
only
to those in
Singhbhum
and
Ranchi,
since this census
actually
gives
a
grand
total of
3346, including
1233 in
Hazaribagh
and
nearly
as
many
again
in the rest of
Chotanagpur, plus
some in
Madhya
Pradesh
and Orissa. Bouez
says
there are
only
1000 at most.36 No doubt their
nomadic habits make
any
assessment difficult.
Traditionally hunter-gatherers
and
rope-makers,
the Birhor are
pro?
bably
still nomadic in Orissa and
Madhya Pradesh,
where
they
are
known as Mankiria and Birhul
respectively,
but those in Bihar and
West
Bengal
are more
settled,
an
increasing
trend.
They
do not
appear
to have
any
endogamous
sections: the distinction
they
make between
Raonsa and
Magahia
seems to amount
merely
to a distinction in traditi?
ons of
geographical origins
and in the minutiae of ritual
observance,
and
it is not identifiable with the
other,
Uthlu-Thania
or nomadic-settled
dichotomy.37
Roy's monograph (1925)
is still the main contribution on this
group,
though
there have been numerous
articles, especially by
D.P. Sinha and
Chakraborty;
there is also the recent book
by Adhikary (1984).
They
have found their
way
into the
comparative
literature on
hunting-and
gathering groups
worldwide in work
by Vidyarthi (1960)
and Williams
(1968),
and
Martel,
a French
anthropologist,
has done work on them
more
recently
(1979).
Williams' article is
particularly insightful
and
thorough
on their social
organization, despite
its
brevity
and the fact
that he himself is a
physical anthropologist by training.
Their wan?
dering
habits and
'primitive'
way
of life have led some to
suggest
that
they represent
a stratum of the Indian
population
even older than other
Munda, having
at some time abandoned a
previous language
and be?
come Munda
speakers. However,
this is
very speculative: they
are not
the
only hunter-gatherers
-
a
way
of life
probably pursued by many
other Munda
groups
until
quite recently
-
and
they
do not
really
differ
markedly
in
any
cultural sense from other Munda.
7. Korwa
The Korwa seem to have been confined
originally
to
Hazaribagh
and
Palamau,
from where
they migrated
to
Surguja,
the
Jashpur
district
21
of
Raigarh,
and
Bilaspur
in 1911. From Palamau and
Surguja
some
moved to the Dudhi district of
Mirzapur
in Uttar
Pradesh,
and it
is
mainly
these who are dealt with
by
Bhandari
(1963)
and
Majum
dar
(1944).
The 1961 Census records
yet
others in Maharashtra. The
Kodaku
(alternatively
Koraku,
Korku)
are a
Korwa
sub-group
found
mostly
in
Surguja,
where
they
outnumber other
Korwa,
and in Palamau
and
neighbouring
areas;
they
should not be confused with the Korku
(i, above).
There is no
intermarriage
between the Kodaku and other
Korwa.38
Stampe says
that
Jashpur
has the main concentration of Korwa
speakers,
but he
gives
a
population figure
of
only 16,000.
Both this
and Leuva's
figure
of
17,000
Korwa
speakers
seem too low in view of
the
figure
of over
19,000
Korwa and Kodaku in
Surguja
alone
given
by
Rizbi and that of
21,000 Korwa, mostly
in
Palamau, given by
Vi
dyarthi, though
these
figures
may
include some Korwa who no
longer
speak
the Munda
language.
The 1971 Census
gives 18,717, mostly
in
Palamau,
and about
20,000 Kodaku, three-quarters
of them in
Surguja.
Although basically Kherwarian,
the Korwa
language
has some affinities
with
Kharia,
but it is
yielding
to Sadani and
Chhattisgarhi
and there
are now
few
monolingual
Korwa
speakers.
As far as the Kodaku are
concerned the men
speak
Hindi
and/or
Kurukh as well as
Kodaku,
but
the women
speak only
the
latter,
a familiar
enough
situation in multi?
lingual
contexts.39
The
popular etymology
derives their
ethnonym
from
kodwa,
a word
apparently referring
to their swidden
cultivation,
and said to be
prefe?
rable to
Korwa,
but more
likely
the first
element, kor-,
is a
cognate
of
Mundari, Santali, etc.,
hor
'man',
to which the Indie
nominalizing
suffix
-wa has been added.40 There is basic
division, involving endogamy
and
no
commensality,
between the
sedentary, plains-dwelling, agricultural
Dehari
(also
Dih,
Danr)
and the
nomadic, hill-dwelling, food-gathering
and
basket-making
Pahari or Benwari. In
Jashpur,
at
least,
there is
also a
linguistic
distinction: the Plains Korwa
speak
the Indic-based
lingua franca, Sadani,
the Hill Korwa a
Munda dialect called
Singli
or
Ernga locally,
but
presumably
the same as the Korwa of Zide etc. In
Palamau, however,
there
are seven
endogamous
Korwa
sections,
their
names
varying
from informant to informant. Sandhwar
gives
two such
lists:
Dhari, Sinduria,
Paharia or
Birjhia, Koraku, Agaria,
Kharia
or
Tisia,
and
Guywing;
and
Dhari, Sinduria, Paharia, Tisia, Birjhia,
Sin?
duria,
and
Mandiyar. Deogaonkar
lists the
Dih, Pahari, Agaria
and
Dand in
Madhya
Pradesh.41
Majumdar's early
work on the Korwa
(1930, 1932,
1944)
is
very
unsophisticated
and often
misleading,
but there are recent
monographs
22
by
Sandhwar
(1978)
and
Deogaonkar (1986).
Also to be noted are the
articles of Rizbi
(1977),
Bhandari
(1963)
and Srivastava and Verma
(1967). Singh (1977a, 1977b)
and
Singh
and Danda
(1986)
write on the
Kodaku,
who are
regarded
as a
separate
tribe
by
the latter.
8. Asur
Asur
speakers
live
mainly
on the Neterhat
plateau
in southern Pala?
mau and northern Ranchi and around
Gumla,
further south. These
also know
Sadani,
while other
Asur, mostly Agaria
in Rewa and other
north-eastern
parts
of
Madhya
Pradesh and in
Mirzapur,
Uttar Pra?
desh, speak
what Elwin calls 'a
corrupt
Hindi'. Those in the last
mentioned area are recent
immigrants.42
The Asur
are often claimed
to be the descendants of the Asura of the
Vedas,
hence the Sanskrit
etymologies 'powerful people'
and
'non-Aryan'
that have been offered.
The whole
question
is discussed
by Roy
and Leuva but there is
clearly
no established direct link.43
There a number of internal divisions.
Roy gives
the Soika
or
Aga?
ria,
who are almost
entirely ironsmelters;
the
Birjhia,
ironsmelters and
bamboo-workers;
and the
Jait,
Hinduized ironsmelters and
agricultu?
ralists. The name of the second of these is
glossed
as
'fish of the forest
[bir\
by Bhattacharyya.
Leuva confirms the first two but
gives
the Bir
('forest')
Asur as the
third,
whom it is hard to
equate
with the
Jait;
they
are nonetheless of
higher
status than the
Birjhia,
who are
also
known
as
Soenka
or
Agaria. Roy
mentions a
number of other
divisions,
but he does not indicate whether or not
they
are
endogamous.
Like
the Birhor the
Birjhia
and
Agaria
are divided into settled
(Thania)
and
nomadic
(Uthlu)
groups:
the Thania
Birjhia
are
divided
further,
into
consumers and non-consumers of beef
(Rarh
versus
Dudh)
and into
users and non-users of vermilion as a
mark of
marriage (Sindhuraha
versus
Telia).44
The
7,000
Asur were thus
traditionally ironsmelters, though they
have had to
give up
this
occupation
because
government
forest laws
prevent
them from
obtaining
the
necessary
charcoal.
They
are now
purely agriculturalists, except
that the
Birjhia
have taken
up
basket
making.
These
occupations
have made
many
Asur resemble low
castes,
the most Hinduized
being
around
Jobhipat.
There
are a
very
few Chri?
stian Asur.45
Jain
(1958)
and Leuva
(1963)
have
provided
the main studies of
the Asur
proper,
while
Bhattacharyya
(1953)
and Das
Gupta
(1978)
deal with the
Birjhia.
Elwin's
monograph
on
the
Agraria (1942)
deals
at least in
part
and
perhaps entirely
with Indie- rather than Munda
23
speaking groups.
Leuva's
group
are Munda
speakers,
even
though
the
kinship terminology
he records is
completely
Indie
lexically.
He
specu?
lates that
they
have
acquired
a Munda
language secondarily through
contact with the
Munda,
who are
important
customers.46
9. Turi
The word Turi refers to artisan
groups
in
many parts
of
India,
but the
1500 Munda
speakers
we are concerned with are found in Burdwan and
24
Parganas (West Bengal),
Palamau,
Ranchi and
Singhbhum (Bihar)
and
Raigarh
and
Chhattisgarh (Madhya Pradesh). They
have been
described as 'a Hinduized offshoot of the Munda' and are divided into
four 'sub-castes'.
They
have a traditional
occupation, basket-making,
though
some serve as
pahan
or
priests
in
many multi-caste,
multi-tribe
villages
in
Chotanagpur. They
have thus
acquired
some of the charac?
teristics of
a low caste
and,
with
it,
a lower status than the
Mundari,
Santal
or Kharia. Some
speak only
Sadani
or Hindi and these tend
to be classed
as
Dombo. In
talking
about their
origin, however, they
associate themselves with the Munda.47
Apart
from one
very
short ar?
ticle
(Rosner 1956)
and occasional
passing
references to them
elsewhere,
there are no studies on the Turi
or
their
language.
10. Kora or Koda
Numbering altogether 31,000
in the 1961
Census, only
about
1%
of the
Kora of West
Bengal (mostly
in Burdwan and
Bankura) actually speak
a
Munda
language.
The rest
speak Bengali,
while those in eastern Ran?
chi,
Manbhum and
Madhya
Pradesh are said to be
Kurukh-speaking
and
virtually
identical with the Oraon.
They
are not mentioned
by
Stampe
and are
mostly disregarded by
Zide
etc.,
but from the little
ethnography relating
to them
they
do not
appear
to differ
markedly
from other Munda tribes
(they
should not be confused with the Dravi?
dian tribe called Koda found in the
Nilgiri
Hills in Tamil
Nadu).
Their
name
may
refer to their traditional
occupation
of
digging
the
soil,
or
else it is
cognate
with hor etc. and thus means 'man'. In some
parts
they
are known as Kisan or
'cultivators', though
many
are said to be
nomadic. Datta
gives Mudi, perhaps
a
variant of
Munda,
as another
ethnonym.48 Apart
from one article
by
Ghosh
(1966),
there are
only
passing
references to them elsewhere.
24
B. South Munda Branch
B
(i)
Central Munda Sub-Branch
There are
just
two
languages
in this
sub-branch,
Kharia and
Juang.
To?
gether, they
are intermediate between Kherwarian and
Koraput Munda,
though
rather closer to the latter than the former
(see Figure 2).
11. Kharia
Fifty years ago, groups
called Kharia were to be found
mostly
in Cho?
tanagpur
and
adjoining regions,
but there
were others in Assam and
parts
of West
Bengal (where
they
had become
very
Hinduized),
in Sur?
guja,
as far west as
Chhindawara,
and as far south as
Kalahandi in
Orissa;
whether these were all Munda
speakers
or some
Indie
speakers
is not clear.
Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay give
the most
up-to-date
infor?
mation, saying they
are found in
Durg, Raipur, Raigarh, Bilaspur
and
Chhindwara
(Madhya Pradesh), Mayurbhanj, Sambhalpur
and Sund
argarh (Orissa),
Bankura and
Jalpaiguri (West Bengal)
and Chota?
nagpur, especially
in Santal
Parganas
but also in
Singhbhum (Bihar).
Most sources mention three main Kharia
sub-divisions,
the
Pahari,
Er
enga
or Hill Kharia
or
Kheria;
the Dhelki
Kharia;
and the Dudh Kharia.
Their
degree
of Hinduization increases
roughly
in that order. The Hill
Kharia
are
found
mainly
in the hills of
Mayurbhanj
and in
Singhbhum,
Dhalbhum, Manbhum,
Bankura and
Midnapore,
and the Dhelki
mainly
in
Jashpur,
northwest
Gangpur
and
Sundagarh;
'the Dudh Kharias far
outnumber the Dhelki Kharias and the Pahari Kharias
together'
and
are found
mainly
to their east and
south,
in southern
Ranchi, Gangpur
and western
Sambalpur (virtually
all the Kharia of Ranchi and
Gangpur
are Dudh
Kharia).49
The Dudh and Dhelki Kharia claim to have come
from
Rotasgarh,
the Dhelki
having migrated first,
whence their name
('Seng
Dhelki',
literally
'he who came
first').
In
myth, they
are
supposed
to have
separated
from the Dudh in Ranchi for
accepting
food from the Munda.
Dudhis from Indie
'milk', probably
a
reference to their
relatively greater
ceremonial
purity,
for the Dhelki eat
beef,
the Dudh do not.
Roy
and
Roy
assumed that the Hill Kharia had also
migrated
from
elsewhere,
though they
claim to be
indigenous
to
Mayurbhanj. However,
it seems
that the name
Kharia has come to be
applied
to a
number of
totally
separate groups.
The
indigenous
version tends to be confirmed
by
the
attitude of the Hill Kharia studied
by
Hari Mohan
(1961),
for
they
did
not
recognize
the other divisions set out
by Roy
and
Roy. Certainly
they
have no contact with the other two
groups
and differ from them
25
greatly
in culture.
They speak Oriya
or a
Bengali
dialect called Kharia
Thar,
and not the Munda
language
known as
Kharia.50
Roy
and
Roy
imply
that
they
once
spoke Kharia,
but this seems to
depend
too much
merely
on
the
name,
and we are
probably
safe in
regarding
them as
a
totally separate group.
The other two
groups
do
speak
Kharia
and,
what is
more,
recognize
each other as Kharia.
'Many
Dudh Kharias
agree
in
saying
that the Dhelki Kharias
are
known as "Bar or Barka
Kharias" and themselves
as the "Chhotka Kharias" because the former
are the descendants of the elder brother and the latter of the
younger
brother.'51
There are some
160,000 speakers
of the Kharia
language according
to
Stampe,
and over
190,000
were recorded in the 1971 Census. It is
spoken chiefly
in
Ranchi, Gangpur
and
Jashpur
and to a lesser extent
in
Madhya
Pradesh
(an
area
broadly coinciding
with the distribution of
the Dudh and Dhelki
Kharia).
Some also know
Oriya, Bengali,
Hindi or
Sadri
according
to area.52 The word Kharia
may conceivably
be derived
from
Khaidya,
which is an
ethnonym
used
by
the Hill Kharia
perhaps
meaning
'man'.
However,
it has also been connected with
Mundari,
Santali etc. hor
'man',
even
though
this root is absent from the Kharia
language
itself.53 Bhowmik
suggests
that it
may
be from Proto-Munda
*kher
'bird', through k(h)enter, perhaps
a
reference to an
origin myth
(cf.
the
Santal, 2, above)
or to the fact that some Kharia hunt birds
and sell their
meat, although
'bird' is konter in Kharia
today.54
Less
favoured is the derivation from khar-khar or
'palanquin'.
Kharia is also
recorded as an
endogamous
Korwa
sub-group,
a
Scheduled Caste in
Tripura,
and a Birhor
clan,
and in lower
Midnapore
it is a
vulgar
word
for Moslems.55 About half the Dudh Kharia and
a
lesser
proportion
of
the Dhelki Kharia are
Christian,
a
higher proportion
than in
any
other
Munda tribe.56
There are a
fair number of studies available on the
Kharia, especially
Chatterjee's early
short article
(1931),
the two-volume work of
Roy
and
Roy
(1937)
and the more recent
monograph
of
Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
(1980).
The latter
are dismissive of Das's
monograph (1931b),
which
was the result of
only
ten
days'
fieldwork
(with
the Hill
Kharia,
in
Singhbhum
and
Dhalbhum).57
However, they
are less critical than Hari
Mohan
(1961)
of the work of
Roy
and his son.
12.
Juang
The
Juang
are found in
Keonjhar,
Dhenkanal and Pal Lahera in Orissa
and number some
17,000. Keonjhar
is
supposed
to be their
original
home,
and traditional
Juang
culture is to be found
mainly there;
the
26
Juang
of Dhenkanal
are more Hinduized. Those in the former
area
are known as
thaniya
or
'original
dwellers'
(cf.
Birhor thania
'settled'),
those elsewhere
being bhagudiya
or 'those who have
fled';
there is no
intermarriage
or
commensality
between the two
groups,
for the latter
consider themselves
superior. They
nonetheless share
Keonjhar
with
the
Oriya-speaking
but otherwise
quite
similar Hill
Bhuiya,
who have
the northwest
part
of the
district,
the
Juang being
to their south. These
are both
hilly areas,
the
plains
to the east
being occupied by Oriya.
It is
the northern
part
of the
Juang
area that is the oldest
area of settlement
and which was dealt with
by McDougal
in his thesis
(1963a).
They
consider their
place
of
origin
to be the
village
of
Gonasika, literally
'nostrils of the
bull',
a reference to the
Juang origin myth.58
Etymologically Juang simply
means
'man',
but the word is now
only
the
ethnonym, Oriya
loans
being
used for 'man'
(vir).
The
Oriya
name
for the
Juang
is Patua or
'leaf,
their traditional dress
consisting
of
little else
apart
from
ornaments,
and
they
are also known as Patua
Savara,
a name which is liable to lead to confusion with the Sora
(13,
below).59
Some
Juang
in Pal Lahera
are
basket-makers; possibly
these
and
certainly
other
Juang
in Dhenkanal show
signs
of
wishing
to convert
themselves into a caste
with,
for
example,
restrictions on
divorce,
but
most
Juang
are
clearly
tribals. There are
apparently
no
monolingual
Juang,
the tribal
language being spoken
at home and
generally amongst
themselves,
while
Oriya
is used in
schools, markets,
with officials etc.
Two
Juang
dialects can be
identified,
that of
Keonjhar-Pal
Lahera and
that of Dhenkanal.60
There is a traditional connection with the
neighbouring
Hill
Bhuiya,
the
Juang being
their
'younger brothers',
but no
commensality
or in?
termarriage,
since the
Bhuiya regard
them as inferior and untouchable
and are also
locally
dominant. The link is
expressed
in
myths
in which
the two
groups
are descended either from two
brothers,
one of whom
ate beef and thereafter became a
Juang,
or else from two
sisters,
one
of whom took to
wearing leaves,
thus
becoming
a
Juang. Especially
in
Keonjhar, they
are a
very
inward-looking group
and have little contact
with the
Oriya
and other local
groups,
but even
they regard
the Dombo
and
Pano,
local low
castes,
as
inferior.61
The
Juang
are
comparatively
well served in the
literature,
the main
work
consisting
of
McDougal's
excellent thesis
(1963a)
and articles
(es?
pecially 1964;
also
1963b)
and Elwin's 'Notes'
(1948),
which are
long
enough
for a short book.
However,
the latter differ
quite drastically
from
McDougal's
work on the same area
(Keonjhar),
and Elwin found
his
group very
difficult to work with. Earlier work was done
by
Bose
(1928, 1929),
and more recent work
by
Patnaik
(1964)
and Rout
(1962,
27
1969-70), McDougal's
field assistant. Parkin 1990 uses
Juang
material
in a
comparative
article on
kinship
in
general
in India.
B
(ii)
Koraput
Munda Sub-Branch
(a)
North
Koraput
13. Sora
Sora is
preferred by
Zide's
group
as
the
spelling
of the
ethnonym,
which
also
appears
as
Saora, Sabara,
Savara
(the
V
being
'a
Telegu
intrusion'
according
to
Yeatts):
Elwin
gives
a
complete
list of variants.62 Some
authorities think that
they may
once have been one of the most
impor?
tant and
powerful
tribes in northeast India. In about AD 500
a tribe
called Savara is said to have overthrown and
expelled
the
Cheros,
then
in control of
Bihar,
and
presumably
to have
replaced
them
as the local
rulers.63
However,
the word is used
very loosely
and over a
wide
area,
being
another of those
misleading general designations
for a number
of different
groups
which we
have
already
encountered and which need
to be used with care.
Today, groups
of this or a
very
similar name
are to be found in
Singhbhum, Ranchi, Hazaribagh,
Bundelkhand and
northern
Madhya
Pradesh. The
Malto-speaking
Mai
Pahariya
or M??
her of the
Rajmahal
Hills call themselves
Sauria,
but as
they speak
a
Dravidian
language they
are not to be included here. The Lodhas of
Midnapore
claim descent from a branch of the ancient
Savaras,
while
yet
others of the name occur in Manbhum and
Raipur,
and some
Juang
(12)
are known as 'Patua
(Leaf)
Savara'.
According
to Mazumdar the
Savaras'
original
homes were in Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh,
but this must be based on the confusion of names rather than on
any
hard evidence.64
In
fact,
none of these
groups
are of relevance to the
present
book.
The Sora with whom
we are
concerned
are to be found further
south,
in
the
Pottasingi
taluk of eastern
Koraput
and the
Serango
and
Ramagiri
Udayagiri
taluks of southwest
Ganjam,
where there are over
200,000
speakers
of the tribal
language.
There are also some near Tekkali in
northern Andhra
Pradesh,
but most of those further south now
speak
Telugu.
Those of the former
group
who live
on
the
plains
have
generally
become
more
Hinduized than the
'pure'
Sora of the
hills,
some to the
extent of
adopting Oriya
as their mother
tongue. They
tend to be
bilingual,
unlike those in the hills
(except
to some extent the
younger
generation).65
The most
typical
Hill
Sora,
called Patua or 'leaf Sora
by Hindus,
are
28
found around Gumma and
Serango
in
Ganjam
and around
Pottasingi
in
Koraput.66
Elwin and
Sitapati
mention three social
strata, gamang,
buyya
and
parja,
the first two
being
of
equal
status and
intermarrying,
the third
being
inferior and
only
able to
give,
not
receive,
women from
the other two. The
very
name
parja clearly
indicates
dependence.
Ga?
mang
means
literally 'great
man' and is thus also used for 'headman'.67
There are also a number of named Sora
sub-groups,
some
occupational,
some
denoting
Plains rather than Hill Sora. The Hill Sora
are
predo?
minantly
called Lamba
Lanjhia by
the
Oriya
and are divided
by
Elwin
into Jati
('real';
from
jat 'caste'),
Arsi
('monkey', though
the connec?
tion in this context is
obscure)
and Jedu
(Sora
for 'wild'
according
to
Elwin).
Vitebsky, however, regards
these and the names of the Plains
Sora
(see below)
as characterizations 'used for
pride
or abuse' rather
than as classes. In
addition,
there are some
minority
and
Sora-speaking
'occupational' groups
whose
occupations, though
without economic va?
lue
today,
are referred to in some rituals. There is a
tendency
for these
groups
to be
endogamous,
but
except
for
buyya (priestly)
families the
rule is not a strict one. The
Kampu
Sora
are
Telugu speakers
of the
plains;
the Sudda
or
Sarda,
Based
(=
'salt',
i.e.
coastal)
and Bimma
Sora
are
Plains Sora
rapidly becoming assimilated, though
some still
spoke
Sora
thirty years ago. Subbarayan
associates the name
Kapu
(=
Kampu?)
with Sora
ryot
or
tenants.68
The earliest work in the
present century
on the Sora was carried
out
by
S.N.
Roy
(1927)
and
Sitapati
(see references),
son of
Ramamurti,
whose
grammar
and
dictionary (1931, 1938)
were
published
in the same
period.
Elwin's massive
monograph (1955),
chiefly
on
religion,
was
the
subject
of two review
articles,
one
by
Dumont
(1959),
the other
by
the Africanist Victor Turner
(1967),
which is
largely guesswork, owing
to the
gaps
left
by
Elwin.
Subsequent publications
include Chaussin's
1978 article
(she
has
apparently
since left the
field).
Piers
Vitebsky
has
done fieldwork with the
group
in recent
years
and has
published
some
articles
(1980, forthcoming),
and his thesis
(1982)
is to be
published
as
a book. Two other doctoral theses
appeared
on the Sora in the
1970s,
one in France
(Petit 1974),
the other in India
(Suryanarayana 1977).
14-
Gorum
The
Gorum,
whose
language
is
closely
related to
Sora,
number 'less than
10,000' according
to
Stampe (the
1961 Census
gives only
767
speakers
and
they
are not mentioned at all in the 1971
Census). They
are found
chiefly
in the
Nandapur
and
Pottangi
taluks in
Koraput,
but like the
Gataq,
Remo etc.
they
are
often classed
locally
as
Poroja.
The
language
29
may
also be
spoken
in
Vizagapatnam,
but at least some know
Oriya.
They
are called
Parenga by
the
Oriya,
a
designation
which has entered
the academic
literature, though
in
reality
it
may
be one of two
endoga?
mous sections
-
the other
being
Kholei
-
into which
they
are
divided;
it
is sometimes used also of the
non-Munda-speaking Poya
Gadaba of the
Salur area.69
They
are also called Gadaba
colloquially,
a
usage
which
entered the
Linguistic Survey of India,
but these are in
reality
distinct
(see
16,
below).70
The
only ethnography
consists of a
handful of articles
(Satpathy
1963-4b, Choudhury 1963-4, Pattanayak
1968).
15.
Juray
A.R.K. Zide identifies
Juray
as a
sister
language
of Sora and
Gorum,
apparently spoken
in
Koraput.71 Nothing
is known about those who
speak it,
for there is
absolutely
no
ethnography.
(b)
South
Koraput
16. Gadaba
The Gadaba live in
Kalahandi, Koraput, Vizagapatnam
and Bastar.
They
should not be confused with the
Dravidian-speaking
Ollar of the
same
area,
who were
frequently
called Gadaba
or Gadba in the older li?
terature until
Bhattacharya pointed
out the difference in the 1950s. The
problem
was not that the Ollar had not
previously
been
recognized
as
Dravidian,
but that the information had been obscured from scholars?
hip
for
years
through having
been buried in census
reports
and official
gazetteers. Moreover,
the fact that the Gadaba themselves do not use
their own
ethnonym
to refer to the Ollar
suggests
that the use of the
term 'Gadba' to refer to the latter in the earlier literature was
wrong.72
However,
there are
many
other
sub-groups,
and it is not
always
clear
which
speaks
which
language.
The Moro Gadaba are Munda
speakers,
their name
being
the Gutob
equivalent
of Desia
Boro,
also
Bodo, Bada,
by
which
they
are also known. Pace
Subbarayan,
both roots mean
simply 'big'; they
are not to be confused with the Bondo or Remo
(q.v. 17)
P The Sano or 'little'
Gadaba, by contrast,
are
Ollar
speakers
or,
around
Jeypore, Oriya speakers. According
to one source
they
are
known as
Parenga Gadaba, although 'Parenga'
is the
Oriya
for a com?
pletely separate
tribe
(14)-
Both
groups appear
to be
endogamous.74
Another
group
are the Kathera or
Mudli of Andhra
Pradesh,
Munda
speakers,
but with
Telugu
as a second
language;
Kathera is
Telugu
for
'scissors',
used for the ceremonial
hair-cutting
at
marriage. They may
or
may
not be the same as the Katuria mentioned
by
S.N.
Roy
as a
30
division of the Plains Sora. Like the Bodo
they
claim a
higher
status
than other Gadaba and
are also
endogamous.75
Less is known about the
affiliations of
groups
called
Kaleyi (but
cf. the
Kholei,
a
sub-group
of
the
Gorum, q.v.
14)
or
Katini
or
Kapu (but
cf. the
Sora,
13),
the latter
perhaps meaning 'plainsmen'. However,
in Andhra Pradesh both the
Kapu
and the Kathera 'claim to be Bodos and Ollaros
migrated
from
the
hills',
so
presumably they
consist of both Dravidian and Munda
speakers;
and since the Kathera
speak Munda,
the
Kapu
may
well be
Ollar. Also to be excluded
are the
Poya
Gadaba of the Salur
area,
who
speak
Ollar.76 The
designation
Gadaba is
clearly
a wide and indiscri?
minate one. In addition to the Ollar and Gadaba
proper,
Zide writes of
'distinct Munda and
Indo-Aryan groups
of
Koraput
who have
been,
or
still
are,
so
called',
and he remarks that the 'Gadaba' of
Vizagapatnam
mentioned in the
Linguistic Survey of
India are
in
reality
Gorum
(14,
above).77
F?rer-Haimendorf
says
that the Boro Gadaba call the Remo
(17, below)
the San
or 'little'
Gadaba, though
these
are a Dravidian
group according
to other authorities
(see above).
His confusion
may
be
because the Gadaba
regard
both
groups
as
well
as the Gorum
(14)
as
their
'younger
brothers'.78
Thus the
47,000
or so
speakers
of the Munda
language,
called
Gutob,
seem to consist
chiefly
of the Bodo and Kathera
Gadaba, though Stampe
admits that even this
figure
may
include some
Ollar.
They
are found in
the
Nandapur, Semiliguda,
Machkund and
Pottangi
taluks of
Koraput
and in Andhra Pradesh. As well as
Gutob,
all Gadaba also know
Desia,
the
Oriya
dialect of southern
Koraput
district and the name the tribes
of
Koraput give
to themselves and to the Dombo and other local low
castes that have dwelt in the area for a
long
time
(this
dialect is used
between different ethnic
groups
in the
area).
The Munda
language
is
closely
related to that of the Remo
(q.v. 17).
There are several
etymologies
for Gadaba in the literature:
Telugu
etc.
gedda, gadda,
or
Oriya gad
'river'
plus -ba,
-va
'belonging to';
Ta?
mil
kadava,
from kadu 'ear'
(because
of their
large earrings);
Sanskrit
kadvada
'speaking indistinctly',
also
'vile, contemptible';
or
Sanskrit
gatvara 'palanquin-bearer',
their traditional
occupation.80 According
to
Sahu
they
call themselves
Kadami, according
to Burrow and Bhattach
arya Gutob, though
the latter is
strictly
the name of the
language
and
has been found to mean
nothing
to them as an
ethnonym.
The river
Godavari
plays
a
part
in their account of their
origins,
to the effect that
they
should not
go
there for fear of
dying,
but it is not clear whether
in fact their name
derives from it.81
The little
ethnography
on
them is scattered in articles old and re?
cent,
much of it
by
Indian
anthropologists, though
F?rer-Haimendorf
31
(1943b,
1945b,
1950),
Izikowitz
(n.d. )
and Pfeffer
(especially
1984, ms,
but also his
general writings)
have all worked and
published
on them.
The article of Thusu and Jha
(1972)
concerns
Ollar
speakers.
It is un?
clear which
groups
are covered
by
Subba Rao
(1965)
or
Somasundarum
(1949).
17. Remo
The Remo live
chiefly
in the
Jeypore
Hills in
Koraput,
west of the
Machkund river in southern Mathili and northeast
Malkangiri taluks,
centred on the
village
of
Mundlipada.
Others further east are more
under Gadaba
influence, though
this does not
prevent intermarriage.
A third
group
live in the
plains,
but are more
Hinduized than either
of the others and
intermarry
with them
increasingly rarely.
There are
about
2,500 speakers
of
Remo,
a
language
that has borrowed
heavily
from Gutob in
vocabulary
but is
typologically
closer to
Gataq.
Most
also know
Oriya,
and there are few
monoglots.82
Remo is the
ethnonym,
Bonda
being Oriya.
The former means 'man'
not
only
in Remo
itself,
but also in Gutob
(remol)
and
Gataq.
Other
designations
include
Bondo,
Bondo
Poroja
and
Nanga Poroja. Despite
the
popularization
of the
pronunciation
'Bondo'
through
Elwin's
mo?
nograph (1950),
Bonda is a more accurate
transcription.83
Elwin's
study
is still the chief
work,
one
which reflects his
parallel
interest in
psychology;
its data on social
organization
should be read
in
conjunction
with Fernandez's later
critique
(1969).
There are also
relevant articles
by
F?rer-Haimendorf
(1943a, 1943b)
and G.N. Das
(1956).
18/19. Gataq
The
Gataq
live between the Remo to their north and the Dravidian
speaking
Reddi to their
south,
i.e. in the hill
country
on
either side of
the Sileru
river,
towards
Malkangiri, along
about
twenty
miles of the
Machkund river between the Duduma Falls and the
Kondakamberu,
and in East Godavari
district,
Andhra Pradesh. Like
many
other
groups
in the area
they
are known
locally
as
Poroja
or
'subject'.
The
Oriya
call them
Dideyi
(also
Didei,
Dire),
but their
ethnonym
is
Gataq,
the
regular cognate
of Gutob.84
They
are also said to call themselves Gntare
(really Gutare?)
or
'people'.85
There are
today 2-3,000 speakers
of
Gataq,
but most also
speak
Oriya.
It is
possible
that there are in fact two
Gataq languages (hence
the double number for this
group), namely
Riverside-Hill
Gataq
and
Plains
Gataq,
which are as different from each other as
Gutob and
32
Remo.
They
form a
pair
in
opposition
to
Gutob-Remo,
the two
pairs
themselves
being
co-ordinate within South
Koraput (see Figure 2).
Vir?
tually nothing
was available on the
Gataq
until the
appearance
of
a
monograph
in 1970
by
Guha et al. F?rer-Haimendorf
seems to
regard
them as in some sense
'pre-Munda',
but as with the Birhor
(6),
this
must remain
conjecture.86
C. Nihal Branch
20. Nihal
Groups
called Nihal are
found
on
the borders of Maharashtra and sout?
hwestern
Madhya Pradesh, especially
in the
Kandesh, Nimar, Buldana,
Berar and Amravati
districts,
and
according
to Fuchs even as far
away
as the north-western
parts
of
Madhya
Pradesh.
'Symbiosis'
is a fa?
vourite word used to describe their
relationship
with the Korku
(1),
with whom
they
live and work
closely, though
in a
position
of subor?
dination. Hermanns lists a number of
sub-groups
named after areas
(Nahar,
Tow?, Bhilapur,
Taor and
Nimari)
who
can all
intermarry
and
interdine.
Conversely,
de Candolle divides them into three
endogamous
sections
(Balahi
Nihal,
Pahari or
Dukhia Nihal and
Rhagwansi Nihal,
in order of
increasing status), though many
seek to
pass
as
Korku.
They
claim
originally
to have been one
group
with the
latter, having
been outcasted because
they
do not
preserve
Hindu food taboos like
the Korku. The Korku
deny this, however,
and
say
that the Nihal have
always
been
separate
from and inferior to them.
They accordingly
re?
quire
them to
stay
in
separate hamlets,
outside Korku
villages,
under
their own
jat patel
or caste
headmen; they rarely
become
village
head?
men
themselves,
because of their low status. There is little
interdining
or
intermarriage
with the
Korku, though
unmarried Korku
may
take
cooked food from a Nihal. There is also
reported
to be some mar?
riage
between Korku men and Nihal women
in
Melghat,
which leads to
outcasting today, though
in the
past
the children of such unions were
admitted as Korku.
This,
in
fact,
has been one mechanism of the assi?
milation of Nihal to Korku and of the former's
consequent
decline. The
other local
groups
rank the Nihal below the
Bhilala,
Bhil and Korku in
the local caste
hierarchy
and above the
Balahi, though they
themsel?
ves
regard
the Bhil as well as the Balahi as
their inferiors.
Depending
on
area,
they
have
a
number of caste-like
occupations,
as
herdsmen,
field and
village watchmen,
woodcutters or
farm
labourers, only
occa?
sionally being
farmers or
landowners in their
right; they
also hunt and
fish.
They
were
often
employed
as soldiers
by
local rulers in the
past,
33
and some
apparently
continue the criminal activities which made them
notorious in these times. In the west
they
have a
reputation
as
'gifted
magicians'.
It
may
have been their
criminality
that led to their mas?
sacre
by
Sindia's soldiers
early
in the nineteenth
century,
and it is
only
since then that
they
have been in a
position
of subordination to the
Korku,
for whom a number are
village
watchmen and whose
language
has
strongly
influenced their own.87
Nihal,
also
Nahal, occasionally
Nehal in earlier
works,
is the stan?
dard
designation
in the
literature;
the word
may
be connected with
nahar
('tiger, lion') according
to Fuchs. Zide and his
colleages appear
to
prefer
the first
spelling.
The Nahal call themselves Kalto.88 Com?
paratively
few of those classed as Nihal
actually speak
the
language
of
that
name,
only
1196
being
cited in the 1951 Census and 1167 in the
1961 Census
(689
in Maharashtra and 478 in
Madhya Pradesh; Stampe
says
less than
2,000).
The rest use either Marathi or the Nimari dialect
of Hindi or Korku instead.
According
to
Stampe:
'All Nihals
except
children
are
bilingual
in at least one of these
neighbor languages,
and
it is
possible
to
classify
Nihali dialects in terms of
Hindi, Marathi,
or
Korku
mixture', though
'there is no
tendency
to
lay
aside Nihali in fa?
vor of the
neighbor languages', presumably
because of its value as an
argot,
whatever its
origin.
He adds that Nihali
speakers
are found in
Bulduna
district, Maharashtra,
and East Nimar
district, Madhya
Pra?
desh. A
slightly
earlier source indicated
speakers
further
west,
between
Sandwa, Khargon
and
Bikangaon (Madhya Pradesh), though
there is
now some doubt over this: in
a
footnote
Stampe
states that his
data,
which came from Aasha
Mundlay,
the most recent researcher
among
the
Nihal,
should
supersede
all
previous
statements on
their location.
The
'purest'
Nihali is said to be that of Teli
village,
25 miles
(40 km)
east of
Burhanpur
and
just
northwest of the
Gawilgarh
Hills.89
The difficulties
surrounding
the classification of Nihal have
yet
to be
resolved, especially
since 'earlier
investigators attempting
to learn the
language
were,
apparently, deliberately
rebuffed or misled'.
According
to
Kuiper,
between
sixty
and
seventy per
cent of its
vocabulary
has been
borrowed,
36%
from
Korku,
9%
from Kurukh and other
Dravidian,
and
about
25%
from
Indie, mostly
Marathi and the Nimari dialect of Hindi.
However,
'about
24%
of the Nahali
vocabulary
has no
correspondence
whatever in India.' Pinnow has
suggested
that
although
this element
may
not be Munda it
may
be
Austroasiatic,
while
Mundlay,
who has
done
linguistic
fieldwork with this
group,
does seem to
regard
their
language
as
Munda, though only remotely
connected. Zide is much
more doubtful of its Munda status. He has advanced the alternative
view that this isolated
body
of
vocabulary
is
simply
a
thieves'
argot
-
34
plausible,
in view of the Nihals'
reputation
for
robbery
and
dacoity
-
and whatever its
origin
does
eventually prove
to
be,
the
language
does
indeed seem to
play
such
a
role.90
The fact that Nihali has been embraced
by
Munda
linguistic
scho?
larship
has been felt sufficient to
justify
its inclusion here. Most of the
work so far has been on the
language (see
Zide
1969;
also
Kuiper 1962,
1966),
but there is one
general ethnographic
survey
(de
Candolle
1960)
and some remarks in Fuchs 1988. The
present
author's The Sons
of
Man
(Parkin forthcoming-a)
has an
Appendix reviewing
the literature
on their
kinship.
35
II: NICOBARESE SUB-FAMILY
21-27. Nicobarese
The Nicobar Islands are found in the south Andaman
Sea,
between the
Andaman Islands and Sumatra.
They
were
already
inhabited when vi?
sited
by
a
Chinese traveller to the area in AD
607.x Their inhabitants
are
most
likely
to have
originated
on the
Pegu-Tenasserim
coast of
Burma,
homeland of the Mon
(48).
The Car Nicobarese have a
tradition of
having
fled a violent rebellion in
Tenasserim,
and Hut ton writes of 'a
long-standing
association with Moulmein in Burma which taken with
the Nicobarese
language
may argue
a
Talaing
[i.e. Mon]
connection'.2
Since
then, probably
no other Austroasiatic
group
has been so
isolated,
nor for so
long,
as
the Nicobarese. Contacts with outsiders were sever?
ely
restricted until the mid-nineteenth
century
to occasional alien visits
in the interests of commerce or
curiosity.
The Nicobarese are
entirely
different
racially, linguistically
and
culturally
from the inhabitants of
the Andaman Islands
immediately
to their north.
Today,
twelve of the islands are
inhabited,
as
shown in Table 2. The
islands can be
grouped by language,
indicated
by
the numerals in the
first column
(the
Nicobarese
sub-family
has not as
yet
been divided
by linguists
into
separate
branches).
The total includes all the inhabi?
tants of the
islands,
not
just
the Nicobarese
speakers,
of whom there
were in total
17,971
in
1971;
the rest are
immigrants
from the Indian
mainland,
which the Census does not
distinguish
on an
island-to-island
basis. Older writers
grouped languages 24,
25 and 26
together
as
Cen?
tral
Nicobar,
but
although
it is admitted that
they
are
closely related,
this
grouping
is no
longer generally accepted. Language
27 is conven?
tionally
called South Nicobarese. The other
languages
are
generally
named after the island or
pair
of islands
(Teressa-Bompoka,
Trinket
Katchall)
on which
they
are
spoken.
In
fact, early
authors tended to
see all seven
languages
as
merely
dialects of one
language,
but
today
they
are
regarded
as
virtually mutually unintelligible,
and
according
to
convention, therefore,
as
separate
languages.3
The Car
language,
which
nowadays
has a
Roman
script,
has
long
been favoured
by
modern administrations
as the standard dialect and
37
Language
Island
Population
(1971 Census)
21 Car Nicobar
13,504
22 Chowra
1,329
23 Teressa 780
Bompoka
59
24
Nancowry
656
25 Camorta
1,358
26 Trinket 150
Katchall
1,913
27 Pulo Milo 80
Kondul 127
Little Nicobar 198
Great Nicobar
1,511
Total
21,665
Table 2. The Nicobar Islands:
Population
and
Language
is thus
a
lingua
franca for the whole
archipelago.
The choice was an
obvious
one,
since Car has
always
had between two-thirds and three
quarters
of the
population
of the
islands,
at least since censuses
began
about 100
years ago,
and in modern times it has been the
headquarters
of the administration and in most contact with the outside
world;
but
linguistically,
it is Car that shows the
greatest degree
of
development
away
from the rest of the
group.
There are
also minor variations in
village
dialects on
Car,
that of the most
south-westerly village, Kimios,
being
closer
lexically
to Chowra.
Many
male
Nicobarese,
but few fe?
males,
know the
neighbouring
Nicobarese
languages.
Some Nicobarese
on all islands know
Malay,
Hindi or
English and, especially
on
Car,
Burmese.4
While Car is the least conservative of the islands and has the bulk
of the Nicobarese
population,
it is Chowra that has the
greatest popu?
lation
density.
This is said to be the most conservative
island,
in the
sense that it has
preserved
traditional Nicobarese culture best. It is
well known for its
monopoly
in the
making
of
pottery
and in the
provi?
sion of
priests
and shamans for the islands
generally,
both
monopolies
being enforced,
in the words of one
early authority, by
'an
exaggerated
reputation
for
magic'.
In
fact,
so
strong
is this ritual
power
that the
Chowrans
are able to maintain their
monopoly
in the manufacture of
pottery despite
the absence from their island of suitable
clay,
which
they
obtain from Teressa.5 The Chowrans and the inhabitants of Nan
cowry, Camorta,
Trinket and Katchall all call themselves Pai or
Paiyuh,
'man',
while the Great Nicobarese refer to themselves as Bo. The
peo
38
pie
of Car call themselves Tarik or
'man'; they
are called Soman-lo
by
the Chowrans and Pu
by
the
Nancowrans,
the latter
apparently being
the native term for the island of Car itself.6
Nicobarese
ethnography
contains the earliest account of
any
Aus?
troasiatic
people (Hamilton 1791).
Even the standard
monographs
are
now
quite
old
(Kloss
1903, Temple 1901, 1909,
Whitehead
1924;
Man
1932, originally published
in the
1880s),
but more
recently
there have
been books
by
Lai
on
Great Nicobar
(1977)
and
Syamchaudhuri
on
Car
Nicobar
(1977).
There are also articles
(e.
g. by Chanda,
Mann),
and
most of the relevant
census
reports
also contain some
ethnographic
in?
formation. The article
by Mylius (1962)
should be consulted for further
bibliographic
information
concerning
the islands.
28.
Shompen
Great
Nicobar,
the
largest
island but the one with the lowest
popula?
tion
density,
has in fact two
quite separate
ethnic
groups.
One is the
Great Nicobarese
themselves,
found on the northern and western coasts
and
undoubtedly
a
part
of the Nicobarese
group
both
linguistically
and
culturally.
The other is the
Shompen,
found in the interior and
along
the southern and eastern coasts.
They
are a
very
obscure
group
who
until about
thirty years ago
were known even to the Great Nicobarese
only
as elusive raiders of their settlements.7 Some writers
convey
the
impression
that the
language
of the latter is a
member of the Nicobarese
group
and that
they
are also related in other
ways,
but most authori?
ties, especially
those
writing
more
recently, agree
that
they
are
entirely
distinct in
language,
culture and
physical appearance.8
This is
empha?
sized
by
their
being
the
only indigenous group
in the islands not to use
Chowra
cooking pots.9 Apart
from a
passing suggestion by Chengapa,
there is
agreement
that
they possess
no
'Negrito' characteristics,10
and
they
are
obviously
not at all related to the Andamanese. On the slen?
der evidence
we
currently possess they
cannot
certainly
be
regarded
as a
Nicobarese-speaking group, though
their
language
may eventually
prove
to be Austroasiatic. Thus
they
are
placed here, provisionally,
on little more than
geographical grounds.11
Their
population
was as?
sessed at about 300 in the earlier Census
Reports (1901,
1911,
1921),
the most recent estimate
being
90.12 See
especially
the 1931 Census
(Vol. II)
and 1951 Census
(Vol. XVII), plus
the more recent work of
Upadhyay
(e.g. 1981).
39
Ill: ASLIAN SUB-FAMILY
I shall
preface
the detailed account of this
sub-family
with some
general
remarks
concerning
the classification of
aboriginal groups
in the
Malay
peninsula
(West Malaysia).
Orang
Asli is the modern official term for the
non-Malay aboriginals
of the
peninsula, regardless
of
language. Orang
is the
Malay
for
'man,
people',
while asli is from Arabic asali
'original'.
The full
designation
was
apparently
introduced
originally by
communist
insurgents
as
part
of their bid to win the
support
of the
aborigines.1
The
Orang
Asli are
found in all the states of West
Malaysia except
for Perlis and
Penang,
and there are some
just
over the border in Thailand.2 As far as
physi?
cal
appearance
is
concerned, they
are
conventionally
divided into three
main
types:
i) Semang/Negrito; ii) Sakai/Senoi;
and
iii) Jakun/Proto
Malay
or
Aboriginal Malay.
Of these
designations,
those before the
stroke
are the ones used
originally. However,
these are
largely repudia?
ted
by
the
people themselves, being mostly pejorative; they
have accor?
dingly
been
replaced
in modern
usage
with the alternatives
given
after
the stroke.3 In the 1965
Department
of
Orang
Asli Affairs
Census,
the
population figures
of the three
groups
were
respectively 1,447, 26,864,
and
17,584,
and in the 1969 Census
respectively 1,820, 30,370, 20,830,
or
approximately 3%,
57%
and
40%
respectively
of the total
Orang
Asli
population
of
53,020,
itself
only
about
0.75%
of the
population
of
West
Malaysia.4
In
language,
there is a
conventional
rough-and-ready
correlation with the above
classification,
the first two
groups
speaking
Austroasiatic
languages,
most of the third Austronesian ones.
However,
two
'proto-Malay' groups,
the Semelai and the
Temoq, speak
Austro?
asiatic
languages,
and the
branching
of the Aslian
languages
does not
correspond exactly
to these
essentially
racial divisions. We shall
largely
disregard
the
Austronesian-speaking groups
henceforward.
The
Negrito groups
are to be found in the north-central
parts
of
the
peninsula, including parts
of southern Thailand. Those in the west
of this area
(Perak, Pahang,
Kedah)
were
known to
early
writers as
Semang,
those of the east
(Kelantan, Trengganu,
northern
Pahang)
as
either
Pangan
or
Semang,
the distinction
according
to Schebesta
being
between the circumcised and uncircumcised
respectively, though
this
41
has been
rejected by
others as
confusing,
if not
totally meaningless.5
Semang,
the normal academic term for the
Negritos
in earlier
years,
has
been
given
a number of other
etymologies, namely semaq 'native,
man'
(to
which is
opposed gob 'Malay,
foreigner');
'debt
slaves, dependents';
Mon smuin 'demon'
(unlikely
on areal
grounds);
and it has come to
mean
'savage'. Pangan
is more
usually glossed
as
'forest
people',
or as
Endicott
puts
it:
'among
other
things, "people
who live like animals
and eat their food raw".' Both terms are
considered
derogatory by
the
Negritos themselves,
who Evans said
preferred Sakai, despite
the fact
that it too is
regarded
as
derogatory by
most of the
groups
to which it
is
normally applied (see
ii,
above).
The usual term that
Negrito groups
use for themselves
appears
to be
Moni(k), Meni(k),
Mani etc. 'one of
ourselves, people,
men'.
According
to Annandale and Robinson another
term is Hami
'men',
but this is
clearly
related to
Hemik,
the
Negrito
name for
Malays
in Selama
(Perak)
and for Thais in southern
Thailand,
a word
glossed
as
'outsider'
by
Evans.6
The standard name for the second
group
in the earlier literature is
Sakai, although
this seems to have been used
by
the
Malays
for all abo?
riginal groups quite indiscriminately.
A term
possibly
of Thai
origin,
it means
'slave, dependent',
and is thus
regarded
as
derogatory by
the
groups
to which it was
traditionally applied. Although
the notion of
dependence may
be
original
to
it,
its use
became more
particular
la?
ter.
According
to Noone: 'Certain
groups
of
Negrito.nomads
in
Upper
Perak and elsewhere in the north
certainly
fell into almost
complete
economic
dependence
on
Malays;
but the mere fact that these
groups
were
distinguished
as
"hamba",
whilst
neighbouring groups
were
not,
shews that the term "Sakai" does not
necessarily imply dependence.'
It has has in
any
case been
replaced
in official and academic
usage by
Senoi,
a Temiar word
meaning 'man, mankind, people,
one of oursel?
ves',
etc.7 The Senoi
groups
are found
immediately
to the south of the
Negritos,
in the central
highlands
of the
peninsula.
It is to their
south,
especially
in
Johore,
that the
Austronesian-speaking 'Proto-Malays'
or
Jakun are to be found.
This far from exhausts the names
given by
the
Malays
to the
Orang
Asli. Also recorded are
Orang
Darat 'men of the
interior', Orang
Utan
'men of the
forests', Orang
Bukit 'men of the
mountains', Orang
Ulu
'men of the
upper valleys',
and
Orang
Benua 'men of the
soil,
autocht?
hones'.
These,
like
'Semang'
and
'Sakai',
were
formerly
used
by Malays
regardless
of racial distinction. The
Malays
of Perak and
Selangor
cal?
led all
aborigines Sakai,
and
Orang Semang
was used
loosely
to refer
to
any
aboriginal group
not
directly
under
Malay
control. Also to be
noted is Sakai
Jinaq
'settled Sakai'
or 'tame Sakeis
[sic],
who mix with
the
Malays'.8
42
PROTO-ASLIAN
_I_
South Aslian Central Aslian North Aslian
or
Semelaic
or
Senoic
or
Jahaic
Figure
3. The Aslian
Sub-Family
Until
quite recently,
academic
attempts
to
classify
the
aboriginal
languages
of of the
peninsula
were based on this
triple
racial distinction.9
As far as the Austroasiatic
languages
of the
peninsula
are concerned it
is now realized that the traditional
dichotomy
between the
Semang
of
the north and the Sakai of the south should be
replaced by
a
distinction
between three co-ordinate branches. The first of these is North Aslian
or
Jahaic,
which includes all the
Negrito groups plus
one
racially
Senoi
group,
the
Chewong (38).
The other two are
Central Aslian or
Senoic,
and South Aslian
or
Semelaic,
both of which embrace the
remaining
Sakai
groups, although
Semelaic also includes two
racially Proto-Malay
groups
who
speak
Austroasiatic
languages (see above).10
The relations?
hip
between these three branches is shown in
Figure
3.11
According
to
Benjamin,
the Northern and Southern branches are more remote from
each other than either is from the Central branch.12
There
are
many
general
works on the
Orang Asli,
viz.: Skeat and
Blagden 1906,
Wilkinson
1910, 1923,
Schebesta
1929, 1952,
Evans
1923,
1937,
Cole
1945,
Williams-Hunt
1952,
Diffloth
1974, 1975, Carey 1976a,
1976b, Benjamin 1976a, 1980,
and Parkin ms-a. These should all be
consulted for data on
Orang
Asli
groups, though
even the more recent
ones
vary considerably
in
comprehensiveness
and
quality.
Evans also
wrote
many
articles
in,
and sometimes entire issues
of,
the Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States
Museums,
of which he
was
editor; many
of these he utilized in his later books. Freeman
1968,
Endicott 1979
(Ch. 6)
and Needham 1964
use
early
material on the
Negrito groups
for
comparative purposes
(see
also Robarchek
1987).
43
PROTO-JAHAIC
Mos-Batek
-L-r
Mos-Mendriq
i i
*
i
Chewong
Batek Mintil Batek Men- Jahai Mos
Kintaq
Kensiu
Nong D?q driq (& Tonga?)
Figure 4-
The Jahaic Branch^
D. Jahaic Branch
Apart
from
Chewong,
all these
languages
are
very closely related,
dif?
fering mainly
in their
respective
loans from
neighbouring
Senoic
langu?
ages.
In
fact,
their
vocabulary
is
Senoic, especially Temiar,
in
origin.
Some, however,
is
unique
and
entirely
distinct not
only
from other
Aslian branches but from Austroasiatic
generally,
as well as from Ma?
lay
and the other Austronesian
languages
of the
peninsula. According
to
Brandt,
this is
especially
true of words
ending
in
-bn,
-dn and
-
gn.14 Many
have
thought
that there is thus a
strong
a
priori possibility
that these
groups
once
spoke
an
entirely
different set of
languages
and
only adopted
Aslian ones
subsequently,
while
keeping
traces of the ori?
ginals.
This
hypothesis
has
quite recently
been
challenged by Diffloth,
however,15
and the
possibility
of a connection with Andamanese
was
early
raised and then
rejected by Blagden.16
29. Kensiu
This
Negrito group
is found in north-east Kedah and in the Yala area of
Thailand.
Although
some are still
nomadic, moving
between northern
Kedah and
Thailand,
most have settled in
villages
near
Baling
in Kedah
since 1965. In Evans'
day they
were to be found in southern Kedah also.
In the 1920s Schebesta counted about
200;
the 1965 DOAA Census
gives
a
figure
of 76 for Kedah
only,
the 1969 Census
one of
98, probably
44
also
just
for Kedah.
They pursue
more cultivation than most
Negrito
groups
but nonetheless continue to
rely mainly
on the collection of
jungle produce,
which
they
sell to Chinese merchants.
According
to
Skeat and
Blagden,
Kensiu is a
place
name.17 Most of what little there
is on the Kensiu
specifically
is scattered in articles on other
groups
or in
general works,
but mention
might
be made here of
Carey 1970a,
Brandt
1961,
and Evans 1926.
30.
Kintaq
This
group
is
closely
related to the Kensiu both
culturally
and
lingui?
stically,
so much so that Brandt
regards
them as
speaking
the same
language. They
are
found in the border areas of Kedah and northern
Perak, mainly
in the
Baling
and Kroh areas
around Kelian Intan in
Upper Perak,
and
possibly
around Yala. There are two
sub-groups,
the
Kintaq
Nakil
(i.e.
the
Kintaq
Kroh or
Kintaq Hangat
of Evans
1937),
and the
Kintaq Bong.
Some of the latter have become
relatively
seden?
tary,
but most of both
sub-groups
are
still nomadic. The 1969 DOAA
Census
gives
a
figure
of about
100,
but this
may
refer
just
to Perak.
According
to Skeat and
Blagden, Kintaq
is the name of a
stream.18
Again,
there is
very
little
literature,
save for remarks
in,
for
example,
Brandt 1961.
31,
32.
Tonga
and Mos
These rather
shadowy groups
are to be found
mainly
in the area
between
Trang
and
Patalung
in
Thailand,
but
they
have at various times been
reported
in
many
different
parts
of southern
Thailand,
from the Isth?
mus of Kra in the north to the
Malay-Thai
border in the south. Some
of the
sightings may
be
spurious,
but we are
clearly dealing
with noma?
dic
groups, possibly
the
only
Aslian
speakers
who have never crossed
the border into
Malaysia. Diffloth,
on the other
hand,
thinks that
they
may
originally
have been Kensiu who have more or less
permanently
passed
back into Thailand from
Malaysia;
it is
perhaps significant
that
the Kensiu themselves
apply
the word
mos,
meaning basically 'end,
ex?
tremity',
to one
group, perhaps
of
themselves, perhaps
not.
Conversely,
however,
the word bears
a
resemblance to
Malay
mawas
'orangutan',
literally
'man of the
forest',
and
actually
recorded
by
Brandt as an
ethnonym.19
He
regards
these as
part
of the Jahai
(33), though
still ac?
cepting,
with Schebesta and
Diffloth,
that there are two different
groups
involved,
in
opposition
to others who
regard Tonga simply
as
the Thai
equivalent
of
Mos,
thus
implying
that there is
only
one.
Diffloth
clearly
recognizes
two
languages,
each
being
distinct not
only
from the other
45
but from
Kensiu-Kintaq,
and Schebesta
places
the Mos to the south?
west of the
Tonga.20
Whatever its
origin, Tonga
is one
self-designation,
the other
being
the standard Jahaic root Monik.
Other, Thai, designa?
tions are
Mo, Ngoq (Pa),
Chao Pa and Kuan Pa. Of
these, Ngoq
Pa
is the Thai
equivalent
of
Malay
rambutan 'fruit' and embarrasses those
to whom it is
applied. According
to Schebesta it refers to a
type
of nut
resembling
a
Negrito head; according
to Brandt it refers to their
curly
hair, Ngoq
itself
meaning 'frizzy'.
Chao Pa and Kuan Pa both mean
'forest
people'.21
Their numbers in Thailand have
variously
been estimated at about
100 in 1958 and about 200 in Narathiwat
province,
the total
according
to Brandt
being perhaps
about 300. Some
are
acquainted
with
Malay
or Thai or both.
They
are
traditionally
nomadic hunters and
gather?
ers,
but some are now
settled
on the
fringes
of
Malay
areas, suppor?
ting
themselves
by cultivation, labouring and/or
the barter of rubber
or
cane.22 The main data
concerning
them are in Brandt
1961, 1965,
Annandale and Robinson
1903,
Evans 1925 and Schebesta 1925.
33. Jahai
This
Negrito group
is to be found
along
the Perak river above
Grik,
especially
in the
Temengor
area,
and in the
Pergau
basin and Tadoh
area,
in north-west Kelantan. The 1965 DOAA Census
gives population
figures
of 418 in Perak and 128 in
Kelantan,
but other estimates
go up
to a total of 700 to 800. Still
mostly nomadic,
some Jahai have settled
down, especially
where
they
have come into contact with the Temiar
(41 ),
from whom
they
are
coming
under
pressure, especially
in the Grik
area. Most in fact
speak
Temiar and some
speak Malay
as
well
as their
own
language,
whose basic
vocabulary
is said to have some affinities
with
Andamanese, though
Temiar loans are also
present. According
to
Benjamin,
'Jehai
[sic]
is
apparently
more
closely
related to
Mendriq
than to
any
other
language, though
the reverse is not
true',
and the
Jahai
'probably
contain several dialect
groups
not in contact with each
other'. The
ethnonym
is of uncertain
meaning.
The
designations
Menik
Jehai and
Mn-raq
also
appear
in the earlier
literature,
while the
Malays
call the
group
Jehehr.23 Articles
on them include
especially
Kinzie and
Kinzie 1966 and Schebesta 1928.
34- Mendriq
This
group
is found
along
the Kelantan
river,
between Bertam and
Kuala
Krai,
and also on the lower
Lebir, Nenggiri
and Lah rivers. In
46
1969 there were about 120 of these
Negritos,
who are still
mostly
noma?
dic,
those on the Lah
being
'semi-settled
agriculturalists'.
There
are
four
sub-groups,
which have
no cultural
or
linguistic
differences and
who all
keep
in
contact, despite
the fact that
they
are all
fairly
remote
from one another.
They
are
closely
related to the Batek
(36, 37)
in
language
and culture and themselves
regard
the two
ethnonyms
as vir?
tual
synonyms.
In
fact, Mendriq
is
probably
a variant of the standard
Jahaic root
menik,
and dialectal variations include
Menriq
and Menrab.
Endicott
seems to
regard
them
merely
as a dialect
group
of the Batek.
They
are also known as Benar
and, by
the
Jahai,
as
Lapar.24 Carey
has
written two articles
specifically
on
them
(1968, 1970b).
35. Mintil
This small
group
of about
forty Negritos
is to be found
along
the river
Tanum in
Pahang,
in the
region
of
Chigar
Perah
railway
halt. The
administration
regards
them
as a
group
of
Mendriq,
the name
by
which
they
were
originally known,
but Diffloth believes
they
are more
closely
related to the
Batek,
their closest
neighbours. Generally, however, they
have little contact with other
Orang
Asli or with the administration.25
It remains uncertain
exactly
how
they
should be
classified,
and there is
no
separate
literature
concerning
them.
36. Batek
The Batek
-
not to be confused with the Batak of
Sumatra,
who
speak
an Austronesian
language
-
are divided into a number of
groups.
The
Batek
D?q
are found in
Kelantan,
on the
upper Lebir, Aring,
Relai and
Chiku rivers. The Batek Teh and Batek
T?q
are found downstream at
Post
Lebir,
the latter
being
also on the river
Lepah
in
Trengganu.
The
Batek
'Igaq
are located in
Pahang,
on the Tahan and Kechau rivers.
Also
mentioned,
but
by
earlier
writers,
are the Batek Kleb in Raub
district
(mentioned
by
Schebesta but
apparently
not visited
by him)
and the Batek
Hapen
on the
Hapen
river near
Jeransang. According
to
Endicott:
'They
sometimes call themselves "forest
people" (bat?k hep).'
Though
many
of these
Negritos
are still nomadic in the border areas of
the three
states,
others are semi-settled
along
the
Aring
river. The most
recent
population
estimates are those of Endicott from the
early 1970s,
namely
about 350
D?q,
22
Teh,
43
T?q
and 65
'Igaq.
These
groups
are
largely
identifiable
by dialect, though
the dialects of the
D?q
and
'Igaq
are
'almost
identical',
and the two
groups
were
probably
one
fifty
years ago. Teh, T?q
and
D?q
all mean 'this' in their
respective dialects,
Batek itself
meaning 'man, person
of our
group'; 'Igaq
is 'a distinctive
47
alternative term for the
pronoun
"I"'.
Nonetheless,
all these
groups
are
still
closely
related
enough
to be considered one ethnic unit.26 The
D?q
and Teh are dealt with
by
Endicott in his book on Batek
religion (1979),
and mention
might
also be made of his doctoral thesis on
their social
organization
and
economy
(1974)
and of
a short article
by
Needham
(1976).
37. Batek
N?ng
This
group, however,
have
clearly
become
separate,
both
culturally
and
geographically,
from other Batek.
They
are found further
south,
on the
river Cheka in
Pahang,
and were
probably
once even further
south,
in
the area of
Sungei
Benom and
Gunong Palas,
which
they
left under
Malay pressure.
There are about 87
N?ng,
and their
name is
simply
a
negative imperative particle (=
'do
not').
In Evans'
day they
were
effectively
under the control of a
Malay merchant, collecting
rattan
and other
jungle products
in return for
rice, cloth,
tobacco etc.
Today
they probably
live
a
part-nomadic, part-settled life,
like other Jahaic
groups.27
Endicott 1979 has some
passages
on them.
38.
Chewong
Earlier in this
century
this
group
was to be found in the foothills im?
mediately
south and west of
Gunong
Benom in
Pahang,
a few
being
to the
north,
in the Ulu
Dong
area.
Today they
are divided into two
main
groups,
there
being
little contact between
them, though they
are
aware of each other's existence. The eastern
group
live in the southern
part
of the Krau Game
Reserve,
and their 'contact with the outside
world is minimal'. The western
group
live in three settlements in the
Ulu
Dong
and
Kampong Dong
areas. The
split
between them
may
be
recent.
Ogilvie
names seven
sub-groups,
of which five
merged
in 1948
in one area.
However,
some of the areas deserted then have since been
reoccupied by
the eastern
group.
There is
undoubtedly
much
fluidity
in the
composition
of
sub-groups
at the smallest level.28
Howell estimated the total
population
at about 245 in June
1979,
consisting
of about 131 in the Krau Game Reserve and about 115 in
the Raub
area,
the latter
being
more acculturated to other
groups.
Some
Chewong
have
undoubtedly
been lost
by assimilation,
and there
is
clearly
some
Negrito
admixture.
Despite this, however,
and
although
they speak
a
language
of the Jahaic
group
and are thus often associated
with the
Negritos
of the
Malay peninsula,
the
Chewong
are
ethnically
Senoic.
According
to tradition
they originally
lived to the south but
left there under
Malay pressure,
some
settling
for a time in the Gunom
48
Palas
area. There
they
encountered the
By Nyed,
a
Negrito group,
and
perhaps
intermarried with them. This
tradition, assuming
it to be
historical rather than
mythical,
could
explain
the
apparent adoption
by
the
Chewong
of
a
Jahaic
language,
as well as the
disappearance,
perhaps through absorption,
of the
By Nyed.29
Ogilvie regarded Chewong
as the
ethnonym,
and
Carey
even mana?
ged
to translate it as
'people
of the
jungle',
as if it were
equivalent
to
Jah Hut or Mah Meri
(see
39,
4$)-
Howell
discovered, however,
that
the
name was
merely
the
personal
name of a
Malay ranger
in
Ogilvie's
time,
and the
latter, being
hard of
hearing,
attached it in error to the
people subsequently
known
by
it. As to the other names
applied
to the
group
in the
literature, Cho-ben, So-ben,
Jo-ben and
Siwang
are vari?
ants of
Chewong;
Maroi was the
personal
name of one of their former
leaders;
Jelben is
probably spurious, perhaps
a
mythical
name for
non
human,
but rational
beings;
and Schebesta's Kleb is
probably
the
same
as Bi
Kled,
the
name of some
Chewong
at
Kampong Yol,
north-east of
Dong.
In
fact,
the
group
has
no
ethnic name of its
own,
though
it has
come to use
Chewong
when
necessary
(with
outsiders,
for
instance),
and it has stuck with
ethnographers
too. When
pressed, they
refer to
themselves
as Bi
He, literally 'people us',
Bi Brete
'jungle people',
or Bi
Bai
'digging people' (a
reference to their
digging
for tubers for
food),
the former
being
used
especially
to
distinguish
themselves from other
Orang
Asli.30
Today,
the eastern
Chewong
are
hunters, gatherers
and
shifting
cul?
tivators and sell
jungle produce,
while the western
group
are
sedentary
cultivators and work as labourers on
Malay plantations
etc. Rattan is
also traded with Chinese
merchants,
and some
permanent
settlements
now exist. Government
attempts
to
incorporate
the
Chewong
more
firmly
into the modern
economy
and administrative
system
are
repor?
ted to have increased
greatly during
the 1980s.31
Following
Needham's brief reconnaissance in the area in the
1950s,
resulting
in some short articles
(1956,
1960, 1974b,
1976),
one of his
students, Signe Howell,
worked on them in the 1970s and has
produced
a
considerable amount of material on
them
(see references).
This follows
much earlier work
by Ogilvie (1940,
1948,
1949),
which must now
be
regarded
as
largely
out of date. See also Heelas 1983.
49
PROTO-SENOIC
._I_.
Jah Semai Temiar Lanoh Lanoh Sabum Semnam
Hut
(I) (II) (Yir) (Jengjeng)
Figure
5. The Senoic Branch32
E. Senoic Branch
39. Jah Hut
This
group
is found on the eastern
slopes
of Gunom
Benom,
on
the
Krau
river,
above Kuala
Krau,
and in the northern
part
of the Krau
game reserve,
whence
they
are also known as
Orang
Krau.
They
are
to be
equated
with Skeat and
Blagden's
'Eastern Sakai
(inner group)',
and Evans
may
also refer to them in some of his articles on this area.
2013 were enumerated in the 1969 Census and 3588 in 1975
according
to
other DOAA
figures. They
are swidden
cultivators,
still
semi-nomadic,
but with eleven basic settlements. The
Chewong
call them Bri
Hut,
literally
'no
people',
and 'the Jah Hut seem to have
adopted
the
idea,
but
only
for
designating
themselves'. Their
ethnonym
is a
direct trans?
lation of the
Chewong
term
according
to Diffloth and
Couillard, though
the latter
says that,
not
surprisingly, they deny
the
expression
to mean
what it
literally suggests. Conversely, Carey
translates Jah Hut as 'fo?
rest
people',
Williams-Hunt as
'hill-people'.33
Jah
Chong
may
be an
alternative name
-
since Noone
places
these on the eastern
slopes
of
the Benom
-
rather than a version of
'Jakun', pace
Needham.34 The
language
is
very
closely
related to Temiar
(41)
and Semai
(40) (though
the Jah Hut do not know
Semai)
and has
very
little dialectal varia?
tion. Most Jah Hut
speak Malay,
and
Malay
and other Austronesian
influences are evident in
language,
culture and
political organization.35
Work has been done
on
them
recently by
Couillard
(1980)
and Werner
(1975), mostly
on their artistic life.
50
40.
Semai
With 25%
of the total
aboriginal population
and two-thirds of the Senoi
speaking population,
the Semai
are
easily
the
largest aboriginal group
in West
Malaysia. They
are found
chiefly
in the Cameron
Highlands
and the border
areas
generally
of southern Perak and northwestern Pa?
hang,
northwards from Selim to the Ulu Kinta and westwards to the
Kampar-Chendariang-Tapah
area of Perak. The main
group
is divided
by
Dentan into an eastern and a western
group,
the former
being
found
in
Pahang
and mixed with
Negritos,
the latter
being
found in
Perak,
in?
termarrying
with
Malays
and Chinese.
Together
with the Temiar
(41),
the Semai
today predominate among aborigines
both
culturally
and
demographically
and are the most resistant to
Malay
influence. There
may
have been assimilation in the
past,
however:
Benjamin
thinks that
'the
Malay-speaking
Temuan and Belandas
groups.
. .
are in
origin
Ma
layized
Semai rather than true
Jakun', especially
as 'a small Semai
outlier is still to be
found,
south of the main
body,
in
Selangor'.
Un?
til several
generations ago
the
Malays
used to enslave the
Semai,
who
are still
very apprehensive
of the outside world.
They generally
resist
conversion to
Islam,
which would make them
legally Malays,
and
they
do not
get
on
particularly
well with the
Temiar,
due to their dislike of
the latter's freer sexual
mores,
and memories of their
acting
as
guides
in
slaving expeditions against
them.36
The 1969 Census
gives
a total Semai
figure
of
15,506
-
10,046
in
Perak, 5,388
in
Pahang
and 72 in
Selangor. Today they
are
swidden
or
cash-crop
farmers and
wage-labourers, living
in
every
environment
from hill
jungle
to
semi-urban, though they
will
readily
revert to more
traditional
hunting-and-gathering
methods if their
crops
fail. Perma?
nent settlement and the
money economy
are more in evidence
among
the western than the eastern Semai.37 The term Semai is
supposedly
of Temiar
origin (though
Dentan is cautious on this
point),
but of un?
certain
meaning. Carey
claims that Semai is the true
ethnonym,
but
Dentan declares that the
group rarely
refer to themselves in this
way.
Those
sub-groups
who
deny
the term as an
ethnonym
often
apply
it to
other
sub-groups, probably
out of mutual
apprehension
and
hostility.
Even more
disparagingly,
the more
acculturated western Semai often
refer to the eastern Semai
as
'Semang'
or
'Temiar',
and the latter reta?
liate with
'Malay'. According
to
Dentan,
the most recent
fieldworker,
'Semai is
primarily
a
linguistic category
of some
(but
not
much) signi?
ficance to Semai
speakers', although
'the Semai.
. .
stress
language
as
one
of the three or
four crucial criteria for
being
a
Semai'. He
gives
their
ethnonyms
as
Senoi Hii 'us
people',
and Mai Darat or Mai
Seraq
51
'inland
people';
the
Malays
use
Mai Darat or
Orang
Darat for them.
According
to
Wilkinson,
Mai Darat is restricted to the
valleys,
Mai Mi
loi and Mai Bertak
being
used in the
hills,
but the latter
may
simply
be further
examples
of the
purely
local and
topographical
names
given
by
Dentan.38
Semai is
spoken
in the
triangle
between
Ipoh,
Kuala
Lipis
and the
Selim river in Perak. It is
closely
related to
Temiar, Lanoh,
Semnam and
Jah Hut but is
apparently
not
with
any
of them.
The
language
has about
forty
different
dialects,
each river
valley tending
to have its own.
The most distant of these dialects are
mutually
unin?
telligible,
and Semai from different areas
may
sometimes have trouble
in
communicating.
There is some
tendency
to
regard
those who share
a
dialect,
even if from different
valleys,
as
less
distantly
related than
those with a
different dialect.
Malay
and Semai have
exchanged
much
vocabulary,
and use of Semai
seems to be
declining
in favour of
Malay.39
The Semai
are
comparatively
well served in the
literature, especially
as
they
have
figured quite prominently
in
sociological
and
psychologi?
cal debates over dreams and
aggression,
and have drawn attention to
themselves
through
their
conspicuous
lack of
aggression (see
Robarchek
1987, 1989;
also Robarchek and Dentan 1987 and the references ther?
ein).
There have also been
specialized
studies
by Fix,
a
demographer
(1974,
1975, 1977;
Fix and
Lie-Injo 1975).
More standard
ethnography
is available
by
Dentan
(see references)
and Hooker
(1967),
and Diffloth
has worked on the
language (1968,
1976a,
1977).
4L
Temiar
According
to
Carey,
the Kelantan-Perak watershed is the 'natural en?
vironment' of the Temiar
proper.
Most are in
Perak,
but there are also
many
in
Pahang
and
Kelantan,
and
they occupy especially
the mo?
untain
range
from Gunom
Noring
to the Cameron
Highlands.
Other
Temiar are found in the Plus and Korbu
valleys
and
apparently
in Ulu
Kinta also. Those of these areas show few
signs
of
Negrito admixture,
unlike those of Ulu Perak. There were
9,929
enumerated in the 1969
DOAA
Census, 5,719
in
Perak, 4,092
in Kelantan and 118 in
Pahang.
Basically
swidden
farmers, supplementing
this with
hunting, gathering
and
fishing,
some
groups
are now
permanently
settled and even beco?
ming
involved in the cash
economy.40
The Temiar
are,
with the
Semai,
the most
vigorous culturally
and
demographically
of the
Orang
Asli and have resisted assimilation to
Malay society, though
there has
inevitably
been influence and even in?
termarriage
in contact areas. There is also
intermarriage
with other
52
groups, including
the
Semai, despite
the traditional
animosity
between
them. The fact that 'the
particular
cultural
system
borne
by
the indivi?
dual at
any
time is determined
by
the
particular aboriginal territory
in
which he finds himself
explains
the cases of ritual
'borrowing'
from the
Malays,
which to a
Temiar is not
borrowing
but
merely
the behaviour
appropriate
to a
particular territory.41
The Temiar
language
is not
with Semai. Ac?
cording
to
Carey
it has no dialectal
variants,
but
Benjamin
writes of
two
major dialects,
north and
south, plus
some
others;
the
dividing
line
between the two
major
ones runs
between Perak and
Kelantan, roughly
at or
just
south of the 5
degree
meridan. Most male but few female
Temiar also
speak Malay.
Since the Temiar are
increasingly
in contact
with other
groups,
their
language
has become
a
lingua
franca for all
Orang Asli,
and Radio
Malaysia
uses it and Semai
as the media for
their
special Orang
Asli
programmes. Indeed,
Temiar is
definitely
ex?
panding
at the
expense
of other
aboriginal languages, especially
around
Grik,
and
many
other
Orang
Asli
groups
also
speak Temiar, namely
the
Kensiu
(29),
Jahai
(33)
and
Mendriq
(34),
and the
Lanoh,
Semnam
and Sabum
(42).42
The term Temiar is of uncertain
meaning
but
probably
of Semai
origin, although
Schebesta
says
that the Semai call the Temiar
Semaq.
The true tribal name is Senoi Serok
'people
of the
interior',
but
they
also
call themselves Temiar. The terms Tembe and Temer are also found
in earlier
works,
the former
probably being
a
place
name.43
Benjamin
is the chief modern
ethnographer
on the Temiar
(e.
g. 1966, 1967a,
1968a, 1968b, 1976b;
note also his
thesis,
1967b), though Carey
has
also written on them
(1961). Jennings
1985 looks at Temiar dance.
42. Pie,
Lanoh etc.
There has been much confusion over the
identity
and status of the
remaining Senoic-speaking groups,
but
Benjamin
summarizes the
major
surviving
ones,
all of which are
very
closely related,
as
follows:
a)
Semnan
(semi-settled
on the
Ayer
Bal river near Kuala
Kenering,
Upper
Perak)
b)
Sabum
(semi-settled
near
Lenggong, Upper Perak; nearly
extinct)
c)
Lanoh Yir
(probably nomadic;
on
the Sarah
tributary
of Ulu
Perak)
d)
Lanoh
Jengjeng (semi-settled
and associated with the Temiar on
the
Ringat
river above
Grik, Upper Perak).
Other
groups may
still
exist, perhaps
with other dialects.
Benjamin
53
supports
Schebesta
against
Noone and Williams-Hunt in
separating
the
Ple-Temer from the
Temiar, regarding
the former as closer in
language
to the
Lanoh; according
to
him, they speak
a
dialect intermediate bet?
ween the
two,
which
may
have
disappeared
in recent decades. Endicott
apparently supports
this in
regarding
Pie
simply
as the name of a be?
neficial
deity,
'the
fruit-bringer', among
the Temiar
(41)
and
possibly
the
Kintaq
(SO).44
The main Lanoh area seems to be
Upper Perak, especially along
the river of that name above
Lenggong
and on its left-bank tributaries.
They
are
Negrito
but
speak
a
Senoic
language
and have
clearly
inter?
married with both the Pie and the Temiar. Evans
regards
Sabum
as a
spurious
name,
the true name
being
Semak Belum or
'people
of the
big
water'
(i.e.
the Perak
river).
They speak
a
different dialect from the La?
noh and were
placed by
Evans north of the
Pergau.
The Semnan
are of
the Grik
area and also
speak
a
Senoic
dialect, despite being physically
what Evans calls
'pure Negritos'.45
We
only
have
population figures
for
the Lanoh: 264 in the 1969 DOAA Census.
Following Benjamin (see
41),
the work of the Noones
(H.D.
Noone
1936, 1949a;
R.O.D. Noone
1949b) probably belongs
here rather than under Temiar.
F. Semelaic Branch
43. Maq Betiseq
At the start of this
century,
this
group
was found in the coastal
areas
of
Selangor
and
Negri Sembilan,
between Port Swettenham and Port
Dickson,
and in Malacca. Wilkinson's claim that
they
were also settled
in coastal
Sumatra,
on Pulau
Rupat
and Pulau
Bengkalis,
has never
been substantiated
by anyone
else.
Today, however, they
seem to be
restricted to
Selangor,
for the most recent censuses
only give figures
for
that
state, namely 1,198
in 1969
(Werner, writing
in
1973, says 1,200
to
1,300).
They
claim to have
come from the Endau
area,
where
they
were fishermen and swidden
cultivators, migrating
thence in search of
better catches.
They presumably
underwent
strong Malay
influence in
the
process,
for
they
are
very Malayized
in all
respects
save
language,
which
they
have
preserved despite
isolation from other Aslian
speakers.
The
language
seems to consist of several
dialects,
but all Besisi also
know
Malay
well.
Today they
are
mainly
settled
cultivators,
and few
are fishermen.46
Mah
Meri,
the name
by
which
they
are
normally
known
today,
me?
ans, despite
their coastal
location, 'people
of the
forest', although
the
group
themselves
apparently apply
it to all
Orang
Asli.
Accordingly,
54
PROTO-SEMELAIC
_I_
\?^ I I
Temoq
Semelai
Semoq
Beri
Maq Betiseq
Figure
6. The Semelaic Branch
41
Karim
rejects
Mah Meri and insists on Mak
Betiseq
or
'people
with
scales',
Besisi etc.
being
incorrect
renderings
of this.
Carey
tends to
confirm this:
according
to
him,
Besisi or
Sisi
was their
original
name,
this
being
the true
ethnonym
and the name of their
language.
To
them,
all
aborigines
are 'men of the
forest',
but
only they
are and
speak
Be?
sisi.
According
to
Diffloth,
the Mah Meri of the
Selangor
coast
represent
the remnants of the northern branch of the
Besisi,
recorded
by
Skeat
and
Blagden
further south over
eighty
years ago.
Evans'
group
called
their
language
sisi and themselves Sabat
or
Sehabat, 'friendly people',
denying
Besisi to be their
ethnonym.
Karim's account is
perhaps
to be
preferred, being
that of the most recent
ethnographer.48
In addition to Karim's recent
monograph (1981)
and article
(1980),
Werner has studied them
through
their art
(1973).
There
are
also
articles
by
Evans
(1913, 1914b)
and
Carey (1973).
44- Semoq
Beri
1,406 Semoq
Beri were listed in the 1969 DOAA
Census,
of whom
1,207
were in
Pahang (especially
round Tasek
Bera),
175 in
Trengganu
and
24 in
Kelantan;
Endicott
conjectures
that Evans' 'Sakai-Jakun' of the
Tekam river in Central
Pahang belong
here. An ill-defined
group, they
are often
regarded
as
Semelai
by
other
Orang Asli, despite
the fact that
the latter
despise
them as inferior in
culture,
and indeed the settled
elements are
probably becoming
assimilated to the Semelai. The other
elements are
semi-nomadic hunters and
gatherers, perhaps
with some
swiddening. They
are
familiar with
Malay. Semoq
Beri means
'people
of the
jungle'.49
There are some
relevant remarks in Hood's work
(see
45),
and articles
by
Endicott
(1975)
and Jensen
(1977-8).
55
45.
Semelai
According
to
Hood,
this
group
is found
'mainly
in the Tasik Bera
region
and
along
the lower Bera
(near
Kuala
Bera,
Pahang)
and in lesser
numbers
along
the
Serting
and
Triang
rivers in
Negri
Sembilan'. More
are to be found near
Gunong Tahan,
in northernmost
Pahang,
while
away
to the south there are others in the lowlands between
Segamat
and the
Pahang river,
and even on the Endau. The 1969 Census
gave
a
figure
of
2,391,
of which about
1,500
were in
Pahang
and 800 in
Negri
Sembilan. Semelai
identity
is based
mainly
on
language,
but
they
all
know
Malay well; however,
the dialect of those in northern
Pahang
is
less
Malayized.
There is a
definite trend towards the
absorption
of
Semelai and its
language by Malays,
but this is counterbalanced
by
a
tendency
for
Semoq
Beri and
Temoq
to become Semelai.
They
are
swidden
cultivators, hunters, gatherers
and fishermen.50 Hood's thesis
(1974)
and articles
(e.
g.
1975)
are the main
works,
but there is also a
short article
by
Needham
(1974a).
46. Temoq
This
group
is found in southern
Pahang,
between the Bera and Jeram
rivers.
They
are nomads and 'casual cultivators' and were
'wholly
hun?
ters and
gatherers'
until
recently.
About 100 were listed in the 1969
Census. 'The western
Temoq
are
becoming
more and more identified
with the Semelai and the eastern ones with the
Malay-speaking Jakun,
and their old
speech
is
going
from
daily
use,
although
it is still
widely
understood.' Before the
Emergency
the
Temoq
were in contact with
the Semelai more than with
any
other
group
and there was some trade
between
them;
and
although
the latter tend to
regard
them as
complete
non-entities,
there is some
tendency
for them to become assimilated to
the Semelai. The word
Temoq
is sometimes
misapplied
to the
Semoq
Beri. In Semelai it means 'wild'. 'In the
speech
of the
Sisiq
of
Selangor
[43]
and of the Che
Wong
of Benom in
Pahang [38],
the word means
a
gibbon
ape
[which]
always
amuses the Semelai and embarrasses the
Temoq.' They
all know
Malay
well.51 The
only
article devoted to them
is
Collings'
word list
(1949a).
56
IV: MON-KHMER SUB-FAMILY
There is no convenient Stammbaum
diagram
for this
sub-family,
such
as is available for Munda and Aslian.
Although
Huffman remarks that
'there is
perhaps
a better consensus on the
subgrouping
of AA than of
any
other Southeast Asian
family',1
this
appears
to refer to the main
branching only;
it is obvious that much work is still needed before
any
accurate
picture
of the internal
segmentation
of all the various Mon
Khmer branches becomes available. Thus with one or two
exceptions
this
chapter
will consist
simply
of lists of the constituent
languages
of
each
branch,
it
being
understood that these are not meant to
convey
information about the
way
these
languages
are related in the more de?
tailed
sense,
though
some clues
appear
in the text. I shall
use
Diffloth's
classification
(1974)
as the chief
guide,
while
modifying
it here and there
in accordance with other
authorities,
the chief of whom are Thomas and
Headley 1970,
and Matras and Ferlus 1972.
Apart
from two articles
by
the
present
author on
kinship (Parkin
1986b,
1988b), nothing
seems to be available in the
way
of
comparative
work
specifically
on
Mon-Khmer
groups
outside the realm of
linguistics
(for which,
see Huffman
1986). They
do feature in the more
general
works on the
area,
which cover
speakers
of other
language
families also.
For these the reader should consult the standard Southeast Asian bi?
bliographies (see Preface),
but I list the main works here: on
Vietnam,
Schrock et al.
1966, 1972,
Mole
1970,
Pavie
1902,
Maitre
1912, and,
more
historical,
Bourotte 1955 and
Hickey 1964, 1967, 1982a, 1982b;
on
Laos, Aymonier 1885a, 1885b,
LeBar and Studdard
(eds.)
1960;
on
Thailand,
Seidenfaden
1958, Young 1962;
on
Burma, Maring
and Ma
ring 1973,
Henderson et al.
1971, Enriquez 1923a,
Lowis
1907, 1910,
Scott
1909, 1932,
Stevenson
1944, Linguistic Survey of
Burma
(1917);
on
Southeast Asia in
general,
Kunstadter
(ed.)
1967,
LeBar et al. 1964.
57
G. Khasi Branch
47.
Khasi
The Khasi are the westernmost Mon-Khmer
group,
the
only
one to
be found in the
territory
of the
Republic
of
India; they
are not to
be confused with the Khasi
(Khassi,
Khasiya,
Khasa), Indic-speaking
Thakurs of the western
Himalayas (northwest
Uttar
Pradesh).
The
etymology
of their name is
generally given
as 'born of
(kha)
ancient
mother
(si)\2
a
clear reference to their
strongly
matrilineal form of
social
organization. They
are found
chiefly
in the Khasi and Jaintia
Hills of
Meghalaya
and are divided into a number of
sub-tribes,
each
with its own
dialect,
the
following
of which
are
generally recognized:
a)
Khynriam
or
Nonglum
Khasi
(the
standard
dialect,
of Cherra
punji
and the central Khasi
Hills)
b)
Jaintia, Synteng
or Pnar
(central
Jaintia
Hills,
north of
Jowai)
c)
War
(including
Sheila etc.
Khasi;
southern Khasi and Jaintia
Hills,
towards
Sylhet)
d) Lyngngam (western
Khasi Hills and eastern Garo
Hills).
Bareh and Bhowmik also
give:
e)
Amwi
(southern
Jaintia
Hills,
intermixed with
b)
and
c))
f)
Bhoi
(northern
Khasi and Jaintia
Hills,
some intermixed with
a)
and
b)
and with the
Mikir,
a
neighbouring
Tibeto-Burman
group).3
The
description
of the above
as dialects is
generally accepted
and
seems
the most valid. As
a
language, therefore,
Khasi is isolated within its
own branch from other Mon-Khmer
languages.
The
Lyngngam,
called Dko
by
the
Khasi,
are
thought
to be Garo
(a
neighbouring
Tibeto-Burman
group)
who have
adopted
Khasi
language
and culture.
They
consider themselves to be somewhat
apart
from
both Khasi and
Garo,
who in their turn
regard
the
Lyngngam
as a
'somewhat
dangerous outgroup'.
Gurdon
thought
that
they preferred
to be
thought
of
as Khasi. Ehrenfels considered them to be closer to
the Garo in
physical appearance, economy,
material culture and
ritual,
closer to the Khasi in more
general religious ideology.
Their dialect
is the most distant from standard
Khasi,
with which it is
virtually
mutually unintelligible,
but it is
totally
different from
Garo,
a Tibeto
Burman
language.4
The Jaintia are remembered for their
kingdom,
which was in exi?
stence
by
at least AD 1500. Its
rajas
and nobles were
partly
Hindui?
zed, although
far less the
ordinary Synteng
inhabitants. The
kingdom,
with its
capital
at
Jaintiapur,
once stretched from
Sylhet
and Cachar
to
Nowgong,
and Jaintia communities are still found
throughout
this
area.
Rajendra Singh,
the last
raja,
was removed
by
the British in 1835.
58
Ehenfels states that
'Synteng
is a
slightly opprobrious designation,
used
by
the
Plateau-Khasi',
and
Pnar, meaning
'dwellers of the
upper hills',
is
preferred by
the
group
itself.
According
to
Bareh, Synteng
means
'children of the
Teng*
or 'ancient
mother',
'Jaintia'
probably being
the
Indic-speakers' pronunciation
of it.
According
to
Pakem, Synteng
is
derived from
Suteng
or
Sutunga,
the
ruling dynasty
of the
Jaintias,
or
possibly
from
Sohmynting,
a
village
on the old
pre-British
road into the
Khasi Hills. The Pnar dialect is that closest to standard Khasi.5
Of the other
groups,
the War are
subject
to some
influence from
the
neighbouring
Mikir: their name means
simply 'valleys'
or
'south'.
Fournier thinks that Bhoi
may
be 'a territorial name rather than tri?
bal', perhaps meaning simply
'north'.
Many
of this
group
are
thought
to have been
originally Tibeto-Burman-speaking
Mikir or
Lalung,
the
former once
being
very
much under Khasi domination.6
The above six
groups
seem to account for most
Khasi, though
the
exact status of Amwi is not
entirely clear,
since in a later work Ba?
reh
applied
it
solely
to a
group
of War
sub-dialects;
it
may
originally
have
designated
a
village
or clan. Other dialects
are sometimes mentio?
ned,
such as
Lakadong,
also described as a
village
name,
but it is not
known how far these
correspond
to identifiable
groups.
Bareh
gives
a
more
minutely
divided list of Khasi dialects and adds the observation
that
sub-dialects,
with
mostly phonological differences,
can be identi?
fied even at
village
level. It is clear that
many
of these form
closely
allied
groups, however,
and it is not
proposed
to offer a more detailed
breakdown here.7
The total Khasi
population approaches 400,000. By dialect,
the
1961 Census
figures
were:
289,650 Cherrapunji
or
Standard
Khasi;
69,908 Synteng; 3,854 War;
651
Bhoi;
and
an
unspecified
number of
Lyngngam.
More than half the Khasi are
Christians, compared
with a
1961
figure
of
10,794
Hindu Khasi. This Christianization dates from the
arrival of a Welsh
Presbyterian
mission in
Cherrapunji
in
1841,
and the
Christian Khasi have remained
chiefly Presbyterian,
the
relatively
few
Catholics
being
found
mainly
in
Shillong.
The Christian Khasi tend
to be more
literate, educated,
urbanized and
wealthy
than the non
Christians. There are a
very
few Muslim
Khasi, mostly
the
offspring
of
Khasi women and non-Khasi Muslims.8
Their
position
as one of the most
articulate,
literate and
'progres?
sive' tribes in India and their
large-scale
conversion to
Christianity
are
two notable features
acquired by
the Khasi in modern
times,
to which
can be added two others of
longer standing,
their
linguistic
affiliation
and their matrilineal
ideology.
In
language, they
are
completely unique
to the
area,
and of the two other local
groups
which also have matrili
59
neal
descent,
the Rabha and the Garo
(both
Tibeto-Burman
speakers),
the latter claim to have derived this feature from the Khasi
(specifi?
cally
from the
Lyngngam).9
These features have
given
them
a
certain
academic
prominence
and ensured that
they
have received a
great
deal
of attention from both amateur and
professional ethnographers
since
contact. The earliest and still in
many ways
standard
ethnography
is Gurdon's
(1914),
which has been followed
by
those of Bareh
(1968,
1974,
1977),
Mathur
(1979),
Barkataki
(1977), Pugh (1976;
himself
a
Khasi)
and,
on the
Synteng, Shadap-Sen (1981).
A.P. Sinha
(1967)
should also be noted on this
sub-group,
while P.K. Das
Gupta
has
pu?
blished on the War and their
cognatic
form of
descent, atypical
for the
Khasi
(see references).
Also to be credited with a number of articles on
the Khasi
generally
are K.P.
Chattopadhyay (1941,
1949,
1960),
D.
Roy
(1936, 1938)
and S.C.
Roy (1921). Nag
(1965)
and P.
Roy
(1964)
have
looked at Khasi
Christianity.
The Khasi have
figured
in
comparative
work
dealing
with the wider area
by
Ehrenfels
(1941,
1952, 1955;
also
1953),
Hodson
(1921)
and Nakane
(1967).
See also the references in
?rhem
1988,
itself a
secondary
source.
H. Monic Branch
48.
Mon
In
Burma,
the Mon survive
mainly
around
Pegu
and in the coastal
strip
from Thaton to
Tavoy,
but some isolated Mon
villages
occur as far west
as Bassein. Luce even
reports
some around
Kyaukse, just
south of Man
dalay.
In Thailand too
they
live in their own
separate villages, mainly
scattered in the Chao
Phraya
basin between Uthaithani and
Bangkok,
though
not in the
city itself,
and
just
to the
south-west,
towards Samut
Songkhram.
Others are
reported
from the northern
provinces
of Chi?
ang Mai, Lampang
and
Lamphun,
in Korat
province
in the
east,
and
along
the Mae
Khlang
and Khwae Noi
valleys,
in Kanchananburi and
Ratburi
provinces. They
are
particularly
concentrated
along
the rivers
and canals near
Bangkok, especially
the Chao
Phraya
in Nonthaburi
province.
These are
mainly
if not
entirely
descended from
prisoners
of-war and
refugees
from
political upheavals
in Burma who have come
to Thailand in a number of waves since the sixteenth
century
-
they
are not descendants of the
time,
around 1000
years ago,
when the Mon
ruled over much of what is now Thailand. This trend is still
continuing,
since 'more have moved to Thailand since the Union of Burma failed to
establish a Mon state'. It is Lower Burma that continues to be
regarded
as the true Mon
country,
but the town of Paklat or
Prapradaeng,
on
60
the southern outskirts of
Bangkok,
has become the Mon cultural centre
in Thailand.10
It is
very
hard to arrive at unbiased
population figures
for the
Mon,
especially
since Thai
censuses do not
recognize
ethnic
differences,
while
nationalist Mon writers tend to inflate the
figures
for Burma. In Fo?
ster's view:
If one counted
only
those who would
identify
as Mon in some circumstances
other than
purely genealogical,
there would
probably
not be more than
100,000
Mons in Thailand. There are
many
more with some Mon
ancestry
and
many
fewer who
speak
the
language fluently. [.
.
.]
The number of fluent Mon
spea?
kers would
probably
not reach
50,000
-
perhaps many
less.
In Burma in 1911 there were
179,443
Mon
speakers according
to the
Census of that
year, 139,970
of them around
Amherst,
where
they
ou?
tnumbered the local Burmese. An unofficial estimate of 1970
gave
a
figure
for Burma of about
350,000, mostly along
the Tenasserim coast.11
Mon is the
ethnonym,
from *rma? or
*rama?,
Old Mon
rme?, pos?
sibly
from the root
*ra?,
*ren
plus
infix. The term
Talaing,
considered
derogatory by
the
Mon,
is
Burmese,
from Old Burmese tanluin. A fa?
vourite derivation of this
word, namely
that it is from
Telinga
or
Kalinga
in south-eastern
India,
was
early
doubted
by
Lowis.
Blagden suggests
that it is 'from
some stem tluir?
(he
gives
no
gloss) plus
'the
frequently
occurring
ancient infix in
(very
commonly
written
an)\ though
he also
regards
the derivation from
Telinga
as a
very
probable
alternative.12
In Lower Burma the Mon were
formerly
a local
power
and the ear?
liest
protectors
and disseminators of Buddhism in Southeast Asia
(since
at least the fourth or fifth
century
ad).
Mon
independence
lasted until
the mid-sixteenth
century,
but the
capacity
for revival was not
finally
crushed for another two hundred
years.
Since
then,
the
pressures
on the
Mon to assimilate to the
majority
Burmese have been both considerable
and
considerably successful,
aided
by
the enforced
suppression
of their
language
in the
past. Except
in
Tenasserim,
Mon
language
and culture
has all but
entirely disappeared
from Lower Burma. There is some
de?
mand for
autonomy among
the Mon in
Burma,
and the demands for
Mon statehood were even
accepted by
U Nu and
occasionally
backed
up by insurgency,
but
they
have come to
nothing.13
In Thailand too
the Mon have been
subject
to
assimilation,
here
legal
as well as cultu?
ral;
there is no official distinction between Thai and Mon
except
in the
army and, traditionally,
the Buddhist
sangha,
and Thai
language
and
culture alone are
taught
in Thai
government
schools. Assimilation has
proceeded rapidly
since the Second World War due to
modernization,
61
a trend aided
by
the
proximity
of
many
Mon to
metropolitan Bangkok
and
typified by
the
degeneration
of the traditional
Songkran
festival
held at
Prapradaeng
into a mere tourist
attraction,
of little
appeal
to
younger
Mon. There is little or no demand for
autonomy
in
Thailand,
however, perhaps
because it has the status of a
place
of exile for
many
Mon
away
from their ancestral homeland.
Traditionally
wet-rice
gro?
wers, many
Mon in Thailand have become
artisans, traders,
boatmen
etc.14
Like Khmer and
Vietnamese,
the Mon
language
has
a
considerable
history
as a written
language.
Mon texts date back
principally
to the
eleventh
century,
with 'isolated
epigraphs going
back to c. 600 AD'.
Mon
linguistic history
and
epigraphic style
are
conventionally
divided
into three
periods,
Old
Mon,
Middle Mon and Modern
Mon,
which are
roughly
coincident with the
corresponding periods
of Khmer
(q.v. 50).
In this
period,
Mon has
changed considerably
more than Burmese. Ac?
cording
to Shorto:
The
divergence
between
spoken
and
literary
Mon.
. .
is such that the latter
must be treated as a source of loanwords
equally
with
'foreign' languages.
. . .
The two show wide
divergences
in
phonology, vocabulary,
and
grammar.
The Old Mon
linguistic
area is known to have been the mouths of the
Irrawaddy, Sittang
and
Salween,
but evidence
points
to its
use
throug?
hout the
area
south of
Mandalay
and east of the
Irrawaddy, e.g.
at
Kyaukse, Thazi, Pagan
and Prome. In Luce's
view,
it 'no doubt.
. .
was
spoken everywhere
in
[twelfth-century]
Siam,
from
Haripunjaya
in the
north to the old Dvaravati in the south.' The modern
language
is sub?
ject
to considerable dialectal
variation,
not
only
between Burma and
Thailand but also within them.
Many
Mon are
bilingual
in Mon and
Burmese or Thai.
Indeed,
in Thailand most
speak Thai, many
exclusi?
vely,
and here
language
is
an
important
factor in
deciding just
who is
a Mon and who is not.15
The main modern
ethnographer
on the Mon is
Foster,
who has done
interesting
work
on the interaction between Mon
ethnicity
and economic
activity
(see references).
There is also
an
early monograph by Halliday
(1917),
articles
by
him
(1922),
Manot
(1972),
Shorto
(1963), Maung
Tha Hla
(1973)
and Smithies
(1972),
and one book
by
a
writer who
is herself a Mon
(Mi
Mi
Khaing 1946).
More work has been done on
history
(e.
g. Briggs 1945,
Cced?s
1966, Dupont 1959,
Luce
1970, Qua
ritch Wales
1969,
1973)
and
language (especially
by Blagden, Guillon,
Halliday,
Luce and Shorto
-
see Huffman
1986).
62
49. Nyah
Kur
According
to Shorto:
Mon shows no obvious immediate
relationship
with
any
other
language except
for those of two tribal
groups
in the hills on the
edge
of the
plateau
north and
south of
Korat,
who
appear
to be remnants of the
original
Dvaravati
popula?
tion,
i.e. of the
early
Mon
kingdom
located in southern Thailand. These
remarks concern the
Nyah Kur,
of whom there are two main
groups,
though they speak
the same
language.
One
group
is found in the south
and west of Korat
province
and consists of about five
villages.
The
other is found in Petchabun
province,
in the hills to the south of the
town of that
name
and in the Sak
valley (two villages),
and in
Chaiya
phum province,
towards the Lam Chi river
(the remaining eighteen
or
so
villages). Numbering
about
2,000 altogether today,
the
Nyah
Kur
were once numerous
in the
general
area,
where
they preceded
the Kh?
mer and the
Thai;
but
they
are
rapidly becoming
assimilated to the
latter,
a
process
aided
by intermarriage
between
Nyah
Kur women and
Thai men and the fact that
they
share all but one of their
villages
with
the
Thai;
few now
speak
their
own
language.
The Petchabun
group
are
more under Thai influence than those in
Korat,
who seem to have dwelt
originally along
the northern
slopes
of the
Dangrek range. Nyah
Kur
is the true
ethnonym,
the Thai
using
the term
Chaubon;
both mean
'mountain
people'.
Seidenfaden said that
they
referred to themselves
as
Lawa,
a common Thai
designation
for
minority groups,
in order
to conceal their true
identity,
but Huffman
rejects
this. Both
groups
were
originally
swidden
cultivators,
but indications are that
they
have
become
permanently
settled wet-rice cultivators.16 There are number
of brief articles
by
Kerr
(1924, 1927),
Phra Petchabunburi
(1921)
and
Seidenfaden
(1918, 1919),
and
linguistic
work
by
Nai Pan Hla
(1986),
Diffloth and
Theraphan
L.
Thongkum (see
Huffman
1986).
J. Khmeric Branch
50. Khmer
Khmer
is,
of
course,
the
language
of the ethnic Cambodians. It
may
be
spoken by
about six million
people
at the
present day (1987),
but
it is
quite impossible
to
give
an accurate
figure
in view of their recent
history.
Most of these will be in Cambodia
itself,
but in the 1960s
there were
about
600,000
in
Cochinchina, throughout
the Parrot's Beak
63
and
Mekong
Delta
areas,
and about
500,000
in
Thailand, throughout
the
provinces
on its Cambodian border.17 Both
groups
are a
legacy
of
the
days
when Cambodia
was
larger,
and both have resisted
linguistic
assimilation while
remaining
docile citizens of these two more
powerful
neighbouring
states. These
figures
exclude the
many
thousand Khmer
living
in
refugee
camps just
inside
Thailand,
and the
many
thousand
more now settled in North
America, Europe
and Australasia.
The Khmer
language
is isolated within
Mon-Khmer, forming
a branch
of its
own,
its dialects
being
very
uniform. Its
history
is
conventionally
divided into the
following periods:
Pre-Angkorian
Old Khmer
(seventh
to
eighth centuries)
Old Khmer of
Angkor (ninth
to thirteenth
centuries)
Middle Khmer
(fourteenth
to
eighteenth centuries)
Modern Khmer
(from eighteenth century).
The first three divisions also
pertain
to Khmer
writing systems,
for Kh?
mer is one of three Austroasiatic
languages
with a
long
written
history
(the
others
being
Mon and
Vietnamese;
this
disregards
the numerous
tribal
languages
that have been reduced to
writing since,
and as a result
of,
contact).
The earliest dated Khmer
inscription
is from AD
611,
but
undated ones occur that
are
earlier, perhaps
from the second or third
centuries AD.
This, plus
Khmer identification with
one of Southeast
Asia's
longest continuing
nation
states,
means that Khmer
history
is
comparatively
well known for an Austroasiatic
group.18
Old Khmer kmer means
'slave' and was
adopted
as an
ethnonym
by
the Thai and Vietnamese
conquerors
on their
coming
south. The
modern
pronunciation
is
/khmae:/,
the
/r/ being
a
European speakers'
intrusion;
Martini nonetheless
regards
khm r to be the best translite?
ration. The name
'Cambodia' is from
Kambu,
the Khmers'
eponymous
ancestor
plus -ja
'son
of;
it was
replaced
with
'Kampuchea'
as the name
of the modern state in the 1970s but
readopted by
the
Heng
Samrin
government
in 1989.19
The reader should consult Huffman 1986 for works on Khmer lan?
guage,
and
general
Southeast Asian
bibliographies
for works on
Cam?
bodian
history.
On
ethnography,
there is the work of Ebihara
(1966,
1974),
d'Esnambuc
(1953),
Kalab
(1968, 1976), Migozzi (1973,
a demo?
graphic study),
O'Sullivan
(1962),
Olivier
(1968), Pore?-Maspero (es?
pecially 1961,
1969 and et al.
1958), Steinberg
et al.
(1959),
Zadrozny
(ed. 1955)
and Parkin
(ms-b).
64
K. Pearic Branch
These
languages
were
spoken by perhaps up
to
8,000 people, mainly
in
Cambodia but also in
Thailand,
but what has been their fate since the
mid-1970s is hard to determine.
Despite
the
geographical proximity
to
Khmer,
the two branches do not seem to be
particularly closely
related.
Their shared
vocabulary
is due both to their common
Mon-Khmer heri?
tage
and to
loans,
but it is often difficult to tell which is
which,
in view
of the
long period
of time
during
which the Pearic
groups
have been bi?
lingual.
Within the
branch,
Pear can be
grouped lexically
with
Chhong
in
opposition
to Samre and Saoch. The
speakers
of these
languages
are
very
much
a
minority
and
subject
to assimilation to the dominant
Khmer around
them,
who tend to
despise
them. A
majority
of them
have a
distinctive
physical appearance,
being
even darker skinned than
the Khmer and with curlier
hair,
but modern authorities dismiss earlier
descriptions
of them as
Negritos.20
51.
Chhong
Martin identifies three
Chhong
dialects in
Thailand, Chhong Hep
of
Pang Ngon district,
Chanthaburi
Province, Chhong
Law of
Thung
Ke
bin district in the same
province,
and
Chhong
of Trat
province,
the
first two
being virtually
identical. At one time
they
were
probably
to
be found scattered
along
the Thai and Cambodian coasts from Chant?
haburi to
Ream,
thus
linking
up
with the
Saoch,
but
today
most Ch?
hong
live in Thailand. In the 1850s the
Chhong
of
Kompong
Som and
Koh
Kong provinces
in south-western Cambodia were
still unassimila
ted and
largely
out of the
range
of the Cambodian
administration,
but
even
by
1909 most had been assimilated to the Khmer. The
'Chhong'
of
Kanchanaburi
province
in western Thailand are
probably
Saoch
(54)
Chhong
is a
pejorative
term
meaning 'sub-human,
thief etc. and
was
referred to
by
the Chinese traveller Tcheou
Ta-Kouan,
who visited Cam?
bodia in
1295-6;
it is nonetheless used
by
the
group itself,
as
well
as
by
the Khmer. In
Thailand,
it is
pronounced Chhang.
There were
perhaps
2,000
in Thailand in the
1930s,
but assimilation is
proceeding
here too:
younger generations
of
Chhong,
who must learn Thai at
school,
are ten?
ding
to
forget
their own
language.21
There is some recent
ethnography
on
them
by
Webber
(1976).
52. Pear
The Pear are found in the Cambodian
provinces
of
Battambang,
Pur
sat and
Kompong
Thorn. Those in
Kompong
Thorn are found near the
65
borders with
Siemreap
and Preah Vihear
provinces.
Here
they
are in?
terspersed
with Kui and tend to
speak
that
language
in addition to Pear
and
Khmer,
and their dialect is thus influenced
by
all these
languages.
Baradat
reported
a
general
desire to stress their Pear
origin
in order to
isolate themselves from the
surrounding Kuy. However,
no
ethnogra?
pher
has visited the area since his
day
and their
degree
of assimilation
subsequently
is uncertain. The Pear further to the south-west can be
divided into two
groups:
those of Pream Prus
(Pursat province)
call
themselves
Somree,
those of Kranhum
(Battambang province)
Somray,
the difference
being
very
slightly
dialectal as well as
geographic (these
names should not be confused with
Samre,
53).
In the
early
1970s the
former were restricted to five
villages along
the
Tayong river,
where
only
the women and the old were still
monolingual.
Baradat's
population
figure
of
8,502
for this
group
seems
high
even for 1936: his estimate
for the second
group
was about
1,500 relatively 'pure'
out of a total of
4,766.
Other
'Pear',
said to be in the
Dangrek range
and
Melouprey
area
by Aymonier,
were more
probably Kuy
(93)?2
Though conventionally
written
Pear,
the
ethnonym
is
pronounced
/por/.
It means
literally
'colour' or 'men of
colour',
a reference to their
dark
skin, though
whether it is
really
derived from Sanskrit varna as
Baradat
suggests
is uncertain. The Khmer also call them Menus
Prey,
'men of the
forest',
or
Pol,
a term
strictly referring
to
slaves,
crimi?
nals and
prisoners-of-war
as
well as Pear under the former
royal
court.
However,
due to their economic
importance
as collectors of cardamom
the Pear
largely escaped slavery,
and
they
were known
officially
as Pol
Kravanh
or 'Pol who
pay
tribute in cardamom'. Besides this
activity
they
were and still are
hunters, gatherers,
fishermen and small-scale
cultivators. Before the arrival of the Khmer
they may
have
occupied
most of western
Cambodia,
later
being split up
and isolated in small
enclaves.23 There is a
major
article
by
Baradat
(1941),
which
may
co?
ver other Pearic
groups
also.
Other,
shorter articles
are Martin
(1974a)
and Morizon
(1932).
53. Samre
Brengues
and Baradat
regard
the term Samre and its variants as the
indigenous
name for the
group
known to the Khmer as
Pear,
but Oli?
vier
regards
them all
as
separate groups.
The
group
with which
we
are concerned here were located at the foot of the Kulen
mountains,
in the north-east of
Siemreap province,
north of
Angkor,
in the
early
1970s.
They
are said to have become
totally assimilated, though
some
unassimilated individuals were still to be found in
1936,
out of the total
66
population
of
7,602. Virtually
all claimed Khmer
origin
but
gave away
their true
provenance by
their dialect and
pronunciation
of Khmer. Few
traces remain of the
vocabulary
collected in the
area
by
Moura in the
1880s.24
Both Baradat and Martini derive the
ethnonym
from sr or 'rice
field'
plus
nasal
infix,
but the latter dismisses Baradat's assertion that
the term also
signifies
'tattoo' in
Khmer, claiming
that his confusion has
arisen from the
very
similar word
samr?, meaning 'striped'. However,
this word is cited
by
Thomas and
Headley
as a
pejorative
and collective
term for the mountain tribes in
general, including Pear, Pnong
and Sti
eng
(56 etc.),
in Cambodia.
Moreover,
an
etymology
'ricefield' seems
anomalous here in view of the
group's
traditional
economy
of
hunting
and
gathering: only
in recent times have
they
taken
up
swidden culti?
vation
(unless
the Samre
were
cultivators in
pre-Khmer times, having
been
pushed
into
marginal
areas
by
Khmer
expansion).
In the
past
they
were
recruited
as
royal
and
temple
slaves and in the mid-1950s
were still
providing
music for festivals in Phnom Penh.25 Baradat 1941
contains some
general
information on them.
54.
Saoch
This
tiny group previously
lived in two reserved
villages along
the Kam
pong
Smach river on the Veal Renh
peninsula,
but in the late 1940s
they
were
reported
to have moved into the
nearby
forests of the Chaine
d'El?phant.
Their numbers were even then
very small,
about 200 ac?
cording
to
Baradat,
about 120
according
to Carbonnel. This in
part
reflects their turbulent recent
history. According
to the
story,
in 1832
or
1833
a
large
number of Saoch were taken
by
the Siamese
navy
from
the above areas to
Thailand, apparently
as
willing refugees
from Kh?
mer enslavement. In 1842 followed
an
apparently
enforced
kidnapping
of
nearly
all the remainder.
Many
of their descendants still live in
Kanchanaburi
province
under the name of
Chhong-ut
or
Kha-ut,
but
the remnants of the second
group,
two
males,
were later
repatriated
to
marry
the
remaining
females of the
group,
three in
number,
who had
remained in Cambodia.26
Saoch is the
ethnonym,
but the Khmer also call them Kh?a
Prei,
'les
ins?parables
de la for?t'. The names
Chhong
and Sui were
also
reported by Pavie,
but
they
are doubtful and in
any
case
best avoided
ethnographically
in view of their use
for other
groups
(51, 55).
Baradat
considers the term Saoch to be a
reference to a skin
complaint
carried
by many
of the tribe. The term
Angrak
also
appears
in the earlier
literature,
but Olivier thinks that these
may
in fact be
Chhong (51).
67
AU Saoch
speak
Khmer and
only
Khmer to an
increasing extent,
and
Martin found
only
one
village
in
Kampot province containing
Saoch
speakers. They
are
hunters, gatherers
and
fishermen,
and cultivate
some
rice.27 Particular works
on
them are
Carbonnel
1968,
Lecl?re 1909
and Taillard
1942;
Baradat 1941 should also be consulted.
55.
Suoy
etc.
According
to
Martin,
the
Suoy
are to be found in
Kompong Speu pro?
vince,
around
Tr?peang Ch?, speaking
a dialect restricted to
just
a few
villages.
Their name is shared
by
a Katuic
group
(94),
from whom
they
are
apparently distinct,
but we know
very
little else about them.
Another Pearic
group
around
Thpong
in the same
province
-
Samre
or
possibly
Pear
-
were mentioned
by Marguet,
but
they
have since
disap?
peared.
One other
group
is mentioned
by
Martin.
However,
the term
for
them,
Khamen
Boran,
can be
glossed simply
as
'archaic
Khmer',
and even Martin
gives
it little
credibility
as a
Pearic
ethnonym,
so it
is
perhaps
best
disregarded. Headley regards
the vocabularies found
under this name in
Bastian,
Gamier and older sources as a
dialect of
Pear from either
Siemreap
or
Kompong
Thorn
provinces.28
L. Bahnaric Branch
This branch is
conventionally
divided into three sub-branches. South
Bahnaric is
separated
from North and West Bahnaric
by
some
ninety
miles
(150 km)
of
Austronesian-speaking territory.
It
may
have been
Austronesian
expansion
into the hill
areas that isolated South Bahna?
ric from the other
branches,
West Bahnaric
probably already having
separated,
since South Bahnaric and West Bahnaric are both closer to
North Bahnaric than to one
another;
there is about
40-45%
cognate
ness between South Bahnaric and North Bahnaric. There
are at least
half a million
speakers
of Bahnaric
languages, mostly
in south-central
Vietnam but also in southern Laos and north-west Cambodia.29
L
(i)
South Bahnaric Sub-Branch
56.
Stieng
This
group
is found
chiefly
in the Cambodian-Vietnam border
areas,
east of Snoul. In
Cambodia,
where there were an estimated
30,000
plus Stieng
in the
1960s, they
are
found between Snoul and Sre Khtum
and further
north,
in Ratanakiri
province.
In
Vietnam,
most live in the
68
provinces
of Phuoc
Long,
where there
are about
20,000,
and Binh
Long,
where there
are about
10,000;
others
are found in
Tay Ninh,
Binh
Dong,
Phuoc
Thanh, Quang
Due and Bien Hoa
provinces.
The 1976 Summer
Institute of
Linguistics population
estimate of
Stieng speakers
for the
whole of Vietnam is
48,000. They
live
interspersed
with Khmer
on both
sides of the border.
They
have a
history
of
being
formidable
fighters
and of
raiding
other tribes:
they
were
among
the last
montagnards
to
be subdued
by
the
French, against
whose rule
they
rebelled in
1862,
and
again
in 1933.30
The
Stieng
are also known
as
Budip,
but this is
strictly speaking
a
sub-group
with its own
dialect,
others
being Budeh,
Bulach and Bulo.
Maitre considered the Budeh to be a mixed
group
of
Stieng
and
Mnong,
and
they
are
possibly
alluded to
by
Guilleminet. The
group
call them?
selves
Ke-dieng, Se-dieng
or
Rmang;
the second of these
may
be derived
from Vietnamese
sding
'river'
(see 62).
Many Stieng
know Khmer and
a few used to know
a little
French;
some Budeh
are
familiar with
a
Mnong
dialect.31 There
are
just
two
ethnographic
articles
on
the Sti?
eng,
Az?mar 1886 and Gerber
1951,
the second of which is
really
an
administrative codification of
Stieng
customs rather than a true
piece
of
ethnographic analysis.
57-59.
Mnong
The
Mnong
consist of several
sub-groups,
which
are
conventionally
di?
vided into three dialect
groups.
Most are found in south-central Vi?
etnam;
those in Cambodia
are
colloquially
and often
ethnographically
called
Pnong,
but this is
confusing,
since it is a
local
generic
name for
all the
montagnards
of eastern Cambodia rather than a true
ethnonym.
It
may
be related to Khmer
phnom 'hill',
and Condominas
glosses
it as
'hillbilly'.32
57. Southern
Mnong
This
group
consists
principally
of two
sub-groups
in Darlac
province,
Vietnam,
the
Nong
or
Diq,
of Dak-Mil
district,
and the
Prong (Prang
or
Rbut)
in the middle Da
Dung
basin.
Nguyen Dang
Liem also hesi?
tantly
includes the
Rahong,
Bu Sre and Bu
Dip.
The last of these is
more
probably
a
Stieng sub-group (56).
The first
are to be found in
Quang
Due
province
and over the
border,
in the far south of the Cambo?
dian
province
of
Mondolkiri; they
may
be mixed with
Stieng, assuming
Hoeffel's
Rong
to be the same
group.
There were an
estimated
12,000
Southern
Mnong
in the late 1970s.33
69
58. Central
Mnong
This
group
consists of at least six
sub-groups.
The Preh are found in
northern
Quang
Due
province
and east of
Banmethuot;
the
Budong
in
the latter
area,
on the
right
bank of the
Srepok;
the
Burung
and Dih
Bri in central
Quang Due;
the Bunor in eastern
Quang
Due and over
the border
on the
Upper Chhlong plateau;
and the Biat on
the
Upper
Chhlong
and
Upper Song
Be and more
generally
in Kratie and eastern
Mondolkiri
provinces
in
Cambodia,
as well as
possibly
in the area east of
Banmethuot, just
inside Vietnam. Preh means
'high, large'.
Nor means
'red',
to which bu
'people'
is
prefixed.
The
Budong may
have taken
their name from the town of Ban
Dong,
north-west of Banmethuot.
The Biat are more or less
Khmerized,
their name
being
the
generic
Maaq
term for all
Mnong,
and this
may
have
given
rise to confusion
with some
ethnographers,
who sometimes seem to have included other
Mnong sub-groups
with them. In west Mondolkiri
province
there is a
mixed Khmer-Biat
group
known
as Kraol
(cf. 93). Nguyen Dang
Liem's
population
estimate for the Central
Mnong (1978)
is
23,000.34
59. Eastern
Mnong
Again
there
are
perhaps
six
sub-groups,
all in Darlac and
Tuyen
Due
provinces,
Vietnam. The Rlam
(also Ro'lo'm),
whose ethnic name is
Lam or Lam
Ban,
are
found in the area of Lake Daak Lak.
They
are
quite heavily
influenced
by
the
Austronesian-speaking
Rhad? in
langu?
age
and
ritual,
but still
regard
themselves as
Mnong. They
numbered
about
15,000
in the 1960s.
They may
have
gone
the
way
of the
Mnong
Gar,
who were
formerly
found
mainly
in the middle
Krong valley
and
the Lake Laat Dak basin but
disappeared
as an identifiable ethnic unit
during
the Vietnam War. Other Rlam
('lowlanders')
and Gar
('highlan
ders')
were also
living
in south-west
Quang
Due
province,
the former
occupying
the
foothills,
the latter the
peaks.
Jouin
clearly
sees the
Rlam
as an offshoot of the Gar.35
Also to be included here
are the
Kuenh,
in north-eastern
Tuyen
Due
province;
the Dli?
Rue,
to the north of the Rlam and
very Rhad?ized;
and,
between the Rlam and
Gar,
five hamlets of
Mnong Ndee,
who
identify
with the Rlam but
approach
the Gar in dialect. The Gar
were
known to their
neighbours
as Phi Bri or 'men of the forest'. In 1965
these numbered about
5,000. Nguyen Dang
Liem's estimate for all the
Eastern
Mnong (1978)
is about
12,000.36
One cannot
say
for certain that these
sub-groups
are also
linguistic
or dialectal
groups,
but it is hard to discern
any principle
of demarca?
tion with our
present knowledge.
The
Mnong
Gar's
sense of
unity
was
70
certainly
based above all
on a common
language, yet
this did not
pre?
vent the rise of local dialectal
variations,
due to their isolation in their
own
villages
and their division between the
largely Rhad?-speaking
pro?
vince of Darlac and the
largely Vietnamese-speaking province
of Haut
Donnai.
Many Mnong speak Rhad?,
which is the
lingua
franca of the
Banmethuot
area. This is
especially
true of the
Rlam, seventy per
cent
of whom
speak
it and for
many
of whom it is the main
language.37
The
area
being generally highly
forested and
underpopulated,
the
Mnong
have been left
largely
free of outside interference until modern
times.
They
have a
reputation
for
belligerence,
and French rule was
not
fully imposed
on the
area until 1938. It was French rule that led to
contact with the
Vietnamese,
the Chamic
groups
hitherto
having
acted
as a buffer. Most
Mnong
seem to be
shifting cultivators,
but the
Rlam,
Ndee and Dli? Rue
grow
rice
by irrigation,
a
method learned from
the Cham. The
Budong,
who
formerly
had
a
particularly
fearsome
reputation
as
fighters, specialized traditionally
in
hunting elephants,
selling
them
as far
as Burma. Maitre mentions the
Kesiong
or
Kyong
and the
Krieng,
all of the lower
Krong Boung,
as a
group apparently
related to the
Mnong,
but intermixed with
Rhad?,
whose
language they
understand;
we know
nothing
else about them.38
The
leading ethnographer
on the
Mnong
and indeed
on
any
Aus?
troasiatic
group
of Vietnam is
Condominas,
who has
produced
a
large
number of books and articles
on the
Mnong
Gar
especially (e.g.
1952,
1957, 1960, 1965b, 1974, 1980;
1955 is on the
Mnong Rlam).
Lafont
also worked
briefly
on
the Rlam
(e.g. 1967).
Older work to be noted
includes the articles of Huard and Maurice
(1939)
and Lecl?re
(1898).
60. Chrau
This
group
of about
20,000
is found in the
provinces
of
Long Khanh,
Binh
Tuy,
Phuoc
Tuy
and Bien
Hoa, mainly
coastal
provinces
east
north-east of Ho Chi Minh
City.
Their western
boundary
is
probably
the
Dong Nai,
their northern the
Langa river,
their eastern the Tanh
Lin-Ham Tan road. Xuan Loc is in the centre of the Chrau
area and
is
largely
a
Chrau town. Their
area is thus intermediate between the
flatlands of the
Mekong
delta and the Annamite Chain. While most
still live
among
the forests and
plantations, many
now live in or near
the numerous Vietnamese
villages
of the
area.
According
to
Thomas,
writing
of the
1960s,
'all
are
deeply
involved in the Vietnamese cash
economy',
and there has been a lot of Vietnamese cultural and lin?
guistic
influence
over them.
They
should not be confused with the
Austronesian-speaking
Chruru of this area.39
71
Chrau
means
'montagnard'
and is the usual
ethnonym, although
it
is also used in
conjunction
with other ethnic
designations.
Jro or Ro
(cf. 61)
is used
by
the
group
for
themselves,
and also for a
non-Chrau
group
and for a
Chrau
sub-group;
it seems in
reality
to be the
name
of the
largest
Chrau clan and is often used as a
synonym
for the whole
group.
About
ninety per
cent of the Chrau
are
bilingual
in Vietnamese
and
Chrau,
the latter
being
used
domestically,
the former in cross
cultural contacts. The Xuan Loc dialect seems to be the standard
one.40
Virtually
the
only ethnography
dedicated to them is Thomas
1972.
61.
K?h?/Maaq/Sre
The Cham
originally
called those tribes of the Haut Donnai who were
subject
to their influence
(especially
in
language) R?glai,
all other
mon?
tagnards
of the area
being
called
K?h?, 'depuis
les
Sr?,
relativement
chamis?s, jusqu'aux
Maa'.'
Although
even the latter
group
were at ti?
mes under Cham
control,
in the
past
this distinction was at least
partly
political, dividing
those
groups
administered more
directly by
the Cham
from those
subject
to remoter control.
Today, however,
it has been
re?
placed by
a
wholly linguistic distinction,
at least in academic
circles,
in
which Austronesian
groups
are called
R?glai,
Mon-Khmer ones
K?h?.41
There are several
sub-groups.
The most
important
of
these,
and the
one that has received most
ethnographic attention,
is the
Maaq who,
with a
population
of
22-30,000,
account for about a
quarter
of all K?h?.
The centre of their area is the
great
bend in the
Daaq Deung,
bounded
to east and west
by
the Dalat-Ho Chi Minh
City
and Banmethuot
Ho Chi Minh
City highways respectively. They
are themselves divided
into numerous
sub-groups, namely
Trao
Tioma,
Maa
Deq We,
Maa
Krung,
Maa Daa
Cuy,
Maa Daa
Deung,
Maa
Blaa, B?sre, Tou, To,
Ro
(cf.
Chrau,
60), Sop, Huang, Preng, B?l??,
and
Coop. They pursue
both swidden and
irrigated
cultivation.
They
are
strongly
resistant to
Vietnamese influence and
aggressive
towards
them,
and their area was
not
totally pacified by
the French until 1937.42
The most
important group
after the
Maaq
are the Sre
or
Cau
Sre,
'people
of the
ricefields',
a name
they
use to
distinguish
themselves
from the
Maaq
etc. and which reflects their
preference
for
irrigated
cultivation. It is often used
by neighbouring
tribes for other K?h?
groups,
but
ethnographically
its use for one
particular group
has become
sufficiently
established not to lead to
any
confusion. All the
groups
refer to themselves
as Koon Cau
or 'sons of men'
(in
contradistinction
to
Ngar Yang 'spirits')
and
they
are found in and around Di Linh.
72
Being valley dwellers, they
are more influenced
by
the Vietnamese than
other
montagnards,
and
many
are
bilingual. Formerly, they
acted as
intermediaries in trade between the coast and the
interior,
but later
their role was taken over
by
Chinese and Vietnamese merchants.43
As for the
remaining
K?h?
groups,
the
Tola, Nop
and
K?yon
are
found on the hills around the
plain
of
Phan-Thiet,
south of Di
Linh;
the latter were intermediaries in the
past
between the
highlands
and
the Cham authorities. The Tola too have
long
been in contact with the
Cham and
are
much influenced
by
them. The Cil
(also
Chil, Kil,
Til)
are a
disparate group
of hunters and
simple
cultivators
living
north-east
of Dalat on the
Upper
Donnai. Cil is the Vietnamese
designation,
and
they
call themselves Kou N'ho or
'children of the
pines';
Cil is used
by
other
montagnards
in a
depreciatory
sense to
signify
'lack of
culture',
and the Cil
are
undoubtedly
looked down
upon by
their
neighbours.
The
Tring
are
described
as a
shy group living
to their north-east. Both
groups
live in isolated houses rather than in
villages.
The
Nohang
are
also located in this area. The Lat or Lac are
found north and north?
west of
Dalat,
to which
they
have
given
their name.
About
2,500 strong,
they
are
nominally
Christian and settled
cultivators,
and
pace Legay,
who classes them as
Mnong, they
do seem to be a
K?h?
group.
Also
to be mentioned are the
Riong
of south-east
Quang
Due
province,
the
Pru of north-west Binh
Tuy,
the
Laya
to the south of
them,
around
the headwaters of the
Donnai,
the Roda somewhere to the south of Di
Linh,
and two that are names
only,
the Co Don and the
Kalop.44
According
to a
Summer Institute of
Linguistics
estimate of 1976 the
entire K?h?
group
numbers about
100,000,
of which about
30,000
are
Sre.
According
to a
Hanoi-based
source,
the
Lat, Nop, Laya,
Co Don
and Tola
together
number about
10,000.
The main K?h?
dialects,
all
mutually intelligible,
are listed
by Manley
as follows:
Sre
(about
23,000,
in Di Linh area and
eastwards)
Maaq (about
40,000,
from
Quang
Due to south of Bao
Lao)
Cil
(about
14,000,
around
Dalat)
Lac
(about
3,000,
in
Dalat)
Nop
(about
6,000,
south-east of Di
Linh,
towards the
coast)
Riong (about
14,000,
west of
Lieng Khong).
Sre and
Maaq
are both
subject
to further dialectal variation. Sre is one
of the chief commercial
languages
of this
part
of the
highlands, being
understood
by
traders even
among
the
Bahnar,
Jarai and Rhad? to the
north.
Apart
from the Sre few K?h? know
Vietnamese, though
many
are
bilingual
in Cham and their own
dialect.45
The main modern
ethnographer
on
the Sre is Dournes
(e.g.
1951,
1954,
1978), following Queginier 1943,
and on the
Maaq,
Boulbet
(e.g.
73
1957, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967,
1972). Legay
has
published
on the Lat
(Legay
and K'mloi D? Got
1971; Legay 1975). Concerning
this
general
region,
note also Ner 1930 and Dam Bo
(= Dournes)
1950.
L
(ii)
North Bahnaric Sub-Branch
62. Bahnar
The Bahnar are an
important group,
or at
any
rate
conspicuous
in the
literature,
thanks
mainly
to the
industry
of
Guilleminet,
their French
administrator for
many years.
They
are found around Kontum and bet?
ween that town and Pleiku and An
Khe,
the Summer Institute of Lin?
guistics
estimate of their
population being
about
85,000.
About
70,000
of these
are
divided into seven
major sub-groups,
which are
distributed
among
an eastern and a western
group
on
cultural and
linguistic
as
well as
geographical grounds.
In the eastern
group
are the
Alakong
and
Tolo
(respectively
north-west and south-west of An
Khe,
the latter on
the middle
Ayun
and middle
Song Ba);
the Bonom
(around
An
Khe);
and the Golar of the Pleiku area. In the western
group
are the Jo
long (north-east
of
Kontum);
the Bahnar Kontum
(to
the
south-east);
and the
R?ngao (to
the
west).
The
meanings
of
Jolong
and Tolo are
uncertain.
Alakong
means 'those
beyond
the
high mountains',
Bonom
'those of the
high mountains',
Golar 'those of the
reeds',
Kontum 'those
of the
marshes', R?ngao
or
Rengao
'those of the frontier'. The latter
seem
today
to be a
mixed
group
of
Bahnar, Sedang (63), Halang (64)
and Jarai
(an Austronesian-speaking group),
but at the turn of the cen?
tury they may
have had more cultural
autonomy
as a
Bahnar or North
Bahnaric
group.
Bahnar
appears
to be the true
ethnonym, Bo'nar,
the
eastern form of
it, being
now
very
rare.46
In addition to these main
groups,
there are a number of lesser
groups, numbering
in total
10-15,000.
Attached to the eastern
group
are
the Kon Ko De
(west
and north-west of An
Khe),
the Krem
(north
of An
Khe)
and the Roh
(to
the south-west of the
latter).
Attached to
the western
group
are the To
Sung (east
of
Pleiku)
and the
Hodrung,
the latter
being
a
mixed Bahnar-Jarai
group
north-east of Pleiku.
They
are often referred to
by
the
Jolong
name for
them, Hagu,
which is also
a
toponym.
Also to be mentioned
are
the
Hroi,
a
group
much inter?
mixed with Jarai and Cham elements and
rapidly disappearing
as an
identifiable unit but found in the Binh Dinh-Phu Yen border
areas,
and
the 144 M'nhar. Cottes and Baudenne mention
yet
other
groups,
but
these have never since been confirmed.47
Bahnar is the southernmost North Bahnaric
language
and
though
lexically very
North
Bahnaric,
it is
phonologically
close to South Bahna
74
rie, despite being separated
from the South Bahnaric
area
by
some
100 miles of
Austronesian-speaking territory. Accordingly, Gregerson,
Smith and Thomas have
suggested placing it, together
with a few other
North Bahnaric
languages,
in a
separate,
Central Bahnaric branch.
There are dialectal differences between the various
sub-groups,
those
of the eastern Bahnar
being generally
closer to one another than those
of the western
Bahnar; Tolo,
Krem and Kon Ko De
speak virtually
the same dialect.
Nonetheless, during
the relative
peace
of the 1860s
the
R?ngao,
Kontum and
Jolong
dialects
seem to have moved closer
together.
All dialects are
save
Bonom,
which is
close to Hre
(66),
and
R?ngao
is not well understood in the east. Kon?
tum Bahnar is the most
prestigious
and therefore the standard
dialect,
perhaps
because of its
special
association with the missions. Some
Bahnar
speak Vietnamese,
Jarai
and/or
Rhad?,
and
formerly,
at
least,
French.48
Like
Jarai,
Bahnar is one
of the
prestige languages
of the area and
its
speakers
were
formerly
in contact with the Khmer and Cham
em?
pires
more than most of its
neighbours.
The tribes seem to have been
quite powerful
in the fifteenth to
eighteenth centuries,
but thereafter
Lao encroachments led to increased intertribal warfare in which the
Bahnar were
decimated
by
the
Sedang
and Jarai and suffered
perse?
cution from the
Vietnamese,
so that the western
group
were
close to
extinction
by
1850.
They
were
only
saved
by
the mediation efforts of
French
missionaries,
and it is
partly
because of this that
they
became
the first
montagnards
to submit to French rule.
They
seem to have
been treated as a
model tribe
by
the
French, responding
better than
most to education efforts and
being
on the whole docile
subjects
of
the French
Empire. Many
became
literate,
and
many
more converted
to
Catholicism,
to the number of about
25,000
in 1940.
Traditionally
swidden
cultivators,
some Bahnar now
grow
wet-rice.49
As
already noted,
the chief
ethnographer
on the Bahnar has been
Guilleminet
(e.g.
1941, 1949a, 1949b,
1960 and
especially 1952a, 1952b,
which are
really
administrative redactions of tribal
custom);
more re?
cently,
there have been
L?ger (e.g. 1974)
and Banker 1972. Earlier
work was
done
by
Guerlach
(1884, 1895)
and,
on the
R?ngao,
Kemlin
(1909-10, 1910,
1917).
63.
Sedang
According
to the Summer Institute of
Linguistics
estimate of 1978 there
are
about
40,000
Sedang, mainly
in the
provinces
of Kontum
(centre
and
north)
and
Quang Ngai (northern
Tra Khuc
basin).
There
may
also
75
be some in
Quang-Nam province
and in
Attopeu province,
Laos.50 The
ethnic name is
Roteang (dialectally Hoteang etc.),
which means basi?
cally 'montagnard', though
it is used more
widely too,
in connection
with
groups
such
as the
Jeh,
Bahnar etc.
Sedang
is the French
pro?
nunciation of
Hadang,
the Bahnar name for the
Sedang, cognate
with
Stieng (56)
and derived from Vietnamese
sding
'river'. In Laos both
they
and the
Halang (64)
are called
Salang;
the Vietnamese traditio?
nally
call them
Moi-cao,
'uncivilized
savages',
or Da
Vach, though
the
latter more
usually
refers to the Hre
(66).
Two other Vietnamese desi?
gnations
may
refer to
them, namely
Tac-minh and
Nuoc-minh, though
these are
really toponyms.
In older literature their
ethnonym appears
as
Xo'dang, Ca-dong,
Ka
Giong,
Xa
Giang
etc.51
Sub-groups
are iden?
tifiable, namely
the
Danja, Duong, (Ta-)Cor,
Hin and
Kmrang (found
between the
Sedang
and Mount
Ngoc Linh;
the name means
'great
forest').
There
are also the
M?nam, closely
related but
perhaps
on
their
way
to
becoming
a
separate group;
the
Hamong,
a mixed
Sedang
Rengao sub-group;
and the
Rengao
or
R?ngao themselves,
a mixed
Bahnar-Sedang-Jarai group
to the south
already
mentioned under 62.
Kunstadter
suggests
that the
Hayan
or
Sayan
of
Quang Ngai province
may
be a
sub-group
or a
closely
related
group.52
Linguistically too,
several dialects can be
isolated, namely
Central
Sedang,
Greater
Sedang, Daksut,
Kon
Hring
and Kotua. In Smith's
view,
the tribe 'is a more or less loose
linguistic unit, comprising many
variations. Each dialect is ridiculed
by
the other members of the tribe.
At the outer
fringes
it
merges gradually
into other tribal dialects'. Some
Sedang
know
Jeh,
a few Vietnamese
or
(formerly,
at
least)
French.53
One of the more
aggressive
of the
montagnard groups,
the
Sedang
have a
history
of
raiding
their
neighbours
and remained restive
right
up
to the end of French rule.
They
were used
by
the
French,
Ameri?
cans and Viet
Cong
for
military purposes.
Between 1888 and 1890
a
European
adventurer called Baron
Mayr?na
established himself as their
'king'
under the title of Marie I until
being
ousted
by
the French. Ab?
out
8,000
have been converted
by
the Catholic missionaries who have
been in the
area since 1849.
They
are
mainly shifting cultivators,
but
there is also
some wet-rice cultivation.54
Ethnography
is available
by
the
psychological anthropologist
Devereux
(1937, 1947)
and
-
an ad?
ministrative rather than an
ethnographic piece
of work
-
Guilleminet
1952b.
76
64-
H
alang
This
group
is found
mainly
in the northern and western
parts
of Kon?
tum
province,
but there
are also some in the
adjoining parts
of Laos
and Cambodia. In
Kontum, they
number
10,000 according
to
Cooper,
30,000 according
to
Schrock,
a
secondary
source. Like the
Sedang they
are called
Salang by
the Lao.
Halang
is either the name of a
district
or else means 'mixed
blood',
a
possible
reference to their occasional
intermarriage
with the Jarai.
'Ko'yong,
a
nearby dialect,
is
mutually
intelligible
with
Halang',
its
speakers being
found to the west of
Dakto;
in 1913
they
were still identical to the
Halang
in culture and social
organization, living
in five
villages
with a
total
population
of between
2,000
and
2,500
(cf. 71). Linguistically, Halang
is
closely
related to
Sedang
and
especially Jeh,
and its
speakers
are
generally
familiar with
all three.
They
are
mainly shifting
cultivators. The
tendency
to move
into Laos and Cambodia is
relatively recent,
due
chiefly
to the Vietnam
War.55 There is no
ethnography
dedicated to them.
65. Jeh
The Jeh are found in southern
Quang
Nam and western
Quang
Tin
provinces
and in
Laos,
on
the
uppermost
reaches of the
Poko,
Se Ka
mane and Dak Main rivers.
They
number
perhaps 9-10,000. They
are
a
weak
group
that have been
pushed
into the mountains
by
other
high
landers and the Vietnamese.
They
were
driven to the
edge
of extinction
by
the
Sedang
and did not come
fully
under French control until the
late 1930s. Jeh is the
ethnonym,
but it also
appears
as
Die,
Yeh etc.
Dram, Langya,
Bri
La,
Jeh
Mang Ram,
Jeh Perak and
presumably
Jeh Derale are all reckoned to be Jeh
sub-groups.
The
language
has a
number of
dialects,
not all of which are
mutually intelligible. They
are
shifting
cultivators.56 Gradin has written one
ethnographic
article on
them
(1972),
which includes a
kinship terminology.
66. Hre
This
group
are
found in the
provinces
of eastern
Quang Ngai
and nor?
thern Binh
Dinh, especially
in the
valleys
of the
Song
Tra-Khuc and
Song
Ve. Known
sub-groups
are the
Kare,
Rabah or
Zava,
and
Strieng
or
Trieng,
but others
may
well exist. A distinction between lowland and
highland Hre,
with
perhaps
a
middle
group also,
is sometimes made.
Before the Vietnamese
conquest,
most Hre
may
have been
lowlanders;
these cultivate wet
rice,
but the
highlanders
are
swidden cultivators.
Many
were resettled south in 1972 and 1974. The Summer Institute of
77
Linguistics
estimate of their
population, 80,000
in
1978,
is
perhaps
the
most reasonable.57
The Hre are
called Da Vach
by
the
Vietnamese,
but this
designa?
tion is
given
to the
Sedang
and other
groups
also. The
language
has a
number of dialects.
Many, especially
lowland
Hre, speak
Bahnar and
Vietnamese,
and some
speak
Cham.58 There is no
published
ethno?
graphy specifically
on
them nor
any
of the
remaining
North Bahnaric
groups.
67. Cua
These are
found in
Quang Ngai
and
Quang
Tin
provinces,
in the
hig?
hlands
beyond
the coastal
plain. They
should not be confused with
either the Cao
or the Takua
(84, 70).
There seem to be
sub-groups,
for it
appears
that those of the foothills are
known as Traw or
Dong,
those
higher
up
as
Kol,
Dot or
Yot;
the Khua and
Bong
Mien are also
mentioned. The
population
is estimated at around
15,000.
Like Bahnar
(62)
and Alak
(69),
Cua is
lexically
North
Bahnaric,
but
phonologically
it leans towards South Bahnaric
(hence Gregerson's proposal
to form
a
Central Bahnaric
group
from these
languages). According
to
Maier,
the
Tra-Bong valley
dialect is
'slightly
different from the
High
Moun?
tain
dialect,
which includes
a
larger geographic
area and
considerably
more
speakers.'
There is little
knowledge
of other
languages,
but some
Cua traders
speak
Vietnamese.
They
cultivate both wet and
dry
rice.
Hickey
mentions the
Tatang
as a
group possibly
related to the Cua.59
68. Todrah
Next to
nothing
is known about this
group,
of south-east Kontum
pro?
vince. 'The To'drah
language
area extends from Kon
Ho'nong village
on
National
Highway
14 northwest of Kontum
City
to Kon Braih and
Plateau Gi to the
northeast',
these
being
the locations of the Modra
and Didra dialects
respectively.
Other dialects are
Kodra and Podra.60
69. Alak
Huffman
puts
Alak into West
Bahnaric,
but Thomas
places
it in North
Bahnaric on
lexical
grounds.
The
group
is found in
Laos,
on the Se
Kong, up-river
from
Attopeu,
and in the
Paksong
district of Se Done
province. They
numbered
7,000
in the 1930s. Pace
Bel, they
do seem to
be
separate
from the
Sapuan,
the West Bahnaric
group
(79).
Fraisse
gives Slouy
as an
alternative
designation (cf. 86). They
should not
be confused with the Lac or
Lat,
the K?h?
group
of Vietnam
(61).
78
They may
or
may
not be the same as
the
Kasseng, similarly
difficult to
classify
but
linguistically closely
related
(but
cf.
78).61
70. Takua
Not to be confused with the Cua
(67),
these are found in eastern
Quang
Tin
province, though they
were
formerly reported
further
south,
on the
upper
Tra Khuc.62
71.
Koyong
According
to
Cooper, Koyong
is
with
Halang,
and
the two
groups
are
obviously closely
related.
They
were
formerly
said
to consist of
2,000
to
2,500
individuals
living
in
just
five
villages
in
Kontum
province,
to the west of
Dakto,
and to be
culturally
similar to
the
Halang (64)
P
72. Duan
This
group
is also found in north-east Kontum
province
but were for?
merly
in
Laos,
to the south of the middle Se Kamane. In the same
area are the
Halang-Duan,
a
Sedang-Halang
mixed
group, traditionally
(i.e. mythically?)
descended from the
marriage
of a
Sedang
chief cal?
led Duan and a
Halang
woman.
Jouin
regards
the Duan
simply
as a
wet-rice
growing Sedang sub-group.64
In
fact,
all these
groups
seem to be
very
closely
related to the
Halang
and
Sedang.
Mole seems to
regard
them all
as
synonyms,65
but this is
unlikely
in view of their rather
dispersed
locations. In
truth,
their exact
status is
very
uncertain.
73. Bout
A
map
in Schrock shows this
group
to be north-east of
Kontum,
in
the area where the
provinces
of
Kontum, Quang Ngai
and Binh Dinh
meet.66
74- Kayong
Not to be confused with
Koyong (see 64),
this
group
is to be found
on
the border between north-east Kontum and
Quang Ngai provinces.
They
are
also known as Ca
Going
or
Katang.
Their
language
is
repor?
tedly
close to Cua
(67).67
79
L
(iii)
West Bahnaric Sub-Branch
75. Boloven
This
group
is located on the Boloven
plateau,
between Pak Son and
Tat
eng,
and
formerly,
at
least, they
were found as
far north as the source
of the Se Done. Boloven is the Lao
term,
from Loven or
Laven, by
which
they
are also
known, plus
bo-
'source, origin'; they
call themselves
Jruq,
the term used for them
by
other
montagnards
also.
They
are not to be
confused with the
closely
related
Lav?,
also known
as Brao
(77),
to the
south-east.
They
numbered about
10,000
in the
1930s,
but Kunstadter
estimated them at
18,000
in the 1960s.
They
claim to have
come from
the north
and/or
east.
Today they
are
very
Laoicized and
bilingual
but still
shifting
cultivators. The
language
seems to have
a
certain
status in the
area,
since
many
other
montagnard groups
are
familiar
with
it;
in Ferlus's
view,
it is more conservative than its
neighbours.68
For
ethnography,
see
Lavall? 1901 and Fraisse 1951.
76. Nha Hon
Apart
from three
villages
between Pakse and
Paksong
which have been
separated
from the main
group
for more than a
century,
the
2,500
Nha
H?n are to be found on the east of the Boloven
plateau,
in the
angle
formed
by
the Se
Kong
and its
tributary
the Se Nam Noi. Nha H?n
is the Lao
designation,
the
people
themselves
usually using simply
the
second
part.
Fraisse uses the
spelling
On
or
Ogne,
but this is
confusing
in view of the existence of a
separate group
of this
name in the area
(see 91).
The
language
is close to
Boloven,
and both
groups speak
each other's
language,
but the Nha H?n are less familiar with Lao.
Though
some
irrigated
cultivation has been introduced
recently, shifting
cultivation is still
pursued.
Like the
Boloven, they
have a tradition of a
northerly origin.69
There is one
good
recent
ethnography (Wall 1975).
77. Brao or Lav?
The Brao are
mostly
found in
Cambodia,
in Ratanakiri
province,
bet?
ween
Lomphat
on the
Srepok
and Vceune Sai
on the Se
San,
the
closely
related
Krung, perhaps
a
sub-group, being
mixed
up
with them. The
equally closely
related
Kravet,
found to the north of the Sesan and
stretching
into
Attopeu province, Laos,
are
perhaps
those in Bassac
province
mentioned
by
Guilleminet. Another
group
is located in Thai?
land,
near Khammarat and Chanuman Monthon in Ubon Ratchathani
province; they
had retained their
language
at least
up
to the second
80
decade of this
century. Perhaps
connected with them were descendents
of some Brao
ex-slaves,
called
locally
Kha
Tong Ong,
who
formerly
li?
ved
just
south of Korat and have since been assimilated to the Thai.
Both
groups
seem to have come from
Attopeu,
the latter
perhaps
in
the
early
nineteenth
century.
There
may
be
yet
other Brao near
Pailin,
in western Cambodia. There
were
perhaps 2,500
in Thailand and 500
in Laos in the
1960s,
but
we can
only guess
at the Cambodian
figure.70
Brao often
appears
as Preou etc. in the
literature,
and the normal
French version is Brou. Use of
this, however,
invites confusion with
the
Bru,
an
entirely separate
Katuic
group
(85),
and
indeed,
the items
by
Matrus listed under 'Bru' in Huffman's index in
reality
relate to the
Brao. Brao itself is a
potential
source of
confusion,
since it is often used
as a
prefix
to other
ethnonyms,
such as Boloven and
Jarai,
both within
and outside the
Attopeu
area;
in this sense it is
broadly equivalent
to
'montagnard', though basically
it means
'people'.
In
Laos,
the Brao
are
called Lav?
or sometimes Ve. Writers
disagree
as to whether to take the
Brao and Lav?
as
one,
but
they
do seem to be
drawing apart: according
to
Hours,
'la
langue
est
practiquement
commune mais les
institutions,
les
practiques
rituelles diff?rent assez
largement,
bien
qu'on
y
trouve une
base
commune',
and Ferlus also draws a
linguistic
distinction between
the two
groups
and their
regions.
Ferlus identifies the
following
Brao
sub-groups: Jri, Kveet, Tngor, Trngaw, Kniing, Mba, Pah, Hmong
and
Daak;
Kravet
(see above)
can
perhaps
be
recognized here,
but not
Krung.
All
are swidden cultivators. The
language
has few dialectal
variations.71
Matras(-Troubetskoy)
is the chief modern
ethnographer
(see references),
but note also Hours
1973a, 1973b,
and
Taupin
1888.
78.
Cheng
This
group, very closely
related to the
Lav?,
are found near
Attopeu
town, though
this is
doubtfully
their
original
home.
They may
be the
same as
the
Kasseng
of the same area
(this
word
may
consist of
kha, plus
seng,
connected with
Cheng), notwithstanding
the fact that the latter
are often bracketed with the
Alak,
an
apparently
North Bahnaric
group
(q.v. 69).
Ferlus
implies
that their
ethnonym
is
Tariang.
The Trawat
appear
to be a
closely
related
group
of the same area
distinguishable
only by
dialect.72
79.
Sapuan
This and the next two
groups
are all
very
Laoicized and live in the low?
lands,
which
may
mean
they
are wet- rather than
dry-rice
cultivators.
The
Sapuan
are
located north of
Attopeu.73
81
80. Oi
The Oi live between the Se
Kong
and the east Boloven
plateau; they
should not be confused with the Ta-oi
(90),
further north.74
81.
Souq
Found on both sides of the Se
Kong,
downstream from
Attopeu
and
up
to Siem
Pang,
this
group
numbered 1800 in the 1930s.75
82.
Tampuon
and Tamceun
Groups
of this name are
reported
over a
wide
area,
from Baria
pro?
vince in Vietnam
through Tay
Ninh and Ratanakiri
provinces
to
just
north-west of
Attopeu.
The name
may
derive from Old Khmer
tmon,
designating
a class of slaves and
possibly
referred to in
inscriptions
da?
ting
back to AD 683. Thus there
may
be more than one
group involved,
and the
Tam}oeun, plain-dwellers
of the
south, may
in fact be South
Bahnaric.76 The
Tampuon
of the north are concentrated between the
Se Sao and the Sre
Pok, especially
around
Bokeo,
and others are re?
ported
as
far west as Pailin.
Sub-groups
include the
Kroi,
to the north
of
Sambor,
and the Lamam or
Rmam,
between Vceune Sai and the
Vietnamese border and
just
over into Laos. Groslier
reports just
four
Rmam
villages
in Cambodia. Some
Tampuon may
have been absorbed
by
the Lao.
Originally,
Ferlus linked the
language
with the core of the
West Bahnaric
group,
while
remarking
that because of basic differences
in
vocabulary
it deserved to be in a
group
of its own. He later
placed
it in North
Bahnaric,
but this has not met with universal
support
and
areal considerations are
against
it.77 Bitard 1952 and Paolewitch 1930
are relevant to this
group.
83.
Pragar
Maitre describes the
Pragar
as a mixed
Brao-Halang group
of the
Panam
basin; linguistically, however,
Pinnow and
Maspero
link
Pragar
with Brao and
Souq,
Percheron
connecting
it
more
with the latter.78
We know
nothing
about
them,
and no one
writing
in the
past thirty
years
has so much as mentioned them.
82
M. Katuic Branch
There
are about
200,000 speakers
of these
languages
in the Vietnam
Cambodia-Laos border
areas. Diffloth
says
the term Katuic is not the
ideal
one,
since it
represents
an
arbitrary
choice of
just
one
language
to cover
all,
but he
regards
it as better than the French
equivalent
So-Souei.79
84.
Katu
This
group
are found
principally
in
Vietnam,
in the
provinces
of
Quang
Nam, Quang
Tin and Thu'a
Thien,
but some live
just
over the border in
Laos,
around the Attouat
massif; they
number
20-30,000.
Their
name
means
'savage',
which in the
present
case
may
refer to their
reputation
for
raiding
outsiders and
pursuing
vendettas.
They
call themselves
Monui or
'people',
which is
normally
followed
by
the name of their
village.
Mole lists as alternative names
Teu, Attouat,
Kao or
Cao,
Khat, Thap, Nguon Ta, Phuong
Katu and
(a
name shared with the
Pacoh,
89),
Ta River Van Khieu.
However,
at least some of these
are
the names of
sub-groups
or
closely
related Katuic
groups
rather than
synonyms.
Known
sub-groups
are the Attouat
(unless
these are
Kantu,
95)
in the massif of that
name;
the
Ngung Bo,
with
only
about
twenty
villages
at
most,
on the headwaters of the river of that
name;
the
Cao,
in the
upper
basin of the
Song Boung,
west of
Andiem;
and the
Thap
immediately
to their east.
Closely
related are the
Phuong,
found in
western Thu'a Thien
province
between the Katu and the Pacoh and
often included with one or the
other, though
Diffloth
regards
them
as a
distinct Katuic
group.
To the
people
themselves the division between
Highland
and Lowland Katu seems to be the most
important
and there
is some
hostility
between
them,
the former
regarding
the latter
as little
better than cowards in warfare.
Only
the
Thap
were under French
control in the
1930s,
and
only
the Viet
Cong
seem to have been able to
establish their influence over the
Highland
Katu in modern times. There
are dialectal differences between these two areas and also
among
the
various other
sub-groups,
but all are more or less
mutually intelligible.
Few Katu know other
languages,
save a little Vietnamese.
They
are
swidden cultivators.80 There are two
ethnographic
articles on
the
Katu,
Le Pich?n 1938 and Costello 1972.
85. Bru
Bru
groups
are
found in the Vietnamese
provinces
of
Quang
Tri
(Huong
Hoa
district),
Thu'a Thien and northern and western
Quang
Binh and
83
over
the border in Laos. The 1978 Summer Institute of
Linguistics
estimate of their
population
was
40,000
in
Quang
Tri and
3,000
in
Quang Binh,
with others in
Laos,
but
Vargyas'
more recent estimate
of 1986
puts
it at
up
to
80,000
in
total, including 20,000
in Vietnam.
This
may
include
closely
related
groups
or
sub-groups
in
Quang
Binh
province, namely
the Khua
(Minh
Hoa
district);
the Tri or Tiari and
Mang Kong (Bo
Trach
district);
the Van Khieu
(Le Thuy
district);
the
Leu(ng);
and the
Ca-lo, Galler,
Leu(ng),
Tiari and
Muong Kong (=
Mang Kong?),
who are
probably
to be found in
Laos, up
to
Tchepone
(the
last three are dealt with
separately here;
see
87, 88,
97).S1
Bru means
'mountain',
hence
'montagnard',
in
Kuy,
Souei and
Ngeq.
The Bru are swidden cultivators.
They
should not be confused with
the West Bahnaric Brao or
Lav?
(77), though
both
ethnonyms
often
appear
as
'Brou', especially
in French sources: the items
by
Matras
listed under 'Bru' in Huffman's index in
reality
relate to the Brao. The
language
is
subject
to dialectal variations even within the same
village.
It is
closely
related to So
(86), together
with which it forms a
group
in
opposition
to
Souei-Kuy (94, 93)
within West Katuic. Some Bru
speak
Vietnamese or
Lao.82 There are
ethnographic
articles
by
Miller
(1972)
and Vu Thanh Dat
(1968),
and the
Hungarian anthropologist
Gabor
Vargyas
did fieldwork with them in the mid-1980s.
86. So
This is the Lao-Thai
name,
the
ethnonym being
Tro. So means 'el?
der
brother',
a
usage referring
to their
having
been in the area before
their
'younger brothers',
the Lao. At the start of this
century,
Ma
cey reported
their
ethnonym
to be
R'rekou?-B'brr?,
the second
part
clearly being cognate
with
Bru,
to whose
language
theirs is
closely
rela?
ted
(q.v. 85). According
to tradition
they
were located around
Muong
Ou,
in northernmost
Laos,
about four hundred
years ago,
in an area
now
occupied by
the
Lue,
a local Tai
group. They
were
already being
forced south
by
the Lao invasions and were later to be found in
Luang
Prabang province. Today,
in
Laos,
the
following groups
are identifia?
ble:
Trong (near
Thakhek and
Nhommarath), Phong (Kham Keu;
but
cf.
108),
Makon
(Nhommarath), Slouy (Thakhek;
but cf.
69), Trouy
(Savannakhet)
and Tiali
(but
cf.
87). They
are also found in various
areas of Thailand: there are about
10,000
between the towns of Sakon
Nakhon and Nakhon
Phanom,
and other
groups
in the
provinces
of Roi
Et and south Khon Kaen and around
Mukdahan,
where
they
are inter?
mixed with
Soai,
a
mixed So-Puthai
group.
The So of Thailand came
originally
from Thakhek in
Laos,
most if not all
having
been transfer
84
red from there to Sakon Nakhon
by
the Siamese after the latter's sack
of Vientiane in 1827. There their numbers
increased,
due
largely
to
intermarriage
with the Lao. Several hundred families
were returned
by
the Thai later in the nineteenth
century,
their descendants
now
being
located in the area of
Muong
Nhammarath.83
Many
So
are more or less Laoicized in
language,
culture and social
organization. Perhaps 5-7,000
use
So
as their first
language,
which is
only spoken
at
home;
there is little dialectal
variation,
even between
Thailand and Laos. The So
were
traditionally
swidden cultivators but
are
increasingly turning
to wet-rice
cultivation; they
are also
hunters,
gatherers
and fishermen.
Many
So
are at least
nominally
Buddhist.84
Ethnography
is available
by
Kania and Kania
(1979),
Fraisse
(1950a,
1950b),
Seidenfaden
(1943)
and
Macey
(1907a).
87,
88. Tiari
(Tiali)
and
Mang Kong
Presumably
the same as the
groups
mentioned under 85
above, they
are
both
very closely
related to the Bru and the So
(85, 86).
The former
call themselves K'koai
T'trri,
the latter K'koai B'brr?. The last element
is
obviously cognate
with
Bru,
and the first element in each
designation
means 'man'. Both
groups
were found scattered on the western
slopes
of the Annamite Chain in the Kammuon and Savannakhet
provinces
of
Laos at the start of this
century
and numbered about
1,500
to
2,000
families.85 The
only ethnography available, by Macey
(1906, 1907a),
is
now
very
old.
89. Pacoh
Pacoh is
spoken by
about
10-15,000 people
on both sides of the bor?
der between Laos and
Vietnam, mainly
in the mountainous area of
Thu'a Thien
province,
west of
Hu?;
there are also some in
Quang
Tri
province. They pursue
swidden cultivation and have a
peaceable repu?
tation,
unlike some
neighbouring groups. Pacoh, meaning
'mountain
people',
is the
ethnonym.
Thomas mentions the
Pahi, Ngyong
and Ta
Oih
as
sub-groups, though
the latter is more
probably
a
separate group
(90)',
another
sub-group
or alternative name is Ta River Van
Khieu,
a
name shared
by
some Katu
(84).
The
language
is
closely
related to Ta
Oi 'and
may
be
with some
dialects of it'. There
are two basic
dialects, 'high
mountain Pacoh' and 'low mountain Pa?
coh',
the latter
being 'slightly different, partly
because of
proximity
to
Vietnamese'.86 Watson 1969b is the
only separate ethnography.
85
90. Ta Oi
Most Ta Oi
are found in
Laos,
between the
upper
Se
Khong
and Tche
pone;
there are also some in the extreme west of Thu'a Thien
province
and
6-10,000
in the extreme south-east of
Quang
Tri
province,
in Vi?
etnam.
They
were
probably
once
located further
south,
north-east of
Saravane,
but should not be confused with the Oi
(80). They prac?
tice swidden cultivation and
were
formerly
feared as
raiders, being
left
alone
by
outsiders for the most
part,
even
by
the French. The
Tong
are
virtually
identical.87
91.
Ong
or In
Lexically Ong
and Ta Oi
are
very closely related, though
the latter is
more conservative
phonologically. Ong
is
spoken
in some
villages
on
the western
slope
of the Boloven
plateau
and is identical with In
or
Ine
(the
Lao
pronunciation
of
yiir,
the ethnic
name), spoken
in seven
villages immediately
east of Saravane. The two were
separated
over a
century ago by deportations
carried out
by
the Siamese.
Population
figures
are
only
available for the
1930s,
when there were
1,152
In in
Saravane
province
and 500
Ong
in Bassac
province;
the latter were said
to be
very
Laoicized
even at the start of this
century.88
92.
Ngeq, Kriang
etc.
These are
mostly
found
along
the Se
Kong
river in Saravane
province,
Laos, though 'many
have fled
as
refugees
to the tributaries of the Se
Done River and to the Pakse area'.
Many
of the allied
Kriang
were
resettled
along
the Ho Chi Minh
City-Pakse
road
during
the Vietnam
War,
followed
shortly by
a
group
of
Ngeq.
Ferlus
regards Ngeq
as the
Lao
name,
Kriang being
the
ethnonym,
but
according
to Smith:
Ngeq, Ngkriang
and
Khiang
are considered dialects of one
language,
with Khi
ang bordering
on the
Alak,
and
Ngeq
in the middle between
Ngkriang
and Ta
Oi.
They belong
to a
group
of tribes which call themselves 'Brou'
(not
to be
confused with the
linguistic group
which call themselves 'Brou' in
Vietnam).
Clearly,
'Bru' is the
ethnonym
used
by
more than one
group,
all of
which are
related, though distinguishable
on
primarily linguistic gro?
unds. Also
closely
related are the Kloor
(Lao 'Koq'),
near
Saravane.89
86
93.
Kuy
Some
Kuy
are found in
Laos,
in
Champassak province, opposite Pakse,
where
they
are known
as
Kuy Mahay. Most, however,
are
in south?
east Thailand and northern Cambodia. In the
former, they
live in the
provinces
of Sisaket
(especially
around Khu
Khan),
Surin,
Ubon and
Buriram. There are said to be about
150,000 Kuy speakers
in these
areas,
though including
the assimilated
Kuy
there
may
be as
many
as
300,000 Kuy
in Thailand alone. Pace
Seidenfaden,
there
are
unlikely
to
be
any Kuy
in Trat
province,
and he seems to be
mixing
them
up
with
the
Chhong (51).
They
are divided into a number of
sub-groups,
viz.:
M'lo, Y?, M'loa,
M'ai and
Eng, H?t, Kanndrau, Kantoa, P?rr,
Manu
and
Bai,
of which the M'lo and
perhaps closely
related M'loa account
for the
bulk,
about
90,000
out of
nearly 120,000
in 1917. The Y?
may
be the
Nyeu
of Sisaket listed in Huffman. The first
four,
at
least,
are dialect
groups. Many
of the
sub-groups
in Cambodia have similar
names to those in
Thailand, suggesting
a common
origin. Trankey
lists the
Damrey, Malor, Manik, Antor, N'lur, O,
N'tra and Kraol
(but
cf.
58),
most
having
been listed
by
Dufosse some
thirty
years earlier,
and these
are located in the
provinces
of
Siemreap, Melouprey, Stung
Treng, Kompong
Thorn and Kratie. These
designations
are the words
for
'yes'
in each
dialect,
and Dufosse estimated that there were then
around
25,000 Kuy
in Cambodia.90
Kuy
is the
ethnonym
and is often
spelt
Kui
or,
especially
in French
works, Kuoy
or Koui. Assimilated
Kuy
are often called Souei collo?
quially,
but this is the Lao and Thai term for
'tributary, tax-paying,
corv?ables',
as well as
being
the normal
designation
for a
different,
though closely
related Mon-Khmer
group
(94).
In the first sense it
is used
indiscriminately
of several different
groups.91
Although
it is
hardly
correct to
regard
the
Kuy
as
Khmer in
origin,
as is
suggested by Donner, they
are
clearly very prone
to assimilation
to
Thai,
Lao or Khmer. Such individuals 'do not like to be reminded
of their Kui
origin',
and
they regard
Khmer and Thai-Lao as
superior
languages.
Even the unassimilated
Kuy
in Cambodia
speak
Khmer
fluently, though
not
among
themselves. Unlike other
minority groups
of Cambodia
they
have never been enslaved
by
the
Khmer,
who in fact
regard
them not as
'savages',
but as
related to
themselves,
and call them
Khmer Dom. The two
groups intermarry
in some
areas,
where their
villages
are
interspersed.
There seems to have been little
migration
by
the
Kuy,
either in modern times or
historically.
In
fact, they may
pre-date
the Khmer in the
area,
and in Seidenfaden's view the local
pre-Khmer
earthworks
may
be their or their ancestors' work. Until
87
recently they
were
purely
swidden
cultivators,
but
today they largely
practise
wet-rice cultivation. Since the end of the nineteenth
century
they
have
progressively
become
Buddhist, though
some of their own
ritual
practices
still survive.92
Ethnography
on
them is available
by
Dufosse
(1934),
Seidenfaden
(1952)
and
Tranky
(1965).
94-
Souei
We have
already
discussed the
meanings
of Souei
(above, 93),
one of
which refers to this
group. They
are found
mainly
within the bend of
the Se Done
river,
in southern Laos. There
may
be another
group
near
Muong
Pha
Lane,
further north. The most recent estimate of
popula?
tion is about
10,000,
and the true
ethnonym
seems to be Proom. Their
language
is
closely
related to
Kuy,
from whom
they
were
only separated
by
the Lao invasions
(some
of which took
place quite recently
in this
area,
i.e. within the last
century
or
so)
and
they
are not
distinguished
at all
by
some.
They
seem to be
quite
Laoicized and are now
mostly
Buddhist. The Na
Nhang
are
virtually
identical.93
95. Kantu
These
may simply
be
Highland Katu,
as Diffloth
implies. They
are
found near
Saravane, perhaps
on the Attaouat
plateau,
but
they
ori?
ginally
dwelt in the Haut
Sekong (Ban
Kleum and Ban
Tampril).
The
language
is
with Pacoh and has two dialects accor?
ding
to
Ferlus,
three
(Tangpril, Taluy
and
Piluq) according
to Thomas
and
Headley. Among
their
neighbours
are the Renh and Kantu
Kakat,
probably
also Katuic
speakers.94
96.
Katang
There were
10,533 Katang
in Saravane
province
in the late
1930s,
mainly
in the
north,
in the basin of the
upper
Se La
Nong,
and to
the east. Most
speak
Lao and are wet- rather than
dry-rice
cultivators.
The French
occupation put
a
stop
to their traditional warfare.95
97.
(Ka)leu(ng)
This
may
or
may
not be a
sub-group
of the
Bru,
under whom
they
have
already
received mention
(85).
Groups
of this name are found between
Quang
Tri and
Tchepone,
and further south in Saravane
province.
It is
not clear whether
they
are to be identified with the
Kaleung
of Thai?
land,
found around Udom and south of Sakon Nakhon and Nakhon
88
Phanom to the number of
30-40,000, deportees
of over a
century ago
from the left bank of the
Mekong.
All these
groups
are more or less
assimilated, certainly
in Lao
areas,
and
they
often
speak
Lao. In Piat's
view,
Leu
may
have been taken from
kaloq
'comrade'
(supposedly
the
ethnic
name) by
the
compilers
of the Carte
Ethnolinguistique.
If this
is
true,
it would mean that the first
syllable
was mistaken for
kha,
the
standard and
derogatory
Lao term for the hill
peoples. Cadi?re,
howe?
ver, implies
that
kaloq
is not the ethnic name at all but a
Vietnamese
word for
montagnards
in
general
which is connected with kha. It is
apparently
also
applied
to the Katu and Ta Oi
(84, 90).
There
were
estimated to be
15-20,000
Leu(ng)
in
Quang
Tri
province
at the start
of this
century.96
98. Noar
Kunstadter mentions this
group
as
possibly Katuic,
West Bahnaric
or
North Bahnaric.97
N.
Viet-Muong
Branch
99. Vietnamese
Considerable
controversy
has surrounded the
problem
of the affiliation
of Vietnamese. The main
dichotomy
of views is summed
up
in Hen?
derson's statement that it is either 'an Austroasiatic
language
that has
adopted
tone' or 'a Tai
language
with
a
puzzling
number of Austroasia?
tic words in its
everyday vocabulary'.
Shafer raised the
possibility
of a
relationship
between Tibeto-Burman and
Vietnamese,
but his remains
an isolated voice.98 Schmidt
agreed
with
Maspero
in
seeing
Vietnamese
as a Tai
language,
after
originally accepting
it as
part
of the 'Mon
Anam'
family
of
Logan
etc.99
Maspero
based his case on the
presence
of Tai
vocabulary
in Vietnamese as well as on other
peculiarities.
In
Henderson's view:
Next to the
problem
of
tone,
the chief difficulties about
accepting
Vietnamese
as an Austro-Asiatic
language
has
always
been its
relatively simple syllabic
structure,
with its absence of minor
syllables
and almost total absence of in?
itial clusters and of
any sign
of the elaborate
system
of affixation
proper
to
other members of the
family.
This
scepticism
has
persisted
into modern
scholarship.
In
Hamp's view,
for
instance,
'the real reason that
(Viet-) Mu'o'ng
seems related to the
other branches is
by
virtue of its
strong
but scattered matches with the
89
various branches'. His
scepticism
is shared
by Gorgoniev. However,
even
Maspero accepted
a
Mon-Khmer 'substratum' for
Vietnamese,
a
view shared
by Blagden
of what he
regarded
as
lexically
a
largely
Tai
language.100
Haudricourt is the chief debunker of
Maspero,
and it is his view
that is
generally accepted today.
Thomas sums
up
his achievement as
follows:
he takes
Maspero's examples
of Thai-Vietnamese
cognates
and shows most of
them to be
general
Southeast Asian
vocabulary;
and then he takes
Maspero's
total
argument
and shows
correspondences
between Vietnamese tones and
Mon-Khmer final consonants. He also shows that the tones in Thai and Chi?
nese arose
by
somewhat similar
processes,
thus
making tonality
an areal trend.
Maspero's key argument,
that tones cannot be
acquired by
a
language
previously lacking them,
is thus
rejected.
Shorto
puts
the matter in a
nutshell:
Vietnamese,
an undoubted Mon-Khmer
language showing
the effects of
long
contact with Chinese both in its
vocabulary
and in its
phonological progress
to
monosyllabism, appears
to have
separated fairly early
and to be
peripheral
in the technical
linguistic
sense as well as in the modern
geographical
sense.101
The historical homeland of the Vietnamese was Tonkin
(possibly
even southern China at an earlier
stage),
but after
throwing
off Chi?
nese rule in the tenth
century AD, they began
to
expand
their influence
southwards, reaching
the area of Ho Chi Minh
City by
the end of the
seventeenth
century (though
the state was seldom
politically
united
thereafter).
It is
only comparatively recently
in
many
cases
(and
very
recently
in
some,
i.e. under the Viet
Cong)
that
they
have established
control over the
montagnards,
contact with whom
was
formerly
con?
fined
mainly
to trade and often left to other
groups
(Cham,
French
etc.).
As
a result of the Vietnam
War,
Vietnamese influence is well
established not
only
over all
quarters
of Vietnam itself but also over
the
neighbouring
and
strategically important
states of Laos and Cam?
bodia. With a
population
of over 65 million
they
are the most nume?
rous ethnic
group
in the
region,
and
they
outnumber all the
remaining
Austroasiatic-speaking groups put together
about four times over.
There is a
great
deal of literature on
Vietnam and the
Vietnamese,
for which the standard Southeast Asian
bibliographies
should be con?
sulted.
90
100.
Muong
This
large group
is found scattered
throughout
the centre and south
of what used to be North
Vietnam,
in the
provinces
of
Nghia Lo,
Phu
To,
Hoa
Binh,
Ninh
Binh,
Thanh
Hoa, Nghe
An and
Quang Binh,
with smaller numbers in Yen Bai and Ha
Tay.
There are over
400,000
Muong,
and
they
constitute over
2.5%
of the former North Vietnam
population. Muong
is a Tai word
signifying
a territorial division held
as a sort of fief
by
a local noble as well
as those
people
in obedience
to such a
noble,
and it is used
by
the Vietnamese of Tai and
Muong
groups indiscriminately. They
often call the latter
Moi, perhaps
related
to the ethnic names
Mon, Mol, Mwon,
Mwal etc. but
meaning
more
usually 'savage'.
Another term was
originally Nguoi Muong
or
'people
of the
muong\
the first word later
being dropped.
The
Muong
use the
word
Tlong (from
Vietnamese
trong)
to
distinguish
themselves from the
Ngoai (also
a
Vietnamese
word),
the Tai
speakers
whom the Vietnamese
also call
Muong.
The
Muong
of
Quang
Binh are
called
Nguon,
a word
unconnected with
Nguoi
and
meaning 'source',
but this is to be avoided
ethnographically
because of the existence of a
separate though
related
group
of the same name
(101)P2
The
Muong
are not
geographically
or
politically
united but
disper?
sed,
over the
plateaus
and hillsides rather than the
plains, yet
nonethe?
less
cultivating
both wet and
dry rice, preferring
the former wherever
possible.
In
general
and material culture
they
have a lot in common
with the
Vietnamese,
and Cuisinier refers to them
as 'Annamites at?
tard?s'.
They
may
have entered Vietnam at about the same time as the
various Tai
groups
now in
Vietnam,
under whose influence
they
have
long
been
living (especially
the Black
Tai), particularly
in
respect
of
the 'feudal'
system
characteristic of this area. This
they
retained after
the
eighteenth century, though by
this time the Vietnamese had aban?
doned it in favour of communes under a central
government.
Cuisinier
reported
that the latter
system
was
being
introduced in some
Muong
areas in the
1940s, just
one
aspect
of a
creeping
Vietnamization then
in
progress
which had
presumably
started with the
expansion
of direct
imperial
rule into these areas in the middle of the
previous century.
The
Muong
have resisted Chinese cultural influences more than the Vi?
etnamese,
but whether
they
are to be
regarded,
or
regard themselves,
merely
as Vietnamese who have remained isolated from such influences
is
very
doubtful.103
However,
we can
say
that
although
the Vietnamese and
Muong
lan?
guages
are
closely
related
they
are still
distinct,
the latter
being
closer
to other Mon-Khmer. Both have borrowed
massively
from Chinese in
91
vocabulary,
a fact which
points
to a date a little before the tenth
century
AD as that of their
separation
in Ferlus'
view; Muong
has also borrowed
heavily
from Vietnamese.
Muong
dialects tend to
change
from
village
to
village,
if
only slightly,
so that the Barkers' estimate of about
thirty
dialects
may
be a conservative one.
'Speakers
of other
Muong
dialects
consider
Muong
Khen to be a
good representative
of the
Muong
lan?
guage
as a whole.'
Many Muong
are
bilingual
or
trilingual
in
Muong
and a Tai
language and/or
Vietnamese.
Muong
children have
long
been
taught
Vietnamese in
school, though they
use
Muong
elsewhere.
Today,
in
fact, nearly
all
Muong
know
Vietnamese, though
it is in the east that
it is
mostly spoken;
the western dialects have been influenced more
by
Tai
languages.
Chinese and Tai
scripts
were
formerly used,
and
today,
quoc
ngu.104
The
Muong's
traditional
religion
is
very
similar to that of the Vi?
etnamese.
Possibly 5,000
were
Catholic in the
1940s,
and
many
are
Buddhist.105 The
major ethnography
is
by
Cuisinier
(1946, 1951),
but
there are also works
by
Bonhomme
(1916),
Garcin
(1891),
Grossin
(1925)
and
Nguyen
Tu Chi
(1971),
some of which are
general
accounts
rather than
truly ethnographic.
101.
Nguon
The
Nguon
are
probably
the
Nguon
or
Nam-Nguyen
of
Cadi?re,
men?
tioned
as
living
in the middle
valley
of the
Nguon-Nay
and 'surtout' the
upper valley
of the
Nguon Nan,
near Ha Tinh. There are also some in
Khammuon
province
in Laos. There
may
be some in
Quang
Binh
pro?
vince,
on the
Song Giang,
but most of those called
by
the name in this
province
are either
Muong (100)
or,
in Ferlus'
view,
feral Vietnamese.
The name has
variously
been
glossed
as
'canton',
'source' or as the name
of a
river,
Cuisinier
remarking
that it is unconnected with Vietnamese
nguoi
('people').
The
Nguon
are
essentially sedentary,
their
language
being
intermediate between
Muong
and Vietnamese.106 Cadi?re 1905
has some
general
information.
102.
Thavung
The
Thavung
are found in Khammuon
province, Laos,
in the area bet?
ween Kam
Keut, Nape
and
Muong Nhommarath,
and were
apparently
only
discovered in
1965, by
Ferlus. Their
language
has borrowed
greatly
from Lao but
was
going
out of
use in the 1960s.107
92
103. S ach
This
group
are
found in Minh Hoa
district, Quang
Binh
province,
in
the Son
Giang valley,
but
they
are
steadily moving
westwards under
Nguon pressure; they
were
otherwise
essentially sedentary according
to
Cuisinier, writing
in the
1940s,
but Ferlus states that until the Vietnam
War
they
were
largely
hunters and
gatherers, shifting
cultivation
being
secondary. According
to Cadi?re their name is from that-sach or 'les
sept
r?les les
gens
des
sept r?les',
but Ferlus considers this to be a
toponym. They
are also known as
Keo, Paleng
and Tu
Vang (cognate
with
Thavung?),
but call themselves Nha
Chut, 'people
of the
rocky
mountains'.108 For
literature,
see next
entry.
IO4,
105. Rue and
May
The term Sach is also used
by
these two
groups,
which are
very closely
related,
both to one another and to the Sach. The three
speak
what are
virtually
dialects of the same
language.
All three are known
locally
as
Khua, though
this is also the name of a Bru
sub-group (85).
Rue is a
toponym;
this
group
call themselves Cha Cui
or 'endroit o? se trouvent
des sources souterraines' and are
also known
as Tac Cui.
Guignard,
writing just
before the First World
War, regarded
the latter as the de?
signation
of a
separate, non-Viet-Muong group
also known as
Nguoi
La
Vang
or Kha
Tong Luong,
which mean
'people
of the
yellow
leaves'
in Vietnamese and
'savages
of the
yellow
leaves' in Lao
respectively;
the
latter, however,
are
certainly separate
(see
124,
125).
An alter?
native Lao
designation given by
the same
writer is
Thay
Pa or 'forest
dwellers'.109
May
is a
pejorative
term for
'beggar';
these call themselves
Trut or 'men of the forest' and are
known also
as
Xolang, Tohung
and
Arem
(though
the latter also refers to a
separate
but related
group,
106). They
are
found in the same
general
area of Minh Hoa
district,
Quang
Binh
province,
as the
Sach,
on the
Song Giang
and near Mo?
unt Ma-Ma.110
Mainly
hunters and
gatherers
before the Vietnam
War,
these
groups
are
becoming
more
sedentary,
or at least swidden cultiva?
tors.
Population figures
are
guesswork,
but cannot be more
than
a
few
hundred for each of the three
groups.
Ferlus
gives
a
consolidated
figure
of
1,287
for
just
three
villages
out of
maybe
seven to ten. Kunstadter
quotes
D.D. Thomas to the effect that there were an
estimated 189 Rue
and 904
May
in 1965.
Closely
related or
identical to these are
the Kha
Mu
Gia,
found near Mu Gia hill.111 There is literature on
groups 103,
IO4
and 105
by
Boudarel
(1965)
and
Guignard (1911).
93
106. Arem
The Har?me
are listed
separately
from the Arem
by Ferlus,
but Haudri
court
says
that these are
simply
alternative
spellings. They
are also
known
as
Kha
Phong,
not to be confused with the Khmuic
group
of
that name
(130).
They
are a
part-nomadic, part-sedentary group
of
Bo Trach
district, Quang
Binh
province.112
107. Kha Pakatan
This
group
are found in Khammuon and
Borikhamxay provinces,
Laos
and are
very closely
related
linguistically
to Ferlus's Har?me.
They
are
also known
as Kha
Bo, Muong
Ben and Kha Nam Ou.113
108.
K7katiam-Pong-Houk (Thai Pong)
Due to the
instability
of the
area,
this
group
have
migrated
far and wide
in recent
centuries,
but their
original
homeland is
probably Muong
Kam
Keut.
Today,
there are about 800 individuals
(200 families)
in Kham?
muon
province, plus
an unknown fraction in the
Upper
Son Con
area,
in
Thanh-Hoa
province.
150
years ago
there are said to have been
2,000
fa?
milies,
and earlier this
century Macey
stated their
population
in Kham?
muon
province
to be
1,006.
In that
province they
are found in the
area
bounded
by
the Annamite Chain to the
north,
the Nam
Niouang valley
to the
east,
the Nam Kadinh to the south and the Nam Mou?ne to
the west.
They
are also said to be in
Borikhamxay province, Laos,
and
Nghe-An province,
Vietnam. Haudricourt and
Thompson regard
the
Hung
and
Kh?ng-kh?ng
of
Nghe-An,
around Cua
Rao,
mentioned
by
Maspero,
to be the same.
So too is the
'Muong'
dialect of
Tuong-duong
district, Ngh?-An province,
mentioned
by Maspero,
whose
speakers
are
also called
Poong
or
Con Kha. The Thai and Lao
designation
is Thai
Pong,
their own name
being K'katiam-Pong-Houk.
Other names re?
corded are Toum and
Phong (but
cf.
86), although Pong
is
probably
preferable
to the latter.
They
have been
variously
influenced
by
other
ethnic
groups
in
language, religion
and culture and have also inter?
married to a
large
extent with them. Thanks to monastic
education,
many speak
and write Lao as well as their own
language,
and
some
speak
Vietnamese also. There are three
Pong
dialects in Khammuon
province.114
109-118. Other
Viet-Muong groups
Matras and Ferlus list a number of other
groups
in this branch
together
with their
locations, virtually nothing
else
being
known about
any
of
94
them. The Ma
Lieng (109]
also
a
toponym)
are in Minh Hoa
district,
Quang
Binh
province,
and
Huong
Khe
district,
Ha Tinh
province,
Viet?
nam. The Dan Lai
(110)
and
Ly
Ha
(111)
are both in Con
Cuong
district,
and the Cuoi
or Tho
(112\
not to be confused with the Tai
group
also called
Tho)
in
Nghia
Dan and Tan
Ky districts,
all of
Ngh?
An
province,
Vietnam. The Coi
(113), Nguoi Rung (114),
Tay
Cham
(115),
Tay
Pum
(116)
and
Tay
Turn
or Ktum
(117)
are all located in
Khammuon and
Laos. Cuisinier also mentions
the Nha
Lang (118)
as a
very
Vietnamized
group.115
Most of the
languages
in this list seem
quite
distant from the rest
of the branch.
Muong, Nguon, Sach,
Rue and
May
are
closely allied,
in
opposition
to
Thavung
and Arem. Rue and
May
are
thought
to have
parted
from Vietnamese in the fifth
or
sixth
century, Muong following
only
in the tenth
or
eleventh; Thavung separated
before
Muong,
but it
is uncertain when.
Nguon
is closer
lexically
to
Proto-Vietnamese,
but
phonetically
to
Proto-Muong;
it
probably parted
from Vietnamese at
the end of the fifteenth
century,
in the course of
expansion
southwards.
More
recently, Hayes
has
placed
Vietnamese and
Muong together
in
one
group
in
opposition
to other
groups
in this
branch,
one of which
is constituted
by 'Thavung
and other
languages,
such
as Pakatan and
Pong'.116
The
Viet-Muong languages
as a whole have been
computed
as hav?
ing
a
cognate percentage
of
16-29%
with other
Mon-Khmer, enough
to make them Austroasiatic if not Mon-Khmer. Most authors
regard
Muong, Arem, May,
Rue and Thai
Pong,
at
least,
as almost
certainly
a
separate
Mon-Khmer
branch,
and the standard view is that while
Vietnamese
diverges
the
most,
due to
heavy outside, especially
Chi?
nese, influence,
the rest of the branch is less
divergent.117 Despite
these
advances, scepticism
still
lingers
as to the Mon-Khmer credentials of
this
branch,
and much work remains to be done to secure its internal
and external
relationships.
P. Khmuic Branch
119. Khmu
The Khmu
are found in the mountains of the northern
part
of Viet?
nam and in
Laos, Thailand,
Burma and China. In
Laos, they
are
located
especially
in the
area
between
Luang Prabang, Xieng Khouang
and
Vientiane,
but also in the
Muong Sing-Vien
Pou Kha
area,
the
Boun
Tai-Muong
Ou Neua area and around
Muong
Sai. There are
also some further
south,
on both sides of the border near
Paksane,
and
95
in the Kham
Keut-Nape-Lak
Sao
area,
as well as around Sam Neua.
A modern
authority, Svantesson,
locates them in the Lao
provinces
of
Houakhong, Luang Prabang, Phong Saly,
Houa
Pheu, Xieng Khouang,
Vientiane, Sayabouri
and
Borikhamxay.
In
Vietnam, they
are found in
the areas of Lao
Cai,
Lao
Chau, Nghia Lo,
Dien Bien Phu and Son La
in the
north,
and in
Ngh?-An province
further
south,
in the districts
of
Tuong Duong, Ky Son,
Cua Rao and
Muong
Sen. In Thailand
they
are located in the Pua and
Toong Chang
districts of Nan
province,
the
Chieng Khawng
district of
Chiengrai province,
and the area west
of
Chiengmai;
there
may
also be some in the
south,
near
Bangkok
and north of Kanchanaburi
province. Macey
stated that there
were
some in
Kwangtung, Kwangsi
and Lower
Yunnan,
including
the Chinese
Shan
States,
information
mostly
confirmed
by G?rding,
Lindell and
Svantesson
recently.
There are also some in
Burma, among
'a small
group
of settlers in Salween and Amherst
provinces',
and in
Kengtung
State. These seem to be
mainly migrant workers, judging
from the
reports
of the Census of India
(1891
to
1931),
and 402 are
listed
(all
but twelve
male)
in the 1921
report.118
Khmu is the
ethnonym
and means
'we,
the
people'
or
'man,
human
being'.
It is derived
lexically
from
kymhmuq 'people'.
It is often in?
correctly given
as
Mou, Khamu,
Khamouk etc.
'Smalley.
. .
points
out
that,
in
Laos,
the word Khmu is heard as
Khamu,
which has led to the
false
etymology
Kha
Mu,
an
analogy
based on such tribal
designati?
ons as Kha
Lamet,
Kha
Hok,
etc' The correct
analogy
would be Kha
Khmu
(Kha
is the standard Lao term for all hill
people, especially
those
of
formerly
servile
status).
Lindell et al.
prefer
the
spelling
Kammu.119
In Thailand both
they
and the Lamet
(122),
whom
they recognize
as
closely related,
call themselves
pruq.
The standard term used
by
the
Lao is Phou
Theng
or
'people
of the
highlands',
sometimes Lao
Theng
('upland Lao')
or Thai
Theng ('upland Thai'),
but one
suspects
that like
the more
pejorative
term Kha these do not
apply solely
to the Khmu.
On the
Xieng Khouang plateau they
are known as
Thay Hay
(not
to
be confused with the
Tay
Hat
[127],
of
Ngh?-An province) by
the lo?
cal
Tai-speaking
Phuan. In Nan
province they
are known as Hok
(in
Lao)
or
Rook
(in Thai),
which means
roughly
'unacculturated Khmu'
and is somewhat
pejorative.
In
China, they
were called Chaman
up
to
1980,
when the official
designation
became Kemu. In Vietnam
they
are
known as
Xa
Cau,
a term similar to one
designation
for a
closely
related
group,
the
Khang
Ai
(see 120).
Those between the Nam Hou and Nam
Tha in
Luang Prabang province
are
possibly
called
Tmooy
Rook
(in
Thai)
or
(Kha)
Hok
(in Lao);
an older
source,
Smyth, gives
Ka Yuen
(or Yuan)
as an
alternative
designation
for the latter. Other
groups
96
are the
Tmooy
Mi
(Luang Prabang
and
Sayaboury province),
Tmooy
Ksak
(a
small
group
south-east of
Luang Prabang),
and the
Tmooy
Khrong. Tmooy
refers to local
groups only, tmooy being
a
geographical
division,
but there
are also dialectal
differences;
it is also used for non
Khmu,
for
example
the Lamet
(122).
Mi is also mentioned
by
Gamier
(and
see
below).
Other
synonyms,
found
especially
in the literature
dealing
with Laos and
Vietnam,
include Kha
Klau, Mang Cau,
Sa and
Pheng.120
Macey gives
the terms Kha Khao and Kha
Tie,
the former
being
very
similar to Xa Cau
(above),
the latter to Le
May's
Kach? of
northern Thailand.
However,
this
appears
in other
early
sources as a
generic
name for non-Tai minorities in northern Thailand and
Laos;
in
many
local
legends
the Kach?
appear
as the 'elder brothers' of the
Lao,
a
reference to the latter's
recognition
of their
prior occupation
of the
121
area.
*
It is hard to
say
how far the above
groups correspond
to the dialects
so far
identified,
but
some are
recognizable. Smalley says merely
that
the Khmu dialect of Vientiane 'differs
slightly
from that of
Luang
Pra?
bang'.
Matras and Ferlus
identify
three
groups
on dialectal
grounds:
Khmu
(i)
or
Thay Hay
or Phou
Teng, plus Theng,
Tenh and Xa
Cau;
Khmu
(ii)
or Rok or
Kha Hok with Kha
Qu?ne
or Kwen
(see below);
and Khmu
(iii),
also called Rok or Kha Hok.
(i)
is the most
important
dialect and is said to be
very uniform, despite
the wide area in which it
is
spoken.
The other two dialects are
spoken
in the west of the Khmu
area and differ from
(i) phonetically
rather than in lexis. The Scan
danavian team of
G?rding,
Lindell and Svantesson
say
that there are
probably
several dialects in the south of the
area,
though they
mention
only 'Uu,
also known as Mi or
Theeng
and
spoken
in the Ou river and
Luang Prabang
areas. These same writers also
identify
five northern
dialects, namely
Yuan
(around Muong Luong
Nam Tha and
along
the
northern bank of the Nam
Tha;
not to be confused with the Northern
Thai,
also called
Yuan);
Rook
(spoken along
the southern bank of the
Nam
Tha,
to the south-east
-
see
above);
Kween
(to
the north and
north-west); Kroong (spoken
to the
west, along
the
Mekong
and bet?
ween it and the Thai
border);
and L? or Kwaa
(spoken
south-east of
Nam
Tha).
'Uu
may
also be
spoken
in
Yunnan,
for Svantesson et al.
mention
1,700
'Hu' there.
Yuan, Kroong
and Rook
are
all well
represen?
ted in
Thailand,
but Kween is much less in evidence there. The latter
are
presumably
the same as the
group
which
appears
in earlier sources
as Kha
Qu?ne (also
Kouen, Kwaen,
Kou?nes
etc.),
and whom Izikowitz
describes
simply
as
Buddhist Khmu. This dialect differs the most from
the others in the
area,
with which it is
mutually unintelligible.
These
names are also
tmooy
names: L?
=
Sip Song
Panna
(i.e.
the Chinese
97
Shan
States),
cognate
with
Lue,
the name of a Tai
group; Kroong
=
Mekong,
'Uu
=
the Nam Ou river. The Khmu of China also have two
tmooy names,
L? and Laaw
(= Laos).122
The Khmu themselves
distinguish
the main dialects
by
reference to
their
negative particles.
In
fact, though,
there is a
degree
of dialectal
difference
even from
village
to
village.
Some
dialects, including
that
described
by Maspero
in 1912 but
only published
over
forty years later,
have
disappeared
due to the
pressures
of
bilingualism.
About 70% of the
male Khmu of Thailand
speak
Lao-Thai
as
well
as
Khmu and about
10%
speak Karen,
while others
speak
Northern Thai. The Khmu of
Vietnam
are also
bilingual
in Khmu and a tribal Tai
language,
and the
Phou
Teng
of Khammuon
province
in Laos know Lao and Vietnamese
as well as
Khmu, using
Lao
chiefly
in contact with outsiders.123
Population
estimates
vary widely.
For a
long
time
Smalley's
1961
figure
of about
100,000
was
widely accepted,
but it was
arrived at with?
out reference to Lao
government figures,
which were refused him. A
little earlier Ferlus
suggested 200-300,000,
and he is
supported by Dang
Nghiem Van,
who
gave
a
figure
of about
300,000 altogether, including
about
18,000
in Vietnam.
However,
this
may
be a
little
low,
since the
most recent
writer, Svantesson, gives
a
figure
of
290,000
for Laos
alone,
plus
several tens of thousands in northern
Thailand, 18,000
in Viet?
nam and
1,600
in
China;
this would
suggest
at least
350,000
in total.124
Lindell et al
suggest
as
many
as half
a
million.
Laos seems to be core area of Khmu settlement.
Emigration
to
Vietnam dates from the
eighteenth century
and to Thailand from at
least the 1820s. In the latter case a
variety
of reasons are cited:
work,
escape
from
warfare, military
service or
slavery, capture
in war etc.
Many go
there as
temporary workers, especially
in the teak
forests,
in
order to earn their
brideprice.
The Lao
recognize
them as the
aboriginal
inhabitants of the area and
accordingly
use their
representatives
at the
coronation of the Lao
kings
of
Luang Prabang.
These are installed
by
Khmu who officiate at the
ceremony
in return for
exorcising
local
spirits
and thus
preventing epidemics.125
The Khmu are
basically
swidden
cultivators,
also
pursuing hunting,
gathering
and
stock-raising,
but in Vietnam
some settlements have tur?
ned to
irrigated
rice cultivation under official
encouragement.
'The
Laos
Khmu,
like most other Mon-Khmer
tribes, occupy
an interme?
diate zone of low forested hills above the
plains-dwelling
Lao and Lue
but below the
mountain-dwelling
Miao and
Yao',
this
being
'an ecolo?
gically disadvantageous
zone.' This statement of LeBar's offers a hint
of their status in Laos as a
depressed group living
in
many respects
at the
mercy
of the dominant
groups
of the
area,
especially
the Lao.
98
They
are
very dependent
on the Lao
lam,
their economic and
political
intermediaries with traders and the
government. They
were traditio?
nally
considered the slaves of the Lao and
as late as the 1960s
were still
being
forced to
perform
corv?e labour for them in some
areas,
despite
its official abolition.
Smalley,
a
missionary,
drew
a
depressing picture
of
the
disintegration
of Khmu
culture, especially
in western
Laos,
which
was
partly
based
on the
disappearance
of
gongs
and
jars, highly
valued
standards of wealth
throughout
Southeast Asia. He felt that
'they
have
a collective
feeling
of
inferiority
towards the Lao and the
West', though
Scandinavian scholars who have worked there
subsequently
think this
view
exaggerated.
There has
certainly
been much assimilation of Khmu
to Thai or Lao or
Lue,
aided at least in
part by intermarriage.
Another
escape
route is
religious conversion,
some Khmu
becoming Buddhist,
some Christian
(mostly Protestant).
In Izikowitz's
view, however,
there
is
'strong opposition'
between the Khmu and the related Lamet
(122)
on the one
hand,
who
regard
one another as
'brothers',
and the bloc of
Tai
groups
on the other.126
There
are a number of sources for the
Khmu, especially Dang Ng
hiem Van
1973,
which deals with the Khmu of Vietnam.
Halpern
deals
mainly
with their
place
in Laos and
relationships
with their
more
power?
ful
neighbours (1958,
1960,
1964b).
Note also Le Bar
1967,
Roux
1927,
Ferlus
1972c, Smalley
1965 and
Smalley
1973
-
a
Khmu
bibliography
-
and the references listed under Lindell in Huffman 1986.
120.
Khang
Ai
Very closely
related to the
Khmu,
this
group
is nonetheless
regarded
as
separate by Haudricourt, though
Filbeck considers their
speech
to be a
Khmu
dialect;
if
so,
they
still have to be identified
as such
by
Lindell et
al.
They
are also known as Xa Khao
(presumably
not to be confused
with Xa
Cau,
used for the Khmu in
Vietnam),
a name said to mean
'savages
with
horns', though
it is more
likely
a reference to their mode
of
dress;
another term used for them is
Nhang
Xa.
They
are located in
Tay
Bac
Province,
northern Vietnam.127
121. Kha Bit
Elements of this
group
are found in northern
Laos,
in
Phongsaly
pro?
vince,
in the Boun Tai and
Muong
Khoua
areas,
and a little to the
west,
in the
Muong Sing
area and
on the
upper
Nam
Tha;
there are also 500
to 700 in
Sip Song
Panna. Their
population
was
given
as
300 in the
1930s,
an estimate
probably
on the low side.
They
are also known as
99
Phsin,
their
language being
very
close to
Khmu, perhaps
a dialect of
it.128
122. Lamet
The Lamet or Khamet
(also Khamed)
are
mainly
found between the
Nam Tha and Nam
Ngao
in north-west
Laos,
south of Vien Phou Kha
and east of Houei
Sai,
but some are also
reported
in
Chiang
Rai
pro?
vince, Thailand;
there were said to be about
6,000
in Laos in the late
1930s.
They
are divided into the
Upper
Lamet to the north-east and the
Lower Lamet to the
south-west,
there
being
some
cultural and dialectal
differences between them. The
Upper
Lamet
especially
but also
some
of the Lower Lamet have become to a
greater
or lesser extent Khmuized
in
language
and
general culture,
and all Lamet tend to
identify
with
the
Khmu, expressing
their
relationship
with them as one between 'el?
der brother' and
'younger
brother'.
They
unite in what Izikowitz calls
'strong opposition'
to the Tai
groups
of the area and
readily intermarry.
Yet
although
the Lamet are less
dependent
on the Tai
groups
than the
Khmu, they
are not unaffected
by
Tai
language
and
culture, especially
those of the Northern Thai.
Indeed,
Izikowitz
goes
so far as to see in
the Black Tai a Tai-ized
group closely
related to the Lamet. The lat?
ter are
shifting cultivators,
hunters and
gatherers
and are
locally
called
Tmooy
Rmeet
(cf.
the
Khmu,
119).129
There has been some
tendency
to see the Lamet as a
Palaungic
group, perhaps
because the
Palaungic Luaq
too
(135)
are sometimes
known
as
Khamet.
However,
it is not
easy
to reconcile this with their
close
relationship
with the
Khmu,
and Charoenma has
recently rejected
it.130 Izikowitz
published
a number of articles on them
(1941,
1943,
1951b,
1969)
and a
monograph (1951a,
based on data collected in the
1930s),
whose details
concerning kinship
were
reanalyzed by
Needham
(1960a;
cf. Ganzer's
critique
of
Needham, 1979).
123. Tin
(Mai
or
Pray)
There are
perhaps
about
20,000
T'in
according
to what
appears
to be
the most reliable
estimate,
based
on data collected in the field
by
Des
saint with the
help
of
village
headmen.
They
are found
mainly
in the
northernmost districts of Nan
province,
Thailand
(Pua, Chiang Klang
and
Thung Chang);
there
are also
perhaps 5-6,000
in
Sayaboury pro?
vince, Laos,
north and east of Pak
Beng. Indeed, they
seem to have
come
originally
from
Laos, perhaps
in the late nineteenth
century
or
even earlier. T'in is the Thai
name,
meaning
'a
place,
area, location',
but
they
are also known as P'ai or
P'u,
P'ai
Luaq (use
of the latter
100
inviting
confusion with the
Palaungic Luaq, 135)
and the rather dero?
gatory
Chaw
T'in;
Filbeck
says
that the terms Kha T'in and Kha
P'ai,
occasionally
found in the
literature,
are
spurious.
Most T'in call them?
selves Mai in Pua and
Chiang Klang districts, Pray
in
Thung Chang
district. The first means
'spirit, soul',
while the second is from Thai
phray 'common,
low-class
people'.131
The
Pray,
more
prone
to assimila?
tion
by
the
Thai,
are nonetheless far more
numerous,
and were located
east and north of the
Mai, though
the situation has become less
clear,
due to resettlement in
response
to the
fighting
of recent
years.
This di?
vision is also the chief dialectal
one,
though
such distinctions
go deeper;
the most distant dialects are
probably mutually unintelligible.
Mai and
Pray
were
probably
still one
language
in the seventeenth
century,
howe?
ver,
and Filbeck considers that 'basic
vocabulary
[i.e.
more or
less the
Swadesh
200]
shared
by
both Mai and
Pray
runs over
90%'.
Most T'in
know the local Tai
language, Yuan,
which is the sole
language
of some
and is used as a
lingua
franca even
among
T'in of different
dialects;
some know Lao or Lue or
Miao.132
The
dichotomy
between Mai and
Pray
is also reflected in
religious
ideas. Few T'in are Buddhist or
Christian,
even
nominally.
The
un
assimilated T'in are swidden cultivators and follow some
hunting
and
gathering;
some lowland T'in
-
precisely
those most
prone
to assimila?
tion
-
grow
both
dry
and
irrigated
rice.
However,
the T'in are
less
prone
to assimilation than the Khmu and
rarely marry
outside the tribe.133
They
have two modern
ethnographers,
Filbeck
(1964, 1971)
and Des
saint
(1973, 1981).
124,
125. Mrabri and Yumbri
Despite
considerable
linguistic
distance134 these two
groups
have
very
similar
ways
of life and can be treated
together.
The Mrabri are found in northern
Thailand,
between and around
Nan and
Phrae,
'in the mountains east of the Nan river on the northern
Thailand-Laos border' and 'in the Doi
Vieng
Pha Mountains north of
Muang
Prao in
Chiengmai province,
in the Doi
Chang
Mountains west
of
Chiengrai,
and in the
Kengtung
area of
Burma';
there are
also some
in
Sayaboury province,
Laos.
They
are
generally
known to the Lao and
Thai,
and to
scholarship,
as
the Phi
Tong Luang
or
'spirits
of the
yellow
leaves',
a name
they
themselves
repudiate. They
are also called Phi Pa
('spirits
of the
forest')
in the Nan
area,
or
Kha
Tong Luang ('savages
of the
yellow
leaves')
in
Laos,
all
being
Tai terms.
They
call themselves
by
the Tai term Khon Pa or their own Mrabri
(both analyzable
as khon
or
mra,
'human
being' plus pa
or bri
'forest')
or Kam
Luaq.135
101
The Bernatziks' use of the term
Yumbri,
which means
'jungle
peo?
ple',
has
given
rise to some
controversy,
since the above
groups deny
all
knowledge
of it.136 It is
possible, however,
that this term refers to
a
similar
group
further
east,
in the
Luang Prabang
and Thakhek areas
of
Laos,
and in
Thailand,
near
Udon and further
west,
on the
slopes
of Mount Pu
Kio,
between Petchabun and Pak
Bang,
in which areas
the local Thai call
them,
like the
Mrabri,
Kha
Tong Luang
or
'savages
of the
yellow
leaves'. It is these two
groups
that
display
the
lingui?
stic differences mentioned
above, though
in view of their
dispersal
and
nomadic habits it would not be
surprising
to find considerable
lingui?
stic
diversity
even within each
group.
Some 'Yumbri'
may
have become
Laoicized under the name
of the Kha
Pong (cf. ISO).137
The Mrabri
speak
the other
languages
of the
area,
using
Mrabri
just among
themselves. Its
cognate percentages
with other Mon-Khmer
languages
are low
enough
for doubt to be cast on its exact
status,
and
Thomas and
Headley
and Ferlus even
suggest placing
it in a
branch of
its own.
The
judgements
of
Young
and of Kraisi and Hartland
Swann,
that
they may
be a
part
of the Wa or
Khmu,
seem to be
hasty
ones,
borne of confusion over the rather indiscriminate use of the
ethnonym
in
some
areas.138 Their
relationship
with other
groups
is
generally
charac?
terized
by suspicion
and
hostility, interspersed
with occasional
trading
contacts.
They
have more trust in the Lahu and Miao than in other
groups:
the Lao raid them
occasionally,
and the T'in are in the habit
of
shooting
at them in the belief that
they
are evil
spirits. Conversely,
their minimal contacts with
outsiders,
their
independence
of water
sup?
plies
other than those
provided by
the
jungle rains,
and their
simple
and
temporary camps may
lead to
ignorance
of their existence in some
remoter areas. Their elusiveness makes
population
estimates even more
than
usually
difficult to
produce
-
perhaps
200 is as reasonable a
guess
as
any.139
As
already indicated,
both
groups
consist of nomadic hunters and
gatherers, living
in caves or
temporary leaf-shelters; they habitually
abandon the latter when the leaves turn
yellow,
whence their
popular
name.
Those in the Thakhek
area,
at
least, supplement
these activities
with
some
dry-rice
and maize cultivation.140 Bernatzik and Bernatzik
1958 covers these
groups,
and there are articles
by
Boudarel
(1965),
Bo
eles
(1963),
Heine-Geldern
(1958),
Kraisi and Hartland-S wann
(1962),
Seidenfaden
(1926),
Phra Winit Wanadom
(1926),
Kerr
(1924)
and
Trier
(1981).
102
126. Puok
This
group
is found in north-west
Vietnam,
in the
Tay
Bac
area,
and
possibly
also around Son
La,
Shon
Ma,
Dien Bien
Phu,
Moc
Chau,
Vao
Vhan, Muong
Te and Choc
Bo;
in these areas
they
numbered
4,511
in the late 1960s. Some
are also found in
Laos,
north of Sam
Neua,
but
they
numbered
only
about a
thousand at the start of the
century
and were said to be
declining
even
then. Puok or Pou Hoc is the Tai
and Vietnamese
name for the
group
and comes from the Thai
fu fuok,
meaning
'the dirtiest
people'.
Not
surprisingly,
it is
repudiated by
the
people themselves,
who use
instead
K'ktsing
Kor
('men
of the
deep
forests')
or
K'ktsing
i M'mull
('men
of the mountain
slopes',
or,
in
another
gloss, 'man-hearth').
The Vietnamese for these is
respectively
Puok-nget
and Puok-za. This
terminological dichotomy suggests
that
there are two
separate groups. Although retaining
their Mon-Khmer
language, they
seem to have become
quite
Laoicized. In the
early years
of this
century,
at
least, they
were swidden
cultivators,
stockraisers and
fishermen.141
127.
Tay
Hat
The
Tay
Hat
or Hat are
found in Sam Neua and
Xieng Chouang
pro?
vinces, Laos,
and in
Ngh?-An province, Vietnam,
to the north of Cua
Rao and
Muong Sen,
in the district of
Tuong Duong. 'Tayhat
has some
similiarities with
Palaung
but its
highest cognate percentages
were with
Puoc and
Mai,
both Khmuic
languages,
so
may
be
tentatively
classified
as
Khmuic' Ferlus
gives
the O'du
as a
closely
related
group
of the
same
district.142
128.
Quang
Lime
Located at
Muong Cha,
south of Lai
Chau,
north-west Vietnam.143
129. Kha Tiol
This
apparently
mixed Khmu-Lue
group
are found in the mountains
near
Poukha,
in north-west Laos. Their headmen
speak Lao,
but others
speak only
what
Raquez
describes as a
Khmu-Lue
patois.
Ferlus links
them with the Kha
Kiorr, though these,
a
possibly Palaungic group
(see 146),
were
previously
found
away
to the
south,
in southern
Luang
Prabang province.144
103
130. Pou
K'knieng
This
group
are found in Sam Neua
province
and
possibly
in Khammuon
and
Laos. In one article
(1976-7)
Ferlus lists
those in the latter two
provinces
as
Viet-Muong,
so
they may prove
to be
separate,
in which case
the term Thai
Pong
may
be attributable
to them. The former
group
seem
definitely
to be
Khmuic,
however:
Macey says
that their
language
is similar to that of the Kha
Khao,
a
known Khmuic
group
(see
under
119).
Pou
Pong (also
Kha
Pong)
is
their
neighbours'
name for
them,
Pou
K'knieng being
their
own; Macey
attributes the
change
from Kha to Pou to their
increasing
Buddhism.
They
are
certainly quite
Laoicized in
religion
and
language
but have
not intermarried with the Lao or
any
other outside
group.
In
Macey's
day
there were about 500 families.145
Q. Palaungic
Branch
Diffloth estimates that there are over a million
speakers
of
Palaungic
languages
in
Burma,
Thailand and Yunnan. His tentative
diagram
of
Palaungic (Fig. 7)
is based on
phonology
rather than
lexicon;
it exclu?
des P'u-man and Pou-ma
(132, 147),
otherwise
regarded
as
Palaungic,
but includes Lamet
(122), generally regarded
as
Khmuic146 Mat ras and
Ferlus
regard
the two branches as one
large one,147
but this does not
seem to
enjoy
wide
acceptance,
and
they
are treated as
separate
here.
131.
Palaung
This
very
Shanized
group
is to be found
throughout
the Northern and
to a
lesser extent Southern Shan States in the
general
area between
Katha, Bhamo, Mong Mit, Hsipaw
and
Kengtung. They
are
especially
concentrated in
Tawngpeng,
a
nominally
Shan state with its
capital
at
Namhsan,
but in
reality
ruled
by
a
Palaung
chief and in which the Pa?
laung
form
a
majority.
Leach tells us that
they
are not classed
locally
with the
Kachin, being
'members of a common
political system'
with
the
Shan, though
there are differences in administration at the local
level. There are also some
Palaung just
over
the border in
Yunnan,
in
the Juili area.
Other
'Palaung'
in China
are
possibly different, though
related
(perhaps
P'u-man,
132).
The southern
Palaung,
i.e. those of
the Southern Shan States and east towards the
Salween,
are known to
the Burmese and some
other
Palaung
as
Pal?; they
are sometimes cal?
led
Ngwe (Silver) Palaung,
to
distinguish
them from the Shwe
(Gold)
Palaung
around Namhsan. Both
Palaung
and Pal? are
Burmese
names,
104
PROTO-PALAUNGIC
I
Proto-Palaung-Lawa
,_I_,
Proto
_L
Danaw
Angku Palaung Riang
[Lamet]
N. Wa S. Wa Lawa
Figure
7. The
Palaungic
Branch
and two
early writers,
Sacchiero and
Scott, implied
that the distinction
was
solely
Burmese
too,
but
a
third
(Cameron,
who as a census
admini?
strator was in a
good position
to
know)
contended that the
Palaung
not
only recognized
the distinction but dismissed the
Pal?, along
with the
Kaluur and other elements in
Tawnpeng,
as
non-Palaung.
The ethnic
name is
given variously
as
Ta-ang, Da-ang, La-eng, Ra-ang
and
Da-eng.
Rumai, given by
some writers as an
ethnonym, applies
to certain clans
only, though
Cameron indicates it to be the
largest
clan. The Shan
name is Kun-loi
or
'hillmen',
the Chinese
Penglung
or
Ponglong (but
cf.
148).14S
Mitani identified three
groups
of
dialects, central,
northern and sou?
thern. Some of these are
mutually unintelligible,
in which case
Shan is
used instead.
Many Palaung
are
bilingual:
while
Palaung
is used in the
home,
Burmese or
Shan
are used in
writing by
educated
Palaung
and in
official, literary
and
religious
circles
generally.
The dialect of
Namhsan,
in the central
group,
is 'considered
by
the
Palaung
themselves to be
the most correct and aristocratic form of their
language',
and was that
mainly
used in Milne's
dictionary
(1921).149
Population figures
are
very
difficult to establish
precisely.
The last
Census of India to cover this area in
detail,
that of
1931, gave
a total of
nearly 140,000 Palaung speakers,
while the
Linguistic Survey of Burma,
carried out in
1915, gave
one of
110,000;
Henderson's more recent esti
105
mate, however,
which refers to the
1960s, gives
a mere
60,000.
In the
1920s,
those in Katha and the Southern Shan States
were
being
stea?
dily
assimilated to the Burmese and Shan
respectively, partly through
intermarriage, especially
with the latter.
However,
those in the north
were
increasing, possibly
due in
part
to
migration
from
Yunnan,
accor?
ding
to tradition their
original
homeland. There is
certainly
evidence
of a once wider distribution within Burma itself. The
presence
in the
Pagan
area,
further
south,
of
villages
called
Pong Long
Rwa or
'Palaung
villages' suggests
their one-time
presence there;
and Shafer thinks
they
may
once have been close
neighbours
of the Khasi
(47)
on
grounds
of
similar
vocabulary. They
may
have entered
some
areas, e.g. Hsenwi,
later than the
Shan,
but
they
have been excluded from others
by
the
pressure
of the Kachin since at least the
early
nineteenth
century.150
The
Palaung
have a
monopoly
of
pickled
tea in the area and
exchange
this for
rice,
of which
they grow
insufficient for
themselves;
the tea is
grown
on
plantations,
the rice
by
swidden cultivation.
They
are
Budd?
hist but continue to honour the local nat.151 The
ethnography
on the
Palaung
is all
very old, consisting essentially
of Milne's
monograph
(1924),
Cameron
1911, Coggin-Brown
1911-12 and Lowis 1906.
132. P'u-man
Closely
related to the
Palaung,
this
group
is to be found in
Yunnan,
in
the area between
Paoshan,
the
Wuliang
Hills down to
Ssumao,
Lant
s'ang, Kengma
and
Chenk'ang.
Those of the area between
Chenk'ang
and
Y?nhsien,
where
they
are
numerous,
speak only Chinese,
but others
to the north of this
area, e.g.
of Hsiao-ch'in
(on
the
Mekong,
south?
east of the road between Y?nhsien and
Nanchien),
have retained their
own Mon-Khmer
language.
Another
group
called P'u-man
speak only
Shan and live on the Red
River,
near the Vietnamese
border,
and
yet
others
speak only
a Wa dialect
(136).
P'u-man is the Chinese
name,
perhaps
of Shan
origin,
and the Chinese also
apply
it to the Kachin.
Some of the Mon-Khmer
group
call themselves
Wa-La,
names
apt
to
lead to confusion with
separate Palaungic groups.152
133.
Riang
According
to Luce:
Riang.
. .
tribes live on the central
plateau
of the S. Shan States of
Burma,
about 60 miles west of the Salween
river,
and a similar distance east of
Taung
gyi.
The 'Black
Riang',
. . .
Shan
Yang-Lam,
are centred around Loilem.
South of
Loilem,
in
M?ng
Sit and
M?ng
Nai
States,
are the 'White
Striped
Riang',
Shan
Yang-Sik.
North of Loilem there are other
Riang
tribes.
. . .
106
Included above must be the
Riang
around Nam
Sang: 'they
called them?
selves,
not
Yang Sek,
but.
. .
"White
Striped (or Chequered) Riang".'153
Scott states that the
Yang
Sek
are also called
Riang Rioi,
while the Lin?
guistic Survey of
Burma connects them with the Red
Riang.
Scott also
mentions the
Riang R?ng
or
Yang Wan-hkun, mainly
in
Laihka,
but
also in
M?ng
Nai. The
Linguistic Survey
and the 1921 and 1931 Cen?
suses of India consider
Yang
Wan-hkun to be a
synonym
of
Yang
Lam
or Black
Riang
rather than
a
separate group,
but Luce seems to
regard
them as
separate.
The 1931 Census
places
most
Yang
Lam in the states
of Kehsi
Mansam, Mong Nawng,
Laikha and
Mong Nai,
with some in
South Hsenwi and
Hsipaw.
It also
gives Riang Leng
as a
synonym
for
the
Yang
Sek. Luce
points
out that the Shan
apply
'the term
yang
to
the older inhabitants of the Shan
plateau,
whether
Riang
or
Karen',
so that it needs to be used with care. All of these
groups
claim to be
the
original
inhabitants of the
area,
all
deny
any
connection with one
another,
and
none have
very
much contact with the others.154
The
Riang population
was
given
as
10-15,000
in the Census
reports
(1921, 1931),
and as
nearly 28,000
in the
Linguistic Survey. They
are
declining
in
numbers, primarily
due to assimilation.
According
to
Henderson: 'The
Yang
Lam are
steadily amalgamating
with the Shans.
In
many
villages they
live
alongside
them.'
Many Riang
are
bilingual
in Shan and their own
language.
Most are
Buddhist, though
there are
some
Christian
Riang. Mukherjee
claims that some of them
migrated
to
Tripura (now
in
India)
in the fifteenth
century
to form
part
of the
army
of the
Rajas
of
Tripura,
but Mitra is more cautious: 'The
Riang
of
Tripura
have a dialect of their
own,
of Tibeto-Burman structure.
Nothing
is known of their
connection,
if
any,
with the
Riang
of the Shan
States.' Whatever their
origin,
these
Riang
are
clearly
not Austroasiatic
speakers today.155
There are no
special ethnographic
works on the Shan
States
Riang.
134-
Danaw
The Danaw are found in the area of Lake
Inle,
in the states of Ya
wnghwe
and Hsa
Mong
Hkam. There are
four
wholly
and
eight partly
Danaw
villages
in the
area,
with some
individual Danaw in other vil?
lages. Though closely
related to the
Riang,
it is
hardly possible
to see
them as a
Riang sub-group
on
present
evidence.
They
are often asso?
ciated with the Danu in earlier
sources,
though
the latter do not
speak
an
Austroasiatic
language, being wholly
assimilated to the Shan and
107
PROTO-WAIC
Proto-Wa-Lawa-La
Khaloq
K'ala Proto
I
(142) (143)
Samtau
Proto-Wa-Lawa
Proto- Proto- Wa of Son En La
Lawa Wa
Kengtung (139) (138) (141)
(135) (140)
Figure
8. The Waic
Languages
Burmese. The
name Danaw means 'a sort of
jungle' according
to Scott.
Almost all are
Buddhist,
and there cannot be more
than about
2,000.156
Most of what remains of
Palaungic
seems to
comprise
Diffloth's Waic
(Figures 8-11).
The broken lines should be
regarded
as
provisional
links.
The names in
parentheses following particular languages
or dialects are
those of the authorities
particularly
involved with
them; they
are
given
only
in cases where confusion is
likely
to arise. Fuller details of these
sources are
given by
Diffloth.157
135.
Luaq
(Lawa)
The
Luaq
or Lawa are located
chiefly
in the
angle
between the roads
leading
from Ban Mae
Sariang
in north-west Thailand to Hot and Mae
Hong
Son
respectively,
i.e. the Bo
Luang plateau; they
are conside?
red
'purer'
than those of the
Maeping
and Khun Yam
valleys,
who are
steadily becoming
Thai-ized. Other elements are
found around Chien
grai, Lampang
and Phrae. The
Luaq population
in these
areas in 1972
was
quoted
as
5,279
in
Chiangmai province, 2,570
in Mae
Hong
Son
province
and 132 in
Chiengrai province.158
Other 'Lawa' are
reported
to live in the Kwe Noi and Kwe Nai
valleys
of Kanchanaburi
province
(where
at least some now
speak Thai),
in the Chao
Phraya basin,
in the
Kengtung
area of
Burma,
in
China,
and in Laos. But in fact these
may
not be Mon-Khmer
groups,
since the term Lawa is used
by
local Tai
108
PROTO-LAWA
(135)
I
I I I I I I I I
North
Map?
Phae Saam
L'up
Pa Pae
Umphai
Bo
Luang
Figure
9. The Lawa
Languages
for
many
non-Tai tribal
groups,
some of whom
speak
Tibeto-Burman
languages.
For
example,
the 'Lawa' of
Petchabun,
Khorat etc.
speak
a
Mon-Khmer
language
but are in
reality
a
Monic
group,
the
Nyah
Kur
(q.v. 49)
Luaq
is the
self-designation
of the Thai and Thai-ized
Luaq,
the
ethnonym
of the
'purer' Luaq being
Lavua.
Luaq
means 'or?
dinary people', or,
in Northern
Thai, 'common,
low-class
people',
the
Thai
equivalent being Phray, though
use of this is
apt
to cause confu?
sion with the T'in
group
of that name
(123).
There
may
be
a
lexical
connection with the terms Wa or Vu
(see 136),
but this is less
certain;
apparently
because of
this,
the Bernatziks claimed that the 'Lawa' were
merely
Wa
immigrants
to the
plains
that had been assimilated to the
Lao, though many Luaq
in fact dwell in the hills. Luce sees the eth?
nonym
in the name of the
city
of
Lopburi (from
Lavo,
Lavapura).
The
Luaq
are sometimes called
Khamet,
but use of this risks
(and
may
have
led
to)
confusion with the
Lamet, generally recognized
as a Khmuic
group
(122).m
The chief
Luaq
dialects are
shown in
Figure 9, though
dialectal dif?
ferences obtain even between
villages.
Some of the
many
dialects are in
fact
mutually unintelligible, though
the Bo
Luang
dialect is said to be
understood
by
most
Luaq. Despite this,
it was
L'up
that was chosen
as
the standard dialect
by
missionaries
wanting
to create a
romanised,
phonetic script
for the
language
in the
1950s;
there is also a
Thai
script.
Most
Luaq, especially
the
men,
speak
Karen and a
Tai dialect such as
Yuan. The
valley-dwelling,
Thai-ized
Luaq
tend to
speak only
Yuan.
There is a
steady
trickle of
Luaq migration
from the
hills,
where the
standard of
living
is
lower,
into the
valleys,
which
generally
means as?
similation to Yuan within a
generation.
The
process
has been aided
by
Karen encroachments from Burma and
changes
in land
law,
both
109
PROTO-WA
Wa of Wa
Drage (136)
(137)
i
Kawa
Tung
Wa of Bible Praok South Wa Wa Wa of
Va Wa Antisdel Wa
(Harris
& of Davies
(Luce) (Young) Gainey)
Milne
Figure
10. The Wa
Languages
of which have
deprived
the
Luaq
of their land in
many
areas. Ano?
ther feature of assimilation is conversion to Buddhism and more
rarely
Christianity,
neither of which seem to affect the hill-dwellers
nearly
as
much
as the
valley-dwellers.160
Kunstadter is the main
ethnographer
on the
Luaq (see references),
but there is also work
by
Seidenfaden
(1940),
Flatz
(1970),
Kerr
(1924),
Hutchinson and Seidenfaden
(1934), Obayashi
(1964)
and Kauffman
(1972, 1977).
136. Wa
Under the title Wa are
included all those
groups
in
Figure
8 that de?
rive from Proto-Wa
except
for Wa of
Drage (137;
see also
Figure 10).
Broadly speaking,
their
territory
is bounded on the west
by
the Sal
ween and on the south
by
the 21st
parallel,
while to the east and north
they
extend from Burma into
China,
their northern
boundary being
roughly
the 24th
parallel.
Diffloth
gives
information on some of these
dialects. South Wa is
spoken just
north of
Kengtung. Tung
Va Wa is
a north-eastern
dialect,
from
Lancang district,
Yunnan. Kawa is also
spoken
in
China,
between
Lantsang Kengma, Ts'ang-yuan
and the bor?
der,
and as far south as the area west of
Mengma. Today they
share
the Autonomous
County
of
Meng?en
with some
Lahu and Tai
groups,
being shifting
cultivators. In Davies'
day they
were
perhaps
to be fo?
und
as far north as
Chenk'ang
and as far south as the area between
110
Meng?en
in Yunnan and
Mong Yang
in
Burma, though
there
may
be
some mistaken
identity
here. Kun
Chang places
them in the districts of
Ssumao, Mienning
and Paoshan. The Praok are
presumably
the same
as the
Parow(k);
both
groups
are found in
Kengtung.
Other
groups
are
presumably
to be found in the Wa States of
Burma,
home of the
so-called 'Wild
Wa',
notorious for their
headhunting
-
an area with few
other ethnic elements within it and few Wild Wa outside. Most of the
'Tame Wa'
are said to be in the state of
Kengtung. They speak
Shan
and/or
Mon-Khmer dialects
differing
from one
another and from those
of the Wild Wa.
They
are
quite
Shanized and
largely
Buddhist and
have therefore abandoned
headhunting.161
There has
long
been
a
tendency
for the Wild Wa to drift into
Keng?
tung,
thus
escaping
Chinese rule and what the Bernatziks have cal?
led 'the intolerable conditions in the unadministered
territory'.
These
have
undoubtedly
been made worse
by
the
'temporary' presence
of a
Kuomintang
force in the Wa
States, supporting
itself
through opium
production
and
disrupting
the
already
delicate balance of
political
re?
lationships
in the
area;
such
an
egress
took
place
even as
late
as 1972.
The area
always
seems to have been
autonomous,
not even the British
seriously trying
to administer it until the eve of the Second World
War,
which ended the
attempt.
The Wild Wa divide themselves into two
groups, namely
the Wa Pwi and the Wa
Lon, though
both
groups
are
headhunters. Even modern writers
report
the continued existence of
this
activity,
which had
certainly
not abated
by
the end of British rule.
It
mainly
seems to be connected with
fertility
rites at
ploughing time,
though
heads are
also used in a
wide
range
of other rites. The
ability
of these Wa to
keep
their area
relatively
free from alien influence
may
suggest
that
they
still have
a
relatively 'pure'
Mon-Khmer
culture,
but
Needham
long ago pointed
out the difficulties of
doing
fieldwork in the
area.162
Wa is the true
ethnonym, according
to Davies. Other terms in use
for the various
groups
include
Vu, Lave,
Ravet and
Krak,
with Kut Wa
being
used of the Tame Wa. Other
groups frequently
use Lawa for the
Wild Wa
(but
cf.
135),
and K'ala or Kawa or
Tai Loi
(but
cf.
143,
I44)
for the Tame Wa. The latter is
especially
a
Shan
term,
another
being Hsap
Tai. The Chinese and Burmese also use
Gaung-pyat ('head
cutting')
Wa for the Wild Wa. Other terms recorded in the
literature,
but with little idea of their exact
reference,
are
Amok,
Hkun
Loi, Loila,
Nyo
and
Maen;
the former is
presumably
the Mok dealt with
by
Diffloth.
Population figures
are
clearly
even more
approximate
than usual. The
various census
reports give figures
of between
6,000
and
14,000
Wa in
the administered
parts
of
Burma;
the
Burma
gives
111
as
many
as
just
under
39,000.
There would seem to be no secure
figure
available for the Wa
States, though Harvey
offered one of
83,000
in
the 1950s. Svantesson et al mention
280,000
'Va'
speakers
in
Yunnan,
but these
may
in fact be K'ala
(143).163
Other
possible
dialects in this
group
include
Pyin, Lern, Mang Tarn,
Hsen and Hsensum of
Kengtung,
their numbers
being
in total less than
7,000.
Of even less certain status
are the Kha Haw in
Thailand,
who numbered 196 in
1962,
all in a
single
village.164
There is some
early
literature
by
Scott
(1896, 1901), Drage (1907),
Pitchford
(1937)
and
especially Harvey
(e.g.
1933,
1957),
whose archive
in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford,
should be consulted on all
aspects
of
northern Burmese
ethnography, including
the Wa. Friedman 1975 has
a little data in the Wa drawn from
Harvey.
137. Wa
(Drage)
Diffloth
separates
this
group linguistically
from the
preceding
one,
though
they
are connected to each other
through
Proto-Wa.
They
are
proba?
bly
located in the Moitre
Circle,
between the Nam Ma and Nam
Nang
rivers.165
138-140. En, Son,
and Wa
of Kengtung
(Scott)
These three
groups, together
with La
(141),
are all
closely
related and
found in
Kengtung.
Sources
give population figures
of between 900 and
3,500
for the En and 400 to
1,200
for the Son.166
141.
La
In Davies'
day
this
group
was to be found in
Yunnan,
in the states
of
Kengma
and
Chen-k'ang,
in the Sweli
valley,
between
Mangshih
and
T'engch'ung,
and in
Burma,
between
Kunlong
and
Mong
Mao.
There were also some Buddhist La between
Meng-chien
and
Chen-k'ang
(Yunnan),
with other La around
Ts'angyiian
and between
Lants'ang
and the Burmese border. It is not clear how far the Tame Wa that the
Shan call La
correspond
to this
group.167
142.
Khalok
Although
called
Luaq by
the
Thai,
the
language
of this
group
forms a
separate
branch of Waic. Khalok or Phalok is the
ethnonym,
and
they
are located around Mae
Rim,
north of
Chiangmai.168
112
PROTO-SAMTAU
(144)
_I
Kern
D?gne
Tai Loi Samt
au
P'u-man Kien Ka
(not 132)
Figure
11. The Samtau
Languages
I43.
K'ala
This
group
straddled the Burma-China border in the
1920s, many
being
found in
Kengtung State;
but most here
spoke
Shan or
Palaung,
all
the K'ala
speakers, except
for one
village
in
Kokang district, being
in Yunnan.
They
were Buddhist and called themselves Ss-va.
They
were termed
Angku by Grierson,
but Ferlus seems to
regard
these
as a
separate group,
of
Mong Yaung
in Burma
(145).
The
Linguistic Survey
of
Burma records
4,000 speakers
of 'Hkala' in
Kengtung.169
144-
Samtau etc.
Under this
heading
fall the
languages
or
dialects
grouped
in
Figure
11.
The Samtau
proper
are
found in north-east
Kengtung,
between the Nam
Loi and the Chinese
border; they
are
also known as
Bulang
and number
about
52,000. They
have
long
been
Buddhist,
and at least some
speak
and write a
Tai
language.
The Tai Loi are
also
Buddhist, supporting
themselves
by opium-poppy
cultivation. Davies found that
they
had
'taken
very
much to Shan
customs,
and to some extent even
talk the
Shan
language among
themselves.'
Indeed,
Tai Loi is
literally
'Hill
Shan' in
Shan,
but it is
applied
to
Tibeto-Burman and
apparently
to Tai
groups
also. An alternative
designation
is Wa
Kut, literally
'remainder
Wa',
also
apparently being
used of the Tame Wa
(136).
Davies
places
this
group
between
Kengtung
and
Mong Yawng
and within the
dimples
of the border between Yunnan and the extreme east of Burma. The
Burma recorded
21,000 speakers
of Tai Loi in the
earlier
part
of this
century.170
Lef?vre-Pontalis
reported
the Kern
D?gne
to be
living
near
Jinghong
in Yunnan at the start of this
century.
The
closely
related Kien Ka are
113
found at some
remove,
between
Chiengmai
and
Chiengrai
in Thailand.
According
to Diffloth the P'u-man listed in
Figure
11 are
linguistically
distinct from the other
Palaungic group
of that name
(132), despite
living
in the same
area,
which embraces the districts of Nan
Chiao,
Fo
Hai, Cheli,
Liushan and Chen-
yuan.171
It is not clear
whether,
or how
far, groups 137-144
would be
regarded
locally
as Tame Wa
(see 136). However, they
are
clearly linguistically
distinct from the Wa
proper,
'Tame Wa'
being
an inexact term both
ethnologically
and
linguistically.
The
remaining Palaungic groups
(145
to
I49)
do not
appear
in
Figures 7-11,
and it is not
totally
clear how
they
are related to the other
languages
in this branch.
145.
Kon Keu
This
group,
like the Kern
D?gne (144),
were
reported
to be located
around
Jinghong by Lef?vre-Pontalis,
around
Mong Yawng by
Ferlus.
They may
be
closely
related to the K'ala
(i^5),
also known as
Angku,
whose final
syllable
Ferlus relates to Keu.172
146.
Chon or Kha
Doy (Kiorr)
These two
groups may
or
may
not be
identical; they
are found in Nam
Tha
province, Laos,
where
they
were said to number 73 and 61
respec?
tively
in
1951, having migrated
to their
present
home from the 'duck's
beak' area of Burma. Ferlus identifies these at once with the K'ala
(I43)
and with two Khmuic
groups,
the Tiol and Kiorr
(who
may
in
fact be the
same
-
see
129).
However,
Lef?vre-Pontalis located the Ki?
orr in southern
Luang Prabang province
at the start of this
century,
and
they
were mentioned
very recently by
Diffloth as a
Palaungic group.173
Tentatively, then, they
should be included
here,
and the Tiol or Kiorr
left as a Khmuic
group.
147.
Pouma
According
to Ferlus's
map174 speakers
of this
language
are situated
between
Mengchien
and
Lantsang
in Yunnan.
148. Benglong
There are about
10,000 speakers
of this
Palaungic language
or
dialect
in Yunnan.175
114
149. Mang
There
are about
1,000 speakers
of this
language, mainly
in
Tay
Bac
province,
north-west
Vietnam, though
there are also 200 in Yunnan.
Mang
is the
ethnonym;
the Vietnamese call them
Mang
U.
According
to Matras and Ferlus:
Le
Mang
ou
Mang-u
est le seul
repr?sentant [of
its
group].
. . .
Les
pourcenta?
ges
avec les
langues
m?n-khm?res les
plus
voisines ?tant tr?s
bas,
nous devons
en faire un
groupe
?
part,
the
percentages being Mang-Khmu 22%, Mang-Muong 26%,
and
Mang
Puok
25%.
Thomas is more
cautious,
however:
Mang (Mang U')
is anomalous. Near the China border and in close
proximity
to Khmuic
languages,
it seems to have its
highest cognateness
with
Palaungic
so has been classed as such. But it is not
impossible
that
Mang may represent
yet
another branch of Mon-Khmer.176
115
NOTES
Introduction
1. Parkin 1984.
2. Diffloth 1985:
719;
David
Mar,
BBC Radio
Broadcast,
June 1988.
3.
Logan
1852:
657-8;
1855: 363.
4. The theories of F. Hahn and of Thomsen and Gabelentz
respectively;
see Konow 1906:
2ff.,
16ff.
5. Edmonston Scott
1920;
Barbour
1921;
Trombetti
1928; Ko?ay
1939.
6.
Hevesy 1930;
Uxbond
1928;
cf. Schmidt 1935:
729;
Sebeok 1945: 60.
7. Sebeok
ibid.;
also
Briggs
1945: 57.
8.
E.g.
Sebeok
1942; Kuiper 1948;
Emeneau 1954: 291-2.
9.
Donegan
and
Stampe
1983.
10. See Turner
1934;
Pinnow 1966: 183.
11. Pinnow 1966:
390;
also idem 1963:
142,
150.
12. Schmidt
1906;
cf. Shorto 1979: 276.
13.
Briggs
1945: 58.
14. See
Long
Seam 1981:
207;
on the last
named,
cf.
Nigam
1971.
15. Benedict
1942, 1966-7,
1976.
16.
Gedney 1976;
Diffloth
1977;
Shorto
1979;
Sebeok 1943.
17. Cf. Shorto 1976: 95.
18. Shafer 1942:
399,
400 n. 3. On
Gorgoniev,
see
Long
Seam 1981:
215-16.
19. Benedict 1976:
31-2;
Thomas 1966b:
iii;
Haudricourt and Martinet
1947: 88.
20. Thomas 1971:
20-1; Headley
1976: 447.
21.
Chatterji
1943: 12.
22.
Kuiper
1948: 374.
23. Masica 1976: 178ff. and
passim.
24. Ramaswami
Aiyar
1929: 112-14.
25. Shahidullah
1933;
Bhowmik
1972;
Turner 1966.
26. Diffloth 1974: 481-2. Thomas and
Headley (1970: 405-7)
are
also
useful on the branches of Mon-Khmer
(IV).
27. Thomas and
Headley
1970: 405.
28.
Temple
1909:
47-8; Syamchaudhuri
1977: 23.
29. Diffloth 1980: 3.
30. Shorto 1979: 276.
117
31. Diffloth
ibid.;
Matras and Ferlus 1972:
15;
Ferlus 1974b:
39ff.;
Thomas
1973b:
139;
Thomas and
Headley
1970: 404.
32. Thomas 1973: 141 n.
2;
Smith 1975:
4;
Diffloth 1974: 480.
33.
Proponents
of the view that Aceh is Austroasiatic are Haudricourt
(1966: 47),
van
Reijn (1974: 136), Blagden (1929)
and Cowan
(1947). Sceptics
include Shorto
(1976: 96;
1979:
278)
and Collins
(1969: 51).
34.
E.g. Linguistic Survey of
Burma:
59;
Forrest 1973:
95;
Davies 1909:
337.
35. Wiens 1954:
77;
also ibid.:
96,
after Eberhard.
36. Forrest 1973:
96;
Davies 1909: 339.
37. Forrest 1973:
79, 95, 96, 100;
also Davies 1909: 337.
38. Haudricourt 1966:
56;
cf.
Long
Seam 1981: 212.
39. Davies 1909:
337, 343;
Lamb
erg- Karlovsky
1962: 71
(on Eberhard);
Fitzgerald
1941:
15;
Hsu 1945:
89; Egerod
1967:
105;
Forrest 1973: 252-3.
40. See
Lamberg-Karlovsky
1962: 72-4.
41. See
Long
Seam 1981: 215.
42. Scott 1909: 125.
43. See Zide 1969: 413.
44. On these
groups,
see Das et al. 1966:
74, 117;
Prasad 1961:
172-5,
205-9, 315;
Gautam 1977:
31-3; Vidyarthi
1964:
20;
Bhowmik 1963:
7;
Fuchs
1973:
111; Standing
1976: 17.
45.
India IV: 79.
46.
Chatterji
1923:
452;
Griffiths 1946: 1.
47.
Roy
1912:
21;
Prasad 1961: 315.
48.
E.g. Chatterji ibid.; Majumdar
1950:
23-4;
but cf.
Majumdar
1961:
65.
49.
Przyluski
1924:
399;
cf.
Nigam
1971. See also the brief account in
Kuiper
1966: 63ff.
Chapter
I
1.
Standing
1976: 275.
2.
Przyluski
1930:
199;
cf. Tedesco 1943: 16
n.
71;
1945:
82-3;
also
Thieme-Breslau 1939:
135,
136.
3.
Roy
1912: 359n.
4. Bouez 1985:
39,
212 n. 2.
5.
Roy
1912: 358.
6. After Zide and Zide 1976: 1298.
7. Zide and
Stampe
1968: 377
n. 15.
Bhattacharya
1975: 100-1.
8. Karv? 1965:
315;
Pinnow 1966: 181-2.
9. Pinnow 1966:
181-2;
Ali 1973:
41; Stampe
1966:
76;
Karv?
ibid.; Roy
1912:
75;
Hermanns 1966:
55;
Fuchs 1988: 24.
10.
Sahay
1977: 11.
118
11.
Stampe ibid.;
Ali 1973:
42-3; Vidyarthi
and Rai 1977:
161;
Dixit 1966:
5;
Hermanns
ibid.;
Fuchs ibid.: 25-7.
12. Konow 1908: 70.
13.
Stampe
1966:
78;
Pinnow 1966:
81;
Leuva 1963:
22;
Grierson in
India IV:
128,
137.
14. Bouez 1985:
8, 81-2; Datta-Majumdar
1956:
23; McDougall
1977:
301;
Gautam 1977a: 242.
15.
Datta-Majumdar
1956:
19; Mahapatra
1977:
358;
Bouez 1985: 82.
16. Gautam 1977b:
369; Datta-Majumdar
1956:
30;
Gausdal 1960:
12;
Bista 1972.
17.
Datta-Majumdar
1956: 33-4.
18. Bahadur 1977:
27; Vidyarthi
1964:
20; Roychoudhury
1963:
32;
Prasad 1961:
143-4;
Fuchs 1973:
170-1; Sengupta
1970:
4-8; Chakraborty
and
Kundu 1980:
87; Linguistic Survey of
India IV:
32; Roy
1925: 92.
19. Prasad 1961:
198-9; Linguistic Survey of
India ibid.
20.
Mahapatra
1980: 28.
21.
Quotation
from Gautam 1977b:
372;
also Troisi 1979:
24;
Gausdal
1953:
3;
Prasad 1974:
13;
Bouez 1985: 81.
22. Fuchs 1973:
172; Roy
and
Roy
1937:
163;
Gausdal 1953:
52; Campbell
1953:
507;
Bhowmik 1980:
52; Bodding
1935b: 257.
23. Sachchidananda 1979:
77;
Sinha 1962: 63.
24.
Roy
1912:
61, 66ff., 123-7, 134, 175-9, 227ff., 290ff.; Linguistic Survey
of
India IV: 79.
25.
Stampe
1966:
78;
Cook 1965:
4; Kuiper
1965:
54-5;
Hoffmann 1930 et
seq.: 1763,
2911.
26.
Standing
1981: 221.
27. Bouez 1985:
43;
Sachchidananda 1979:
77; Choudhury
1977:
22, 25;
Roy
1925: 91.
28. See Ponette 1978: Foreword and
p.
14.
29.
Chatterjee
and Das 1927:
1; Stampe
1966:
79; Majumdar
1950: 1:
Pfeffer 1982:
31, 79;
1983:
91; Roy
1912:
127-30; Chattopadhyay
1964:
13;
Majumdar
1950:
4-6, 9-11;
Hoffmann 1930 et
seq.:
1763.
30. Mazumdar 1927:
42;
Gautam 1977a:
31; Roy
1935a:
3;
Prasad 1962a:
72.
31. 1939:
2-3,
53. On
Bhumij
distribution
generally,
see
Roy
1935a:
1-2,
37;
Das
Gupta
1966:
95;
Sinha 1957:
23;
1958:
23;
1962:
37-8; Ray Chowdhury
1929:
96-7;
Sahu 1942:
104;
Das 1931a: 46ff.
32.
Nigam
and
Dasgupta
1964:
188, 195;
Das 1931a:
46-9, 51;
Das
Gupta
1966:
95;
Sinha et al. 1969: 134.
33. Das 1931a:
24n.; Ray Chowdhury
1929:
99;
Sahu 1942:
101;
Mandel?
baum 1970: 603.
34. In the first
group,
Martel 1979:
106; Roy
1925:
60-1;
Pinnow 1966:
181-2;
Bose 1971: 33. In the second
group, Stampe
1966: 79 and Grierson in
India IV:
80,
102.
119
35.
Standing
1976:
281; Stampe ibid.;
Martel
ibid.;
Leuva 1963:
3;
Adhi
kary
1984: 17.
36. Sen 1955:
113; Stampe
1966:
79;
Bouez 1985:
8; Adhikary
ibid.
37.
Chakraborty
1978:
30-1;
1979:
5-6; Roy
1925:
43ff.;
Sen 1965: 47.
38. Ali 1973:
66; Singh
1977a:
38; Singh
and Darida 1986: 1-2.
39.
Stampe
1966:
80;
Leuva 1963:
23;
Rizbi 1977:
47; Vidyarthi,
in
Sandhwar 1978:
10, 20;
Hari Mohan 1979:
79-80; Singh
1977a:
39; Singh
and
Danda 1986: 2-3.
40. Rizbi
ibid.; Singh
and Danda 1986: 19 n. 3.
41.
Gupta
1964:
132;
Rizbi
ibid.;
Sandhwar 1978:
18, 28, 35;
Rosner 1967:
218-19; Deogaonkar
1986: 13.
42. Elwin 1942:
xxvii, 58ff.;
also Leuva 1963:
1;
Jain 1958:
27;
Bhattach?
aryya
1953: 13.
43. Leuva 1963: 3 and Ch.
1; Roy
1926.
44.
Roy
1926:
149; Bhattacharyya
1953:
1;
Leuva 1963:
2;
Das
Gupta
1978:
26-8, 67;
Elwin ibid.
45. Elwin 1942:
64-5;
Das
Gupta
1978:
27, 66-7; Roy
1926:
148;
Jain
1958:
31, 33;
Prasad 1962b:
105;
Icke-Schwalbe 1983a: 31-2 n. 2.
46. Leuva 1963:
21ff.,
70ff.
47.
Quotation
from Das et al 1966:
105;
also Fuchs 1973:
172;
Pfeffer
1983:
91;
Jordan-Horstmann 1972b:
565;
Rosner 1956: 44.
48. Das 1964:
20-1; Roy
1915:
10;
Ghosh 1966:
81;
Datta 1933: 107.
49.
Quotation
from
Roy
and
Roy
1937:
14;
also ibid.:
1-7; Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
1980:
6-7,
11-12.
50.
Roy
and
Roy
1937:
29-36; Roy
1935b:
220-1, 225; Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
1980:
7, 9; Dasgupta
1978a:
91,
94-6.
51.
Quotation
from
Roy
1935b:
223;
also
Roy
and
Roy
1937:
10, 31, 38;
Pfeffer 1983: 91.
52.
Stampe
1966:
74; Roy
and
Roy
1937:
18, 19; Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
1980: 10.
53. On the first
derivation,
see
Dasgupta
1978a:
94;
on the
second, Roy
and
Roy
1937:
25; Sahay
1977:
11,
13.
54. Bhowmik 1980:
52, 54-5; Roy
and
Roy
1937: 24-5.
55. Sandhwar 1978:
35; Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
1980:
7; Roy
1925:
91;
Bhowmik 1980: 53.
56.
Vidyarthi
and
Upadhyay
1980: 12-14.
57. Ibid.:
11, 19;
cf. Das 1931b: Preface and
p.
19.
58.
Stampe
1966:
75;
Bose 1929:
51-3;
Elwin 1948:
16, 23-4; McDougal
1963a:
4, 6,
328 n. 1.
59. Elwin 1948: 7 n.
1; Dasgupta
1978b: 1 n.
1;
Bose 1929:
50; Voegelin
and
Voegelin
1966: 21.
60.
McDougal
1963a:
5;
Patnaik 1964:
23, 26-7; Dasgupta
1978b:
69,
73.
61.
McDougal
1963a:
6, 12-14;
Elwin 1948: 42.
62. Yeatts 1931:
286;
Elwin 1955: xx.
63.
Grignard
1909: 18.
120
64. Prasad 1961:
231, 235;
Fuchs 1973:
11, 176;
Bhowmik 1963:
7;
Elwin
1955:
4-6;
Mazumdar 1927:
10, 11,
17.
65.
Stampe
1965:
332-3; Sitapati
1938:
57-8;
1939:
157-8; Roy
1927:
323;
Piers
Vitebsky, personal
communication.
66.
Vitebsky
1980: 47.
67. Elwin 1955:
50ff.; Sitapati
1939: 167-8.
68. Elwin 1955:
8-9; Sitapati
1939:
157, 167-8; Choudhury
1963-4:
101-2;
Munro and
Sitapati
1931:
200; Subbarayan
1948:
64;
Piers
Vitebsky, personal
communication.
69.
Stampe
1965: 333 n.
10, 337;
Zide 1969:
413; Subbarayan
1948:
58;
Bhattacharya
1954:
45; Satpathy
1963-4:
165;
Izikowitz n.d.: 129.
70. Zide 1969:
412,
413.
71. Zide 1976: 1259.
72.
Bhattacharya
1957:
2;
also Burrow and
Bhattacharya
1962:
45-6;
Emeneau 1969:
338-9;
Ramadas 1931:
160; Majumdar
1939:
6;
Claudia
Gross,
personal
communication.
73. F?rer-Haimendorf 1943b:
149-50; Bhattacharya ibid.;
Thusu and Jha
1972:
161; Mohanty
1973-4:
132;
Izikowitz
ibid.; Subbarayan
1948:
56;
cf.
Claudia
Gross, personal
communication.
74. Thusu and Jha
ibid.;
Deka and
Pattajoshi
1975:
228; Singh
1972:
102;
Subbarayan
1948: 56.
75. Chandra Sekhar 1964:
5, 29; Roy
1927:
308; Singh ibid.;
Subba Rao
1965: 63.
76.
Quotation
from
Subbarayan ibid.;
also Sahu 1942:
108;
1953:
61;
Bose
1950:
173;
Ramadas 1931:
162;
Thusu and Jha 1972: 168 n.
1;
Izikowitz ibid.
77. Zide 1969:
412,
413.
78. F?rer-Haimendorf 1945: 328 n.
2;
cf. Pfeffer
ms;
Claudia
Gross,
personal
communication.
79.
Stampe
1965: 338 and n.
16; Tripathi
1973:
326;
Claudia
Gross,
personal communication; Mohanty
1973-4:
153;
Pfeffer 1984: 232.
80. Mazumdar 1927:
16;
Ramadas 1931:
161; Subbarayan
1948:
55;
Sahu
1942:
108;
1952:
468, 470;
1953:
61, 62;
Chandra Sekhar 1964: 5.
81. Sahu
ibid.;
Burrow and
Bhattacharya
1962:
46;
Claudia
Gross, perso?
nal communication.
82. Elwin 1950:
2-3, 6-7;
F?rer-Haimendorf 1943b:
161;
Das 1956:
106;
Stampe
1965:
332,
340.
83. Elwin 1950:
1; Bhattacharya
1968:
xxx;
Voegelin
and
Voegelin
1966:
21;
Claudia
Gross, personal
communication.
84.
Stampe
1965:
341;
F?rer-Haimendorf 1945:
8;
1954:
178;
Guha et al.
1970:
i, 1-2; Subbarayan
1948: 58. The final
-q
in
Gataq represents
the
glottal
stop.
85. Guha et al. 1970:
1; Mohanty
1981-2: 1. Gutare seems a more
likely
spelling
than
Gntare,
which is nonetheless
printed
in both sources.
86. F?rer-Haimendorf 1945:
8, 328, 332; Mahapatra
1976:
815; Stampe
1965: 341.
121
87. de Candolle 1961:
752ff., 766ff., 783;
Hermanns 1966:
57; Kuiper
1962:
243-5, 274-5;
1966:
57; Bhattacharya
1956:
245;
Fuchs 1988:
24-5, 180, 185,
195,
204.
88.
Stampe
1966: 391 n.
4;
Fuchs 1988: 25.
89.
Quotations
from
Stampe
1966:
394-5,
after Aasha
Mundlay;
also Zide
1969:
428;
de Candolle 1961: 752-3 and n.
9; Kuiper
1962: 243.
90.
Quotations respectively
from Zide 1969: 428 and
Kuiper
1962:
287-8;
also Pinnow 1963:
151;
Aasha
Mundlay, personal
communication.
Chapter
II
1.
Syamchaudhuri
1977: 11.
2. Hutton 1931:
14;
also
Temple
1901:
284; Bonington
1931:
66;
Syamchaudhuri
1977: 20.
3. Man 1889:
vii;
Kloss 1903:
228;
Whitehead 1924:
18, 23; Bonington
1931:
67;
Man 1932:
25;
cf. Anon 1957:
53;
Diffloth 1974:
481;
Radhakrishnan
1976:
1035n.;
Lal 1977: 41.
4. Mathur 1967:
46;
Lal
ibid.;
Das 1977:
1-2;
Mann 1975:
327;
1978:
350;
Bonington ibid.; Syamchaudhuri
1977:
33, 37;
Man 1889:
vii, ix, n.;
1932:
169;
Anon 1957: 53.
5.
Quotation
from Kloss 1903:
106-7;
also Pandit 1970: 325.
6. Mazumdar 1955:
1; Syamchaudhuri
1977: 19 and n.
,
30;
Chanda 1971:
27;
1972:
81;
Lal 1977: 52.
7. Chanda 1976:
68; Gupta
1951:
lii; Bonington
1931:
88; Nag
1967: 33.
8. In the first
group, Temple
1901:
200;
Man 1932:
25, 173;
in the
second,
Kloss 1903:
155, 220; Chengapa
1951:
lxxiv;
Mathur 1967:
20; Nag
1967:
34;
Pandit 1970:
325,
329.
9.
Bonington
1931: 68.
10.
Chengapa
1951:
lxxii;
cf. Man 1885:
429;
Chanda 1976: 69.
11. Diffloth 1974: 481.
12.
Upadhyay
1981: 87.
Chapter
III
1.
Carey
1976a:
3;
Tan Chee
Beng
1975: 194.
2.
Carey
1976a: 10-11.
3. Jimin bin Idris 1968:
44;
Schebesta 1926:
270;
Williams-Hunt 1952: 14.
4. Jimin bin Idris 1968:
47; Carey
ibid.
5. Schebesta 1927:
92;
cf. Evans 1937:
19-20;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906?:
388.
6. Schebesta 1926:
270; Carey
1976a:
14;
Nai Pan Hla 1974:
3;
Endicott
1979: 1 n. 1. Evans 1927:
4;
1937:
19-20,
29
n.
3, 311;
Wilkinson 1923:
3;
Brandt 1961:
129;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906i:
21;
Annandale and Robinson
1903:
3,
48.
122
7. Schebesta 1926:
272; Carey
1976a:
3, 17, 129;
Mei
Ching
1960:
20;
Noone 1936:
1; Benjamin
1966:
4-5;
Evans 1937: 311.
8.
Quote
from Maxwell 1879:
47;
also
Lapique
1895:
420;
Annandale and
Robinson 1903:
23;
Low 1850: 429.
9.
See,
for
example,
Schmidt
1901;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906?:
409-11;
Wilkinson 1910:
8;
Williams-Hunt 1952: 23.
Benjamin gives
a review of these
attempts (1976a: 38ff.).
10.
Benjamin
1976a:
43, 57;
Diffloth 1975:
2;
1976a: 229.
11. After
Benjamin
1976a:
71,
80ff.
12. Ibid.: 59.
13. This
diagram
is a
synthesis
of those in
Benjamin
1976a: 66 and Diffloth
1975: 6.
14. Diffloth 1975:
3; Carey
1976a:
16;
Brandt 1961:
136;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906?:
385,
462.
15. Diffloth 1975:
17;
the older view is
represented by
Skeat and
Blagden
1906?: 463.
16.
Blagden
1903:
62;
cf. Skeat and
Blagden
1906?: 463.
17.
Benjamin
1976a:
45;
Brandt 1961:
130;
Evans 1937:
24;
Schebesta
1926:
274; Carey
1970:
145;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906i: 26.
18.
Carey
1976a:
32-3;
1970a:
144;
Asmah
Haji
Omar 1976:
951n.;
Brandt
1961:
130, 137; Benjamin
1976a:
43-5;
Evans 1937:
24;
Skeat and
Blagden
ibid.
19. Brandt 1961:
130;
Donner 1978:
472;
Diffloth 1975: 4 n.
4;
Endicott
1979:
163,
165.
20. Brandt
ibid.;
Schebesta 1929:
269;
Diffloth 1975:
2, 6;
cf. Donner
ibid.;
Seidenfaden 1930:
224; Carey
1976a: 33.
21. Seidenfaden 1958:
114;
Evans 1937:
23;
Donner
ibid.;
Brandt 1961:
129, 131;
Srisavasdi 1963:
195;
Schebesta 1925: 24.
22.
Ho?ng
1976:
216; Carey ibid.;
Brandt 1961:
134, 136-7;
Donner
ibid.;
?vans 1927: 5.
23.
Quotations
from
Benjamin
1976a:
60-1, 45;
also ibid.:
88;
Schebesta
1926:
271, 274;
1927:
93; Carey
1976a:
30;
Diffloth 1975:
3;
Kinzie and Kinzie
1966:
27;
Williams-Hunt 1952:
19;
Evans 1922a:
191;
1923: 27.
24.
Quote
from Endicott 1979:
48;
also ibid.:
5; Carey
1968:
49-50;
1976a:
32;
1970b:
185; Benjamin
1976a:
46;
1966: 11 n.
17;
Noone 1936:
30;
Evans
1937: 29 n.
3;
Schebesta 1927: 93.
25. Diffloth 1975: 5 n.
5; Benjamin
1976a: 44-6.
26. Endicott 1979:
1,
n.
1, 3-5, 53;
Schebesta 1926:
271; Benjamin
1976a:
46;
Evans 1937: 30.
27. Endicott 1979:
3-5, 213;
Howell 1981:
64;
Evans 1915: 193.
28.
Quotation
from Howell 1982:
xiii;
also idem 1981a:
57-8, 60;
1983:
49;
Ogilvie
1940:
23;
1949: 12.
29. Howell 1981a:
61, 65-6;
1984: Ch.
1; Ogilvie
1949: 13.
30.
Ogilvie
1940:
23;
1949:
12; Carey
1976a:
132-3;
Howell 1981a:
63ff.;
1983:
49;
1984: 137.
123
31. Howell 1981a:
58;
1984:
21-2;
n.d.:
149;
1989b:
xiv-xv; Ogilvie
1940:
25; Carey
1976a: 165.
32. After
Benjamin
1976a:
59;
see also Diffloth 1976b: 80.
33.
Quotation
from Diffloth 1976b:
82;
also
Benjamin
1976a:
39, 49;
Evans 1920:
21;
1922b:
271;
1924:
4; Carey
1973: 186 n.
6;
Williams-Hunt
1952: 19.
34.
Benjamin
1976a:
51;
Noone 1936:
3, 41;
cf. Needham 1956: 53.
35. Diffloth 1976b:
73ff.; Carey
1976a:
132, 165;
Couillard 1980:
4, 5, 9;
Howell 1984: 10.
36.
Quotations
from
Benjamin
1976a:
79, 81;
also Skeat and
Blagden
1906?:
395, 410;
Wilkinson 1910:
21, 24;
1915:
iii;
Jimin bin Idris 1972:
3;
Dentan 1968:
3, 9, 103;
Diffloth 1975:
11;
Fix and
Lie-Injo
1975:
49;
Dentan
1968:
103; Benjamin
1967a: 19 n.
13;
Robarchek and Dentan 1987: 360.
37.
Benjamin
1976a:
48;
Dentan 1968:
41,
47.
38.
Quotation
from Dentan 1976:
77-8;
also idem 1978:
98;
1975:
51, 54;
1968:
1, 15;
Williams-Hunt 1952:
19; Carey
1976a:
131;
Wilkinson 1910:
24;
1915:
iii;
Noone 1936: 7.
39. Diffloth 1977:
464,
465 n.
3; Blagden
1903:
57;
Dentan 1968:
15;
1978:
98;
Fix 1977:
7, 11;
Wilkinson 1915:
iv; Benjamin
1976a: 88-9.
40.
Carey
1976b:
50;
Noone 1936:
2, 9, 25, 41;
1949a:
5;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906?:
41;
Evans 1937:
9, 312-13; Benjamin
1968a: 36-7.
41.
Quotation
from
Benjamin
1967a:
11;
also ibid.:
10,
19 n. 3.
42.
Carey
1976a:
132;
1961:
143;
1970a:
143;
1970b:
185; Benjamin
1976a:
48, 88;
1976b:
129-30;
Diffloth 1975: 3.
43.
Carey
1976a:
130-1;
Schebesta 1926:
270;
Skeat and
Blagden
1906i:
26;
Evans 1927: 313.
44.
Benjamin
1966: 9
n.
15;
1976a:
48, 50-1;
Schebesta 1936:
7;
Endicott
1979:
189, 196,
198.
45. Schebesta 1926:
271;
Jimin bin Idris 1972:
1;
Noone 1936:
30, 52;
Evans 1937:
26-7, 39, 283;
1914a:
65;
1916: 209.
46.
Skeat and
Blagden
1906i:
21;
Wilkinson 1910:
25; Carey
1976a:
166;
Diffloth 1975:
7; Benjamin
1976a:
42;
Werner 1973: 6.
47.
After
Benjamin
1976a: 59.
48.
Carey
1973:
186;
1976a:
166;
Diffloth 1975:
7, 9;
Karim 1981: 58
n.
4;
Evans 1913:
2;
1914a: 65 and
n.
49.
Benjamin
1976a:
49; Carey
1976a:
130, 193;
Hood 1975:
12;
Diffloth
1975:
7, 9;
Endicott 1979: 168 n.
5;
Evans 1923: 209-10.
50.
Quotation
from Hood 1975: 2 n.
3;
also idem 1974:
2, 91;
Needham
1974a:
123ff.; Benjamin
1976a:
49, 88-9; Carey
1976a:
167, 218;
Diffloth 1975:
7; Collings
1949b:
87,
89.
51. All
quotations
from
Collings
1949a:
70;
also ibid.:
69, 80; Benjamin
1976a:
49;
Hood 1974:
12; Carey
1976a:
264;
Diffloth 1975: 7.
124
Chapter
IV
1. Huffman 1986: ix.
2. Bhowmik 1971:
130;
Bareh 1968: 12-13.
3. See Ehrenfels 1955:
India II:
4;
Bareh 1968:
11-12;
Bhowmik 1971: 137.
4.
Quotation
from Ehrenfels 1955:
308-9;
also ibid.:
306;
Bareh 1968:
12;
Gurdon 1914:
192; Playfair
1909:
62; Shadap
Sen 1981: 54.
5.
Quotation
from Ehrenfels 1953a:
398;
also Gait 1906:
255, 261;
Chat?
terji
1974:
168;
Nakane 1967:
97; Pugh
1969:
42;
Bareh 1968:
13;
Pakem
1972: 362 n.
India ibid.
6.
Quotation
from Fournier 1974:
79;
also
India II:
30, 32;
Deb
Roy
1981:
8; Spencer
1968: 12.
7. Bareh 1977:
41ff., 47, 54;
1968:
15;
Fournier 1974: 83.
8.
Nag
1965:
Iff.; Natarayan
1977:
184; Roy
1964:
105?F.;
Mathur 1979:
42.
9. Bareh 1968:
33ff.;
Ehrenfels 1955:
317-18; Mahapatra
1960: 55.
10.
Quotation
from Kunstadter 1967:
373;
also Hla Pie 1967:
71;
Foster
1972:
9ff.;
1973:
204;
1974:
438;
1977:
112;
Shorto 1962:
ix;
Luce 1959b:
92;
Halliday
1922:
71;
Smithies 1972:
307;
Harris 1966:
60; Dupont
1959:
6-7;
Maung
Tha Hla 1973: 33.
11.
from Foster 1974: 438 and idem 1972:
13;
also
Blagden
1920:
69;
Henderson 1971: 77.
12.
Quotations
from
Blagden
1914:
59;
also Luce 1959a:
62;
1931:
298-9;
Dupont
1959:
2-4;
Guillon and Delachet 1975:
89; Majumdar
1955:
32;
Lowis
1908: 181.
13. U Lu Pe Win 1958:
21; Enriquez
1923a:
30;
Foster 1972:
9;
Henderson
1971:
59, 185;
National and Guardian
(Rangoon), January
to March 1961.
14. Foster 1972:
13, 125, 153;
1973:
205, 214-23; Halliday
1922: 72.
15.
from Shorto 1965:
88;
idem 1962:
x, xii, xiv;
and Luce 1970:
101-2;
see also Shorto 1971:
ix-x;
Nai Pan Hla 1976: 915
16;
You
Sey
1976:
1253;
Luce 1953:
13; Dupont
1959:
1; Blagden
1920:
71;
Halliday
1913:
2-4, 9-10;
Foster 1972:
120;
Seidenfaden 1958: 116.
16.
Quotation
from Shorto 1979:
277;
also
Aymonier
1885b:
323;
Seiden?
faden 1958:
121-2;
1919:
47-9;
1918:
1-2;
Phra Petchabunburi 1921:
20-1;
Huffman 1976a:
539,
572 n.
8, 573;
Donner 1978:
255, 793;
Kerr 1924:
141;
Nai Pan Hla 1986: 125-6.
17. Tan-Kim-Huon 1963: 51.
18.
Gorgoniev
1966:
13;
Lewitz 1976: 770 n.
1;
You
Sey
1976:
1250, 1252;
Jacques
1970: 20.
19. Lewitz 1972:
155-6;
Martini 1966:
301;
Sharan 1974:
147;
C d?s
1951: 118-19.
20. Martin 1974c:
98;
1975:
2, 86-7; Headley
1977:
70;
Olivier 1968: 65-7.
21. Martin 1974a:
439;
1974c:
34;
1975:
86, 93;
Olivier 1968:
65;
Lecl?re
1909:
102-3;
Baradat 1941: 2-6.
125
22. Baradat 1941: 4-7 and
notes;
Khuon
Sokamphu
1975:
82;
Martin
1974a:
439,
443 n.
4;
1974b:
34;
1974c:
971;
1975:
86, 92, 93; Aymonier
1892:
235.
23. Morizon 1936: 7 n.
1;
1932:
685;
Baradat 1941:
2, 34-5; Marguet
1906:
1663-4. Vollman 1973:
205;
Guesde 1910:
233;
Martin 1974a:
439-40,
446.
24.
Brengues
1905:
19-20;
Baradat 1941:
4, 7,
8 and n.
4;
Olivier 1968:
63;
Martini 1951:
223;
Martin 1975:
86;
1974: 439.
25. Baradat 1941:
1;
Martini 1951:
221, 223;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
461 n.
13;
Martin 1974a: 443 n.
4, 446-7;
Orans 1955:
358,
376-7.
26. Olivier 1968:
66;
Baradat 1941:
9;
Carbonnel 1968:
376;
Lecl?re 1909:
94, 101-2;
Seidenfaden 1943: 75.
27.
Quotation
from Baradat
ibid.;
also ibid.:
2;
Pavie 1881:
111;
Olivier
1968: 66 and n.
1;
Martin 1975:
93;
Carbonnel
ibid.;
Lecl?re 1909: 98.
28. Martin 1974a:
439-40;
1974b:
25,
26 and n.
1;
1975:
86, 93; Long
Seam 1981:
226; Headley
1977: 69 and n.
3; Marguet
1906: 1664.
29.
Gregerson,
Smith and Thomas 1976:
379, 403;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
399;
Thomas 1971:
17;
Diffloth 1974: 481.
30. Kunstadter 1966:
867; Meyer
1966:
20;
Huffman 1976a:
540; Haupers
1969:
131;
Schrock et al 1966:
767, 770-1, 796; Nguyen
Xuan Linh 1976: 27.
31. Schrock et al 1966:
767, 770; Haupers
1969:
131;
Maitre 1912:
407;
Guilleminet 1952a:
394;
Diffloth 1974:
481;
Khuon
Sokamphu
1975: 84-5.
32. C d?s 1931:
226;
Condominas 1980: 212.
33. Maitre 1912:
410;
Ferlus 1974a:
20;
Jouin 1950: Table
4; Nguyen
Dang
Liem 1978:
352;
Anon 1962b:
27; Hickey
1967:
19;
Hoeffel 1936:
vii,
x.
34. Jouin
ibid.;
Blood 1966:
x, 9-10;
Schrock et al 1966:
471;
Munson
1963:
55;
Boulbet 1967:
132;
Maitre 1912:
408;
Ferlus 1974a: 20 n.
7,
after
Dournes;
Besnard 1907:
61;
Huard and Maurice 1939:
34;
Anon 1962b:
27;
Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978: 352.
35. Blood 1966:
7-8;
Lafont 1967:
675;
Condominas 1965a:
50;
1977: 36
n.
107;
Anon 1962a:
68-9;
Jouin 1949b: 35.
474;
Condominas 1955: 127-8 n.
2, 129;
1965a:
50; Nguyen Dang
Liem ibid.
37. Condominas 1960: 158 n.
12;
1955:
130-1;
Lafont 1967: 675
n. 1.
38. Boulbet 1967:
136; Meyer
1966:
32;
Schrock et al 1966:
475;
Anon
1959:
18;
Jouin 1949b:
35;
Condominas 1952:
306-7;
1955:
129;
Maitre 1912:
409.
39. Thomas 1971:
14-16,
26-7.
40. Thomas 1971:
26;
1969:
91;
Thomas and Tho
Sang
Luc 1966:
vii;
Dorothy
Thomas 1966b: 1 n. 1.
41.
Quotation
from Bochet and Dournes 1953:
ix;
also Boulbet 1964:
171;
Manley
1972: 10 n. 1.
437, 440, 455;
Boulbet 1967:
43, 137,
394 and
map, plates
I and
II;
1957:
136, 140;
1965:
366-7;
66-9.
126
43. Dournes 1974:
161;
1978:
13;
Condominas 1955:
129;
Boulbet 1967:
11 n.
2, 137; Manley
1972:
3, 11; Smalley
1954: 217
n. 1.
44. Anon 1962a:
62;
Dournes 1950:
vi;
1949:
37;
Boulbet 1967:
133-4;
1964a:
394;
Ner 1930:
548ff.;
Dam Bo 1950:
1003; Dowdy
1965:
72ff.;
Bochet
1951:
4-5;
Mole 1970:
11; Legay
1975:
237-8; Legay
and Tran-van-t?t 1967:
280;
Schrock et al. 1966:
388-9; Hickey
1967:
18;
Neis 1883: 496-7.
45.
Nguyen
Xuan Linh 1976:
27; Manley
1972:
4, 11-12;
Boulbet 1972:
70;
Bochet and Dournes 1953: vi
ff.;
Schrock et al 1966:
389, 392;
Durand
1907:
1061-2;
Dournes 1950:
xxviii;
1978:
16; Queginier
1943: 396.
46. Banker 1972: 124 n.
1;
x, 610-11;
Guilleminet
1941:
12;
1952a:
394, 395, 508;
Antoine 1949:
12-13;
Kemlin
1909, 1910, 1917;
Guilleminet and
Alberty
1959:
33,
70.
x,
1-2 and
notes;
Guilleminet 1941:
12;
Guille?
minet and
Alberty
1959:
224, 227, 294;
Jouin 1949a:
167;
Cottes 1905:
201;
Baudenne 1913: 433.
48. Guilleminet 1952a:
508, 528;
2, 4;
Antoine 1949:
13; L?ger
1971:
94;
Haudricourt 1966a: 47.
49.
Gregerson,
Smith and Thomas
1976;
Schrock et al 1966:
5-6, 31;
Guilleminet 1949b:
50, 57;
Bourotte 1955:
63;
Sion 1949:
17;
Condominas
1954:
589; Gregerson
1972: 11.
50.
Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978:
354;
Smith 1969b:
128;
1973a: 60 n.
1;
Haguet
1905:
1425;
Le Pich?n 1938: 359 n.
1; Gayet
1949: 72.
51. Smith 1975:
1;
1967a:
v;
1968:
68; Raynaud
1962:
134;
Bondet 1949:
57 n.
2;
Anon 1894:
84, 107;
Bourotte 1955:
46;
Maitre 1912:
413; Trinquet
1908:
312; Haguet
1905: 1425.
721-2;
Maitre 1912:
412;
Antoine 1949:
13;
Percheron 1934: 137.
53.
Quotation
from Smith 1969a:
143;
also idem 1967b:
204;
1973b:
45;
Schrock et al 1966: 724.
721, 725, 753;
Guilleminet 1949b:
62; J?rusalemy
1949:
7-8;
Simmonet 1967:
248;
Y-Bih-Nie-Kdam 1949:
85;
Smith 1975:
9,
14.
55.
Quotation
from
Cooper
and
Cooper
1964:
87;
also
Cooper
1966: 28
n.
1;
1973: 40 n.
2;
Thomas and Smith 1967:
157;
Bel 1898:
277-8;
Schrock
et al 1966:
125, 127, 129;
Antoine 1949:
13;
Baudenne 1913:
432; Gregerson
1972: 11.
309, 313-14, 328;
Hoffet 1933:
21; Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978:
351;
Cohen 1966:
31, 48;
Mole 1970:
243; Hickey
1967:
18;
Gradin
1966: 41.
57.
Phillips
1973: 68 n.
1; Trinquet 1908, 1912; Haguet
1905:
1420-1;
Maitre 1912:
412;
Schrock et al 1966:
161, 165-7, 189;
Mole 1970:
201-2;
Smith 1975:
12; Nguyen Dang
Liem ibid.
58. Matras and Ferlus 1971:
70;
Bourotte 1955:
46; Phillips
1973: 68
nn.
1,2;
127
59. Maier 1969:
9;
Smith 1973a:
113;
Burton 1966: 187 n.
1; Hickey
1967:
17-18;
Mole 1970:
177;
Schrock et al 1966:
91; Gregerson
1972:
11;
1976:
402.
60.
Quotation
from
Gregerson
and Smith 1973:
143;
also Thomas and
Headley
1970: 398.
61. Huffman 1976a:
575;
1976b:
552; Gregerson,
Smith and Thomas 1976:
378;
Ferlus 1972b:
44, 46;
Anon 1933:
411;
Colonna 1938:
97-8;
Bei 1898:
284;
Fraisse 1951:
59;
Maitre 1912: 414.
62. Thomas and
Headley
1970:
398;
Maitre 1912: 413.
63.
Cooper
and
Cooper
1964:
87;
Baudenne 1913: 432.
64. Thomas and
Headley ibid.;
Hoffet 1933:
15;
Maitre 1912:
414;
Jouin
1949a: 150.
65. Mole 1970: 267.
160;
Ferlus 1974a:
18;
70-1.
67.
Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978:
351;
Schrock et al ibid.
68. Ferlus 1971b:
389-90;
Hoffet 1933:
28;
Bernard 1904:
293;
Bondet
1949:
57, 59;
Anon 1933:
411;
Colonna 1938:
97-8;
Kunstadter 1967:
255-7;
Lavall? 1901:
291, 294;
Fraisse 1951:
53,
58.
69. Wall 1975: i nn.
1,2, iii, 7, 188-9;
194 n.
1;
Ferlus 1971b:
389;
Watson
1969a:
130;
Fraisse 1951:
70;
Lavall? ibid.
70.
Matras-Troubetskoy
1975:
199;
Olivier 1968:
62;
Guilleminet 1943:
83;
Khuon
Sokamphu
1975:
80;
Seidenfaden 1919:
51; 1958; 121;
Kunstadter
1966b:
826;
Harris 1966:
60,
76.
71. Olivier
ibid.;
Huffman 1986:
525;
Hours 1973ct:
31;
also Ferlus 1972b:
46-7;
1974a: 19 n.
14;
1977:
62;
Diffloth 1974:
482; Matras-Troubetskoy
1974a:
421;
1974b: 137.
72. Ferlus 1971b:
402;
1972b:
44-5;
Odendal 1894: 137.
73. Hoffet 1933:
26;
Baudenne 1913: 262.
74. Baudenne 1913:
261;
Guilleminet 1949a: 132.
75. Baudenne 1913:
262;
Hoffet 1933:
17;
Anon 1933:
411;
Reinach 1911:
121.
76. C d?s 1964:
24, 31ff.;
Huffman 1976a:
540;
Paolewitch 1930: 268.
77.
Matras-Troubetskoy
1974a:
421;
Olivier 1968:
62;
Khuon
Sokamphu
1975:
80;
Anon 1962c:
15;
Bourotte 1955:
61;
Ferlus 1972b:
47;
1974a:
19;
Bitard 1952:
6;
Groslier 1952: 6-7.
78. Maitre 1912:
411;
Pinnow
1959; Maspero
1929:
65;
Percheron 1934:
137.
79. Diffloth 1974:
481;
1982: 48 n. 1.
80. Costello 1966: 63 n.
1;
1969: 21 n.
1;
1971:
Introduction;
1972:
77;
Le
Pich?n 1938:
363, 391-4;
Mole 1970:
137, 267;
Hoffet 1933:
16, 20-1, 24, 28;
Diffloth 1974:
481;
Schrock et al 1966:
347, 350, 369; Gregerson
1972: 11.
81. Miller 1972:
62;
Schrock et al 1966:
55;
?tudes Vietnamiennes 1967:
244;
Cadi?re 1940:
102; Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978:
350;
Ferlus 1974a:
17;
128
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
9;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
399;
Gabor
Vargyas, personal communication;
Mole 1970: 41-2.
82. Diffloth 1982:
65;
Huffman 1986:
525;
Miller 1972:
62;
Piat 1962:
321;
83.
Macey
1906:
43ff.;
1907a:
781ff.;
Kania and Kania 1979:
76, 92, 103;
Fraisse 1950a:
171, 175ff.;
Seidenfaden 1943:
145, 151;
1958:
119-20; Halpern
1964: 140.
147, 163-4;
Kania and Kania 1979:
76, 80-1;
Fraisse
1948:
160;
1950a: 171.
85.
Macey
1906:
27-8;
1907a: 541-2.
86.
Quotations
from R. Watson 1964:
136;
also idem 1977: 279 n.
1;
1966:
181-2;
S.K. Watson 1976:
230; Nguyen Dang
Liem 1978:
353;
Mole 1970:
102,
104, 120;
Thomas 1966a: 197.
87. Malleret and Taboulet 1937:
42;
Mole 1970:
77-9, 86;
Ferlus 1972b:
41;
Matras and Ferlus 1971: 15.
88. Ferlus 1972b:
40;
1974d:
113;
Colonna 1938:
97-8;
Anon 1933:
411;
Reinach 1911: 121.
89.
Quotations
from Smith 1973c:
85;
also ibid.: Ill n.
1;
Ferlus 1972b:
42;
Thomas and
Headley
1970: 400.
90. Dufosse 1934:
555; Tranky
1965:
27, 29;
Johnston 1976:
259;
Donner
1978:
593;
Seidenfaden 1958:
115;
1952:
156, 167, 178;
Huffman 1986:
244,
586.
91. Seidenfaden 1952: 144 n.
2, 158, 178;
Diffloth 1982:
61;
Anon 1970: 1.
92.
Quotation
from Anon 1970:
6;
also ibid.:
7;
Donner 1978:
593;
Khuon
Sokamphu
1975:
82;
Janneau 1914:
625;
Seidenfaden 1950:
36; Aymonier
1892:
233;
Dufosse 1934: 560.
93. Bernard 1904:
294;
Harmand 1879:
95;
Ferlus 1971a:
379;
1972b:
36,
44;
1974f:
141;
Matras and Ferlus 1971: 74.
94. Diffloth 1974:
481;
Ferlus 1974a:
16;
1972b:
39;
Colonna 1938:
97;
Thomas and
Headley
1970: 399.
95. Hoffet 1933:
19;
Colonna 1938:
98;
Guilleminet 1943: 82.
96. Hautefeuille 1914:
275;
Hoffet 1933:
27;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
400;
Donner 1978:
593;
Seidenfaden 1958:
120-1;
Guilleminet 1943:
82, 85;
Fraisse 1950a:
174;
Anon 1907: 1583.
97. Kunstadter 1967:
80-1,
256-7.
98. Henderson 1965: 431 n.
59;
Shafer 1940: 439.
99. Cf.
Gregerson
1969: 136.
100.
Maspero 1912;
1952:
581-2;
Henderson 1966:
139; Hamp
1976:
426,
original emphasis;
on
Gorgoniev,
see
Long
Seam 1981:
215; Blagden
1913:
428ff.
101. Haudricourt 1966:
48;
Thomas 1964:
156-7;
Shorto 1979: 276.
314;
?tudes Vietnamiennes 1967:
243;
Cuisinier
1946:
18, 22-3;
Lef?vre-Pontalis 1892: 238.
103.
Nguyen
Tu Chi 1971:
76, 91;
Cuisinier 1946:
18, 111, 563-6, 568-9;
Marneffe and Bezacier 1940:
63;
Schrock et al 1972:
318, 320;
Lanesson 1889:
246.
129
104.
Quotation
from Barker 1968:
59;
also Barker and Barker 1970: 268
n.
1;
David Thomas in Barker 1966:
27;
Wilson 1966:
204;
Groslier 1954:
668;
Ferlus 1975:
24;
Cuisinier 1951:
2;
1946:
28, 568-9;
Schrock et al 1966:
532;
1972:
319;
Bonhomme 1916:
39; Thompson
1976:
1119-20;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7: 12.
105. Cuisinier 1946:
46, 566;
Bonhomme 1916: 40.
106. Cadi?re 1905: 349 and n.
1, 350-1;
Cuisinier 1939:
489;
1946:
23,
43-4;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
5, 7,
12.
107. Ferlus 1974e:
311, 322; Hayes
1982a: 83 n.
2,
after
Ferlus; Hayes
1982b: 101.
108. Cadi?re 1905: 349 n.
2;
Cuisinier 1946:
39, 43-4;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7: 9.
109.
Quotation
from Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong ibid.;
also Ferlus
1974c:
70-1;
Cuisinier 1946:
44, 562;
Boudarel 1965:
165; Guignard
1911:
201-2;
Heine-Geldern 1958: 33.
110. Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong ibid.;
Cuisinier 1946:
39;
Boudarel
1965: 166-7.
111. Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong ibid.;
Ferlus 1974c:
69;
Kunstadter
1966b: 693-5.
112. Ferlus 1974c:
70-1;
85;
Haudricourt 1966b:
693-5.
113. Ferlus
ibid.;
Matras and Ferlus ibid.
114.
Macey
1906:
20;
1907b:
1411-13;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
6;
1972a:
32;
Haudricourt 1966b:
134-6;
Leroi-Gouran and Poirier
1953:
529; Thompson
1976: 1115.
115. Ferlus 1974c:
70-1;
85;
Cuisinier 1946:
43;
Various 1975: 279.
116. Ferlus 1974c:
69-71;
1975:
36;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
13-14; Hayes
1984: 91 n. 2.
117. Thomas and
Headley
1970:
404;
Thomas 1973: 139.
118.
Quotation
from Anon 1970:
456;
also
Halpern
1964:
8;
Le Bar
1967:
63, 67, 71; Aym?
1930:
10;
Anon 1970:
450;
Fraisse 1949b:
51;
Laubie
1939: 221 n.
1;
Roux 1927:
169, 171;
Martini 1964:
283;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
9;
Srisavasdi 1962:
172;
Seidenfaden 1956:
154;
Donner
1978:
255;
Kerr 1927:
57; Macey
1907a:
545; G?rding
and Lindell 1977:
321;
Svantesson 1983: 1-2.
119.
Quotation
from Filbeck 1978:
4;
also idem 1971: 30 n.
5;
Svantesson
ibid.;
Le Bar 1967:
65; Halpern
1957:
242;
1958: 5
n.
2;
Ferlus 1974b: 47.
120. Iwata 1959:
7;
Anon 1970:
451;
Roux 1927:
169, 171; Halpern ibid.;
Ferlus
ibid.;
Svantesson
ibid.;
Le Bar
ibid.; Smyth
1898:
171; Dang Nghiem
Van 1973:
70; Smalley
1973:
30;
Laubie 1939: 221 n.
1;
Martini 1964: 283.
121.
Macey
1907a:
245;
Le
May
1926:
86;
cf. Graham 1924:
133; Smyth
ibid.
130
122.
Smalley
1973:
23-4;
78ff.; G?rding
and
Lindell 1977:
321;
Lindell 1974:
191;
Svantesson 1983:
2, 3;
Svantesson et al
1981:
1;
Lindell et al 1977:
9,
95 n.
2;
Izikowitz 1951a: 24.
123. Svantesson
ibid.;
Lindell 1974: 191 n.
2; Maspero 1955;
Martini 1964:
283.
Young
1962:
59, 92;
Le Bar 1967:
74; Dang Nghiem
Van 1973: 96
n.
8;
Fraisse 1949b: 51.
124. Svantesson 1983:
1; Trager
1963:
103;
Lindell et al 1977:
9,
95
n.
1;
Ferlus 1974b:
47; Dang Nghiem
Van 1973: 70.
125.
Dang Nghiem
Van 1973:
69-70;
Le Bar 1967:
68ff.;
Lindell et al.
1977:
11-12,
95
n.
1,
96
n.6; Halpern
1964:
119, 140; Raquez
1905:
1798;
Seidenfaden 1958:
119;
Roux 1927: 177.
126.
Quotations
from Le Bar 1967:
77;
also
Macey
1907a:
247; Dang
Nghiem
Van 1973:
81; Halpern
1957:
242-4;
1960:
63-4;
1964:
118, 120;
Smalley
1967:
205-6, 208;
Lindell et al 1977:
10; Young
1962:
59-60;
Mordant
1934:
735;
Izikowitz 1969: 144.
127. Haudricourt 1966b:
137;
Filbeck 1978:
7; Diguet
1908:
152;
Le Van
Hao 1971:
19;
Phan Hu'u Dat 1978: 164.
128. Ferlus 1974b:
46;
Mordant 1934:
592, 876; Aym?
1930:
7;
Svantesson
1983:
7;
Svantesson et al. 1981.
129. Izikowitz 1941:
3, 21;
1951a:
11, 20-3, 26-7, 29, 39-41, 53, 295-7;
1969:
139-40, 144;
Ferlus 1972a:
32;
Flatz 1970:
87;
Svantesson 1983: 7.
130. Izikowitz 1951:
14, 20-1;
Diffloth 1977:
41;
1980:
9;
cf. Charoenma
1982: 35.
131. Dessaint 1973:
10, 13-14;
Filbeck 1978:
1-4, 8,
67-9.
132. Filbeck 1978:
4-6, 9-10, 67-8,
105 n.
1, 106;
1971:
25-6;
1976:
240;
Dessaint 1973: 11-12.
133. Filbeck 1971:
26;
Dessaint 1973:
14ff., 19; Young
1962:
61,
63.
134. See Matras and Ferlus 1971: 78ff.
135.
Quotations
from
Maring
and
Maring
1973:
277;
also Seidenfaden
1958:
135;
Ferlus 1974b:
48;
Kraisi and Hartland-Swann 1962: 166-7.
136. Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958:
110, 130,
followed
by Maring
and
Maring (ibid.);
cf. Boeles 1963:
134;
Kraisi 1963: 80.
137. Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958:
130;
Kerr 1924:
142-3;
Seidenfaden
1919:
49-50;
Fraisse 1949a:
27-9, 34;
Kraisi 1963:
182;
Ferlus 1974b: 48.
138. Kraisi 1963:
180;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
403;
Ferlus 1974b:
49;
Young
1962:
65-6;
Kraisi and Hartland-Swann 1962: 174-6.
139. Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958: 101
ff.,
130
ff.; Young
1962:
66-7;
Ho?ng
1976:
212;
Seidenfaden 1926:
32;
Boeles 1963: 134.
140.
Young
1962:
66;
Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958:
122, 138-9;
Seiden?
faden ibid.
402-4, 407-8;
Ferlus 1974b:
49;
?tudes Vietna?
miennes 1967:
244; Macey
1906:
4, 8;
1907a:
241-3;
Reinach 1911: 121.
142.
Quotation
from Thomas 1969:
74,
after
Vuong Hoang Tuyen;
also
Ferlus 1974b:
49;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
6;
Haudricourt 1966b:
137.
131
143. Ferlus 1974b: 46.
144.
Raquez
1902:
237;
1906:
132, 136;
Ferlus 1974b:
45;
Lef?vre-Pontalis
1896: 130-1.
145. Ferlus 1974b:
49;
Ferlus and
Nguyen
Phu
Phong
1976-7:
6; Macey
1906:
19ff.;
1907a:
479ff.;
1907b: 1412.
146. Diffloth 1977:
41;
1974: 481.
147. Matras and Ferlus 1972:
15;
Ferlus 1974b: 39ff.
148.
Quotation
from Leach 1954:
49;
also ibid.:
30, 57; Coggin-Brown
1911-12:
1-2, 8;
Milne 1921:
2;
1924:
1, 18, 23;
Lowis 1910:
38-9; Linguistic
Survey of
Burma:
17-18;
Davies
1909, end-map;
Janzen and Janzen 1972:
54;
Janzen 1976:
669;
Sacchiero 1890:
922-3;
Scott 1909:
132;
Cameron 1911:
viii, 5;
Hart n.d.:
23;
Shorto 1960:
544;
Ferlus 1974b:
42;
Davies 1909:
376;
Enriquez
1923a:
32;
1923b: 182.
149.
Quotation
from Milne 1921:
2;
also idem 1924:
208;
Shorto
ibid.;
Sacchiero
ibid.;
Mitani 1977:
193-4;
Janzen and Janzen 1972:
54;
Cameron
1911:
vii;
Lowis 1901: 126.
150. Henderson 1971:
84;
Milne 1924:
23;
Cameron 1911:
v,
vi,
xxxiv and
map
after
p. xlii; Enriquez
1923a:
32; Aung
Thurin 1976:
208;
Shafer
1948;
Sacchiero 1890:
921-2;
Leach 1954:
49;
Shorto 1979: 276.
151. Leach 1954:
30, 57;
Scott 1909:
133; Coggin-Brown
1911-12:
5;
Shorto 1960:
544;
Cameron 1911: xi.
152. Davies 1909:
93, 140, 146,
375 and end
map;
Kun
Chang
1967:
173;
Wiens 1954:
316;
Lin Yueh-Hua 1961:
27;
Leach 1954: 239.
153. Luce 1965: 100.
154. Luce 1972:
169;
1965:
Burma:
41;
1921
Census:
138;
1931 Census:
192, 224;
Scott 1909:
134;
1932: 263.
155. Henderson 1971:
139;
Luce 1972:
169-70; Mukherjee
1959:
103;
1960:
734;
Mitra 1956: 21.
156. Bennison 1931:
192, 244;
Luce 1965:
99-101; Morgan-Webb
1911:
191;
Scott 1932:
29;
Grantham 1921:
190, 203; Linguistic Survey of Burma;
1921 and 1931 Censuses.
157. Diffloth
1980;
also Ferlus 1974b: 42ff. on the P'u-man.
158. Kunstadter 1965: 1 and front
map;
1978a:
28; Young
1962:
52, 56;
Kraisi 1965:
233;
Hutchinson and Seidenfaden 1934: 178-9.
159. Kerr 1927:
57;
Diffloth 1980:
4;
Srisavasdi 1962:
160;
Hallett 1890:
144; Obayashi
1964: 212-13 nn.
8,19;
Kunstadter et al 1978a:
28;
Nishida
1973:
56,
80 n.
5;
Kerr
1927;
Thomas and
Headley
1970:
403;
Hutchinson
and Seidenfaden 1934:
180;
Schlatter 1976:
273;
Huffman 1976a:
539;
Filbeck
1971:
21,
29 n.
4;
1978:
5-6;
Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958:
193;
Charoenma
1982:
35;
on
Luce,
see
Vickery
1973: 208.
33;
Kunstadter 1965:
1,
50 n.
4;
1966b:
643ff.,
664; Obayashi
1964: 210.
161. Diffloth 1980:
7, 12, 28;
Wiens 1954:
309; Destenay
1968:
63;
Lin
Yueh-Hua 1961:
27;
Davies 1909:
86, 374,
end
map;
Kun
Chang
1967:
173;
132
Shorto 1963:
58;
1973:
375;
Scott 1901:
214-15;
1932:
133;
Bixler 1971:
133;
Lowis 1908:
82;
Bernatzik and Bernatzik 1958: 192.
162.
Quotation
from Bernatzik and Bernatzik
ibid.;
also
Harvey
1957:
129, 133;
Gutelman 1974:
519; Mangrai
1965:
269;
Scott 1909:
134-5;
1932:
294-5;
Stevenson 1944:
14;
Davies 1909:
88;
Needham 1960b: 66.
163. Davies 1909:
86;
Scott 1896:
50;
1901:
214;
1909:
133; Enriquez
1923a:
31;
Gaide 1905:
849; Young
1962:
61; Maring
and
Maring
1973:
266;
Hart n.d.:
23; Mangrai
1965:
269;
Censuses for
1901, 1911, 1921; Linguistic
Survey of Burma; Harvey
1957:
126;
Svantesson et al.
1981;
for
Diffloth,
see
Huffman 1986: 104.
164. Census of India 1911:
Burma:
43; Young
1962: 61.
165. Diffloth 1980: 8.
166. Diffloth 1980:
Burma
ibid.;
Census of India
1911: ibid.
167. Davies 1909:
85, 90, 135,
end
map;
Scott 1901: 214.
168. Diffloth 1980:
12;
Flatz 1970: 87.
169.
Harding
1927:
165-6; Linguistic Survey of
Burma
ibid.;
Lowis 1901:
89,
after
Grierson;
Ferlus 1974b: 42ff.
170.
Quotation
from Davies 1909:
375;
also ibid.:
374,
end
map;
Diffloth
1980:
7; idem,
cited in Huffman 1986:
103;
Svantesson et al
1981;
Dodd 1923:
61;
Leach 1954:
30; Enriquez
1923a:
31;
1923b:
182;
Scott 1932:
268;
1909:
133;
Bennison 1931:
Burma: 37.
171. Lef?vre-Pontalis 1896:
130-1;
Diffloth 1980:
12;
Ferrell 1971: 405.
172. Lef?vre-Pontalis
ibid.;
Ferlus 1974b: 42ff.
173. Izikowitz 1951a:
21;
Ferlus
ibid.;
Lef?vre-Pontalis
ibid.; Diffloth,
cited
in Huffman 1986: 104.
174. Ferlus
ibid.;
Diffloth ibid.
175. Svantesson et al.
1981;
Diffloth ibid.
176.
from Matras and Ferlus 1971: 81 and Thomas
1969:
74;
also Phan Hu'u Dat 1978:
164;
Haudricourt 1966b:
137;
Sventesson
et al 1981.
133
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Preface
ARDENER,
Edwin 1972.
Language, Ethnicity,
and
Population,
Journal
of
the
Anthropological Society of Oxford
3
(3):
125-32.
EMBREE,
J.F. 1952. A Selected
Bibliography
on
Southeast Asia
(2nd edn.,
revised and
expanded by
B.
Lasker),
New York: American Institute of Pacific
Relations.
...
and L.D. DOTSON 1950.
Bibliography of
the
Peoples
and Cultures
of
Mainland Southeast
Asia,
New Haven: Yale
University
Southeast Asian
Studies.
F?RER-HAIMENDORF,
Elizabeth von
1958, 1964, 1970,
1976. An An?
thropological Bibliography of
South
Asia,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton
(4
vols).
HUFFMAN,
F.E. 1986.
Bibliography
and Index
of
Mainland Southeast
Asian
Languages
and
Linguistics,
New Haven and London: Yale
University
Press.
LEACH,
Edmund R. 1954. Political
Systems of Highland
Burma: A
Study
of
Kachin Social
Structure,
London: G. Bell.
PARKIN,
R. J. 1984.
'Kinship
and
Marriage
in the
Austroasiatic-Speaking
World: A
Comparative Analysis',
Oxford: D. Phil, thesis.
forthcoming-a.
The Sons
of
Man: An Account
of
the Munda Tribes
of
Central India.
forthcoming-c.
Sur
quelques correspondances
et
emprunts
en termes
de
parent? austroasiatiques,
Bulletin de VEcole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient.
Introduction
BARBOUR,
P.L. 1921.
Buru?aski,
a
Language
of Northern
Kashmir,
Journal
of
the American Oriental
Society
41: 60-72.
BENEDICT,
Paul K. 1942.
Thai, Kadai,
and
Indonesian,
American An?
thropologists (4):
576-601.
1966-7. Austro-Thai
Studies,
Behavior Science Notes 1: 227-61 and
2: 203-44 and 275-336.
135
1976. Austro-Thai and
Austroasiatic,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thomp?
son and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii
Press,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1:
1-36.
BHOWMIK,
P.K. 1963. The Lodhas
of
West
Bengal,
Calcutta: Punthi
Pustak.
BHOWMIK,
S.K. 1972. Austric Influences on
Bengali Language
and Li?
terature, Proceedings of
the All India Oriental
Conference, University
of Cal?
cutta,
October 1969: 424.
BLAGDEN,
CO. 1929. Ach?nese and
Mon-Khmer,
in Feeztbundel
uitge
geven
door het
Koninklijk
Bataviaasch
Genootschap
van K?nsten en
Weten
schappen bij gelegenheid
van
zijn
150
Jarig
Bestaan 1778-1928: 35-8.
BRIGGS,
L.P. 1945. How Obsolete are the Theories of Professor Dixon
and Pater
Schmidt?,
Journal
of
Society
65: 56-7.
CHATTERJI,
S.K. 1923. The
Study
of
Kol,
Calcutta Review S
(3):
451-73.
1943.
Languages
and the
Linguistics Problem,
Oxford:
Oxford
Pam?
phlets
on Indian
Affairs.
COLLINS,
I.V. 1969. The Position of
Atjehnese among
Southeast Asian
Languages,
in Richard Johnston et al.
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
III, Saigon:
SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
COWAN,
H.K.J. 1947.
Aanteekeningen
betreffende de
verhouding
van het
Atjehsch
tot de
Mon-Khmer-talen, Bijdragen
tot de
Taal-,
Land- en
Volken
kunde 104: 429-514.
DAS,
A.K. et al 1966. Handbook
of
Scheduled Castes and Tribes
of
West
Bengal,
Calcutta: Government of West
Bengal,
Bulletin of the Cultural Rese?
arch Institute
Special
Series 8.
DAVIES,
H.R. 1909. Yun-nan: The Link Between India and the
Yangtze,
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
DIFFLOTH,
G. 1974. Austro-Asiatic
Languages, Encyclopaedia
Britan?
nica
(15th edn.), Macropaedia:
480-4.
1977. Mon-Khmer Initial Palatals and 'Substratumized' Austro
Thai,
in
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
VI,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
1980. The Wa
Languages, Linguistics of
the Tibeto-Burman Area 5
(2): passim.
1985. Austro-Asiatic
Britannica
(16th
edn.), Macropaedia:
719ff.
DONEGAN,
Patricia
Jane,
and David STAMPE 1983.
Rhythm
and the
Holistic
Organization
of
Language Structure,
in J.F.
Richardson,
M. Marks
and A. Chukerman
(eds.),
The
Interplay of Phonology, Morphology
and
Syn?
tax, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Circle.
136
EDMONSTON-SCOTT,
W.J. 1920. The
Basque Language:
Its Kolarian
Origin
and
Structure,
Bulletin
of
the School
of
Oriental Studies 1
(3):
147-84.
EGEROD,
S.
1967, Dialectology,
in T.A. Sebeok
(ed.),
Current Trends in
Linguistics,
Vol.
II,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
EMENEAU,
M.B. 1954.
Linguistic Prehistory
of
India, Proceedings of
the
American
Philosophical Society
98: 282-92.
FERLUS,
M. 1974b. Les
langues
du
groupe austroasiatique nord,
Asie du
Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 5
(1):
39-68.
FITZGERALD,
C.P. 1941. The Tower
of
Five Glories: A
Study of
the
Min-chia
of Ta-li, Yunnan,
London: Cresset Press.
FORREST,
R.A.D. 1973. The Chinese
Language,
London: Faber and
Faber
(3rd edn.).
FUCHS, Stephen
1973. The
Aboriginal
Tribes
of India,
Delhi etc.: Mac
millan.
GAUTAM,
M.K. 1977. In Search
of Identity:
Case
of
the Santal
of
Nort?
hern
India,
Leiden: no
publisher.
GEDNEY,
W.J. 1976. On the Thai Evidence for
Austro-Thai, Computa?
tional
Analyses of
Asian and
African Languages
6: 65-81.
GRIFFITHS,
W.G. 1946. The Kol Tribe
of
Central
India,
Calcutta:
Royal
Asiatic
Society Monographs,
Series 2.
HAUDRICOURT,
A.G. 1966. The Limits and Connections of Austroasia?
tic in the
Northeast,
in N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
and A. MARTINET 1946.
Propagation phon?tique
ou ?volution
pho?
nologique?
Assourdissement et sonorisation d'occlusives dans l'Asie du Sud
Est,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? de
Linguistique
de Paris 43
(1):
182-92.
HEADLEY,
R.K. 1976. Some Considerations
on the Classification of Kh?
mer,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austro?
asiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics
Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 431-51.
HEVESY,
Wilhelm von
1930. Does an 'Austric'
Family
of
Languages
Exist?,
Bulletin
of
the School
of
Oriental Studies
6,
187-200.
HSU,
F.L.K. 1945. Observations on
Cross-Cousin
Marriage
in
China,
American
Anthropologist
47
(1):
83-103.
KONOW,
Sten 1906. In
Linguistic Survey of India,
Vol. IV: Munda and
Dravidian
Languages,
Calcutta:
Superintendent
of Government
Printing.
KO?AY,
Hamit 1939. T?rkische Elemente in den
Munda-Sprachen,
Turk
Tarih Kurumu Belleten 3: 107-26.
KUIPER,
F.B.J. 1948. Munda and
Indonesian,
Orientalia
Neerlandica,
a
Volume
of
Oriental
Studies,
Leiden: Oostersch
Genootschap.
137
...
1966. The Sources of the Nahali
Vocabulary,
in N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Stu?
dies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague
etc.: Mouton.
LAMBERG-KARLOWSKY,
C.C. 1962.
Ethno-History
of South China:
An
Analysis
of Han- Chinese
Migrations,
Bulletin
of
the Institute
of Ethnology,
Acad?mica Sinica 13: 65-84.
LINGUISTIC SURVEY OF BURMA
(1917), Rangoon: Superintendent
of
Government
Printing,
Burma.
LINGUISTIC SURVEY OF
INDIA,
Vol. IV: Munda and Dravidian Lan?
guages
(1906),
Calcutta:
Superintendent
of Government
Printing.
LOGAN,
J.R.
1852,
1855.
Ethnology
of the Indo-Pacific
Islands,
Journal
of
the Indian
Archipelago
and Eastern Asia 6: 657ff. and 9: 359ff.
LONG SEAM 1981. Contactes externes des
langues m?n-khmer,
Bulletin
de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 70: 195-230.
MAJUMDAR,
D.N. 1950. The
Affairs of
a
Tribe,
Lucknow: Universal
Publishers.
1961. Races and Cultures
of India,
London: Asia
Publishing
House
(4th edn.).
MASICA,
Colin 1976.
Defining
a
Linguistic Area, Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
MATRAS, J.,
and M. FERLUS 1972. Pr?sentation des feuilles de cartes
de la famille
austroasiatique
et de la famille austron?sienne
continentale,
Asie
du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 3
(4):
13-16.
PARKIN,
R.J. 1984.
'Kinship
and
Marriage
in the
Austroasiatic-Speaking
World: A
Comparative Analysis',
Oxford: D. Phil, thesis.
PINNOW,
H-J. 1963. The Position of the Munda
Languages
within the
Austro-Asiatic
Language Family,
in H.L. Shorto
(ed.), Linguistic Comparison
in Southeast Asia and the
Pacific,
London: School of Oriental and African
Studies.
1966. A
Comparative Study
of the Verb in the Munda
Languages,
in
N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague
etc.: Mouton.
PRASAD,
N. 1961. Land and
People of
Tribal
Bihar,
Ranchi: Bihar Tribal
Research
Institute,
Government of Bihar.
PRZYLUSKI,
J. 1924. Les
Langues Austro-Asiatics,
in A. Meillet and M.
Cohen
(eds.),
Les
Langues
du
monde,
Paris: Soci?t?
Linguistique
de Paris.
RAMASWAMI
AIYAR,
L.V. 1929. Austric and
Dravidian, Quarterly
Journal
of
the
Mythic Society
20
(2):
107-14.
ROY,
S.C. 1912. The Mundas and Their
Country,
Ranchi: Man in India.
SCHMIDT,
Pater Wilhelm 1906. Die Mon-Khmer-V?lker: ein
Bindeglied
138
zwischen den Volkern Zentral-Asiens und
Austronesiens,
Archiv
f?r Anthropo?
logie
n.s. 5: 59-109.
1935. Die
Stellung
der
Munda-Sprachen,
Bulletin
of
the School
of
Oriental Studies 7: 729-38.
SCOTT,
Sir J.G. 1909. Burma: A Handbook
of Practical,
Commercial
and Political
Information,
London: A.
Moring.
SEBEOK,
T.A. 1942. An Examination of the Austro-Asiatic
Language
Family, Language
18
(3):
206-17.
1943. The
Languages
of South Eastern
Asia,
Far Eastern
Quarterly
2
(4):
349-56.
1945.
Finno-Ugrian
and the
Languages
of
India,
Journal
of
the Ame?
rican Oriental
Society
65: 59-62.
SHAFER,
Robert 1942. Annamese and
Tibeto-Burmic,
Harvard Journal
of
Asiatic Studies 6
(3-4):
399-402.
SHAHIDULLAH,
M. 1933. Munda Affinities in
Bengali, Proceedings of
the 6th All-India Oriental
Conference:
715-21.
SHORTO,
H.L. 1976. In Defense of
Austric, Computational Analyses of
Asian and
African Languages
6: 95-104.
1979. The
Linguistic Protohistory
of Mainland South East
Asia,
in
R.B. Smith and W. Watson
(eds.), Early
South East Asia:
Essays
in Archaeo?
logy, History
and Historical
Geography,
New York and Kuala
Lumpur:
Oxford
University
Press.
SMITH,
K.D. 1975.
Phonology
and
Syntax of Sedang:
A Vietnam Mon
Khmer
Language,
Ann Arbor:
University
Microfilms.
STANDING, Hilary
1976. 'Munda
Religion
and Social
Structure',
London:
School of Oriental and African
Studies,
Ph.D. thesis.
SYAMCHAUDHURI,
N.K. 1977. The Social Structure
of
Car Nicobar Is?
landers: An Ethnic
Study of Cognation,
Calcutta:
Anthropological Survey
of
India.
TEMPLE,
R.C. 1909. Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
Delhi: Publications
Division, Ministry
of Information and
Broadcasting.
THOMAS,
David D. 1966b.
Introduction,
in David D. Thomas
(ed.),
Papers
in Four Vietnamese
Languages,
SIL
Monograph/Te
Reo
Offprint
Series
2.
1971. Chrau
Grammar,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 7.
1973. A Note on the Branches of
Mon-Khmer,
in R. Johnston et al
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Centre for Vietnamese Studies.
...
and R.K. HEADLEY 1970. More on
Mon-Khmer
Subgroupings,
Lin?
gua
25
(4):
398-418.
TROMBETTI,
A. 1928. I numerali africani e
mundapolinesiani,
in W.
Koppers (ed.), Festschrift
Publication
d'Hommage offerte
au
P.W.
Schmidt,
Vienna: Mechitharisten
Congregations
Buchdruckerei.
139
TURNER,
R.L. 1934. Review of W. von
Hevesy, Finnisch-Ugrisches
aus
Indien,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
1934: 798-800.
1966. A
Comparative Dictionary of
the
Indo-Aryan Languages,
Lon?
don: Oxford
University
Press.
UXBOND,
F.A. 1928.
Munda-Magyar-Maori:
An Indian Link between
the
Antipodes,
London: Luzac & Co.
VAN
REIJN,
E.O. 1974. Some Remarks
on the Dialects of North
Kerintji:
A Link with the Mon-Khmer
Languages?,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society,
Malaysian
Branch 47
(2):
130-8.
VIDYARTHI,
L.P. 1964. Cultural Contours
of
Tribal
Bihar,
Calcutta:
Punthi Pustak.
WIENS,
H.J. 1954. China's March Towards the
Tropics, Hamden,
Conn.:
Shoe
String
Press.
ZIDE,
Norman H. 1969. Munda and Non-Munda Austro-Asiatic
Langua?
ges,
in T.A. Sebeok
(ed.),
Current Trends in
Linguistics,
Vol. V: South
Asia,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
Chapter
I
ADHIKARY,
A.K. 1984.
Society
and World View
of
the
Birhor,
Calcutta:
of India.
ALI,
S.A. 1973. Tribal
Demography
in
Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal:
Jai Bha
rat
Publishing
House.
BAHADUR,
K.P. 1977.
Castes,
Tribes and Cultures
of India,
Vol. Ill
Bengal,
Bihar and
Orissa,
Delhi: Ess Ess Publications.
BANERJEE,
S. 1981.
Impact of
Industrialization
on the Tribal
Population
of Jharia-Ranigunge
Coal Field
Areas,
Calcutta:
of
India.
BHANDARI,
J.S. 1963.
Kinship, Marriage
and
Family among
the Korwa
of
Dudhi,
Eastern
Anthropologist
16
(2):
79-106.
BHATTACHARYA,
S. 1954. Studies in the
Parengi Language,
Indian
Linguistics
14: 45-63.
1956. Field Notes on
Nahali,
Indian
Linguistics
17: 245-58.
1968. A Bonda
Dictionary,
Poona: Deccan
College.
1970.
Kinship
Terms in the Munda
Languages, Anthropos
65: 444-65.
1975. Munda Studies: A New Classification of
Munda,
Indo-Iranian
Journal 17
(1-2):
97-101.
140
BHATTACHARYYA,
A. 1953. The
Birjhia
of
Palamau,
Bulletin
of
the
Department of Anthropology
2
(1):
1-16.
BHOWMIK,
P.K. 1963. The Lodhas
of
West
Bengal,
Calcutta: Punthi
Pustak.
BHOWMIK,
S.K. 1980.
Ethno-Linguistic Study
of the
Kharias,
Bulletin
of
the Cultural Research Institute 14
(1-2):
52-5.
BISTA,
D.B. 1972.
Peoples of Nepal,
Katmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar.
BISWAS,
P.C. 1956. Santals
of
the Santal
Parganas,
Delhi:
Bharatiya
Adimjati
Sevak
Sangh.
BODDING,
P.O.
1932, 1934, 1935a, 1935b,
1936. Santal
Dictionary,
Oslo:
Norske
Videnskaps-Akademi (5 vols).
BOSE,
N.K. 1928.
Marriage
and
Kinship among
the
Juangs,
Man in India
8
(4):
233-42.
1929.
Juang Associations,
Man in India 9
(1):
47-53.
1971. TYibal
Life
in
India,
Delhi: National Book Trust.
BOSE,
R. 1950.
Gadbas,
in A.V. Thakkar
(ed.),
Tribes
of India,
Vol.
I,
Delhi:
Bharatiya Adimjati
Sevak
Sangh:
173-5.
BOUEZ, Serge
1985.
R?ciprocit?
et hi?rarchie: L'Alliance chez les Hos et
les Santal de
l'Inde,
Paris: Soci?t?
d'Ethnographie.
BURROW, T.,
and S. BHATTACHARYA 1962. Gadba
Supplement,
Indo
Iranian Journal 6
(1):
45-51.
CAMPBELL,
A.
1953,
1954. A
Santali-English
and
English-Santali
Dic?
tionary,
Pokhuria: Santal Mission Press
(2 vols).
CARRIN-BOUEZ,
Marine 1986. La
fleur
et l'os:
Symbolisme
et rituel
chez les
Santal,
Paris: Editions de l'EHESS.
CHAKRABORTY,
B. 1978. Problems and
Prospects
of the Semi-Nomadic
Birhors of West
Bengal,
Bulletin
of
(1-2):
30-9.
1979.
Understanding
a
Semi-Nomadic Tribe: The Birhors of West
Bengal,
Bulletin
of
(3-4):
5-19.
1980. The Birhors of West
Bengal
and the Rehabilitation Scheme:
A Case
Study,
Bulletin
of
(3-4):
80-6.
and S. KUNDU 1980. Some
Aspects
of the Mahali Social
Organiza?
tion: A
Preliminary Appraisal,
Bulletin
of
(3-4):
87-92.
CHANDRA
SEKHAR,
A. 1964.
Gadabavalasa,
Census of
India,
Vol.
II,
part
VI
(1961), Village Survey Monograph
5.
CHATTERJEE, A.N.,
and T.C. DAS 1927. The Hos of
Seraikella,
Uni?
versity of
Calcutta
Anthropological Papers
n.s. 1:
passim.
CHATTERJEE,
B.K. 1931. The Social and
Religious
Institutions of the
Kharias,
Journal
of
the Asiatic
Society of Bengal
n.s.
27
(2):
225-30.
CHATTOPADHYAY,
G. 1964.
Kinship
and
Marriage among
the
Hos,
Bulletin
of
(2):
13-25.
141
CHATTOPADHYAY,
K.P. 1946. Korku
Marriage
Customs and Some
Changes,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society of Bengal,
Letters 12
(2):
43
70.
CHAUSSIN,
Elizabeth 1978.
Aspects spatiaux
de
l'organization
sociale
des
Saora,
L'Homme 18
(1-2):
167-82.
CHOUDHURY,
B. 1963-4.
Saora,
Adibasi 1963-4
(3):
101-6.
CHOUDHURY,
N.C. 1977. Munda Social
Structure,
Calcutta: KLM.
COOK,
W.A. 1965. A
Descriptive Analysis of Mundari,
Ann Arbor: Uni?
versity
Microfilms.
CULSHAW,
W.G. 1949. Tribal
Heritage:
A
Study of
the
Santals,
London:
Lutterworth.
DAS,
A.K. 1964. The Koras and Some Little-Known Communities
of
West
Bengal,
Calcutta:
Superintendant
of Government
Printing.
et a/. 1966. Handbook
of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
of
West
Bengal,
Calcutta: Government of West
Bengal,
Bulletin of the Cultural
Research Institute
Special
Series 8.
DAS,
G.N. 1956. A Note on the Hill Bondos of
Koraput District, Vanyajati
4: 103-12.
DAS,
T. 1931a. The
Bhumijas
of
Seraikella, University of
Calcutta An?
thropological Papers
n.s. 2:
passim.
1931b. The Wild Kharias of
Dhalbhum, University of
Calcutta An?
thropological Papers
n.s. 3:
passim.
DAS
GUPTA,
D. 1966. A Note on
Linguistic Changes
in
Bhumij
and
Juang,
Bulletin
of
the
Philological Society of Calcutta,
A.S. Sen Felicitation
Volume: 91-8.
DAS
GUPTA,
S.B. 1978.
Birjhia,
Calcutta: K.P.
Bagchi.
DASGUPTA,
B.K. 1978a. Social
Mobility
Movements
Among
the Tribes
of Eastern and Central
India,
Journal
of
the Indian
Anthropological Society
13
(1):
11-17.
DASGUPTA,
D. 1978b.
Linguistic Studies,
Calcutta:
Anthropological
Survey
of India.
DATTA,
B. 1933. Traces of Totemism in some Tribes and Castes of N.E.
India,
Man in India 13
(2-3):
97-114.
DATTA-MAJUMDAR,
N. 1956. The Santal: A
Study
in Social
Change,
Delhi: Government of
India, Department
of
Anthropology.
DE
CANDOLLE,
B. 1961. Contribution ? l'?tude des Nahals
(Inde),
An
thropos?6:
750-88.
DEKA, U.,
and P. PATTOJOSHI 1975. Genetic
Survey
of the Gadaba of
Orissa,
Man in India 55
(3):
227-34.
DEOGAONKAR,
S.G. 1986. The
Hill-Korwa,
New Delhi:
Concept
Pu?
blishing Company.
DHAN,
R.O. 1961. The Hos of Saranda: An
Ethnographic Study,
Bulletin
of
the Bihar Tribal Research Institute 3
(1):
37-105.
142
DIXIT,
P.K. 1966.
Pipalgota,
Census of
India,
Vol.
VII, part
VI
(1961),
Village Survey Monographs
7.
DUMONT,
Louis 1959. Review of Verrier
Elwin,
The
Religion of
an In?
dian
Tribe,
Contributions to Indian
Sociology
3: 60-74.
ELWIN,
Verrier 1939. The
Baiga,
London: John
Murray.
1942. The
Agaria,
Calcutta: Oxford
University
Press.
1948. Notes on the
Juang,
Man in India 28
(1-2):
1-148.
1950. Bondo
Highlander, Bombay:
Oxford
University
Press.
1955. The
Religion of
an Indian
Tribe, Bombay:
Oxford
University
Press.
EMENEAU, Murray
B. 1969. The
Non-literary
Dravidian
Languages,
in
Thomas A. Sebeok
(ed.),
Current Trends in
Lingistics,
Vol. V: South
Asia,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
EXEM,
A. VAN 1982. The
Religious System of
the Munda
Tribe,
St. Au?
gustin:
Collectanea Instituti
Anthropos,
Vol. 28.
FERNANDEZ,
F. 1969. A
Critique
of Verrier Elwin's
Anthropology:
Hill
Bondo Social
Organization
and
Kinship Analysis,
in C. Pradhan et al.
(ed.),
Anthropology
and
Archaeology, Bombay:
Oxford
University
Press.
FUCHS, Stephen
1966. Clan
Organization among
the
Korkus,
Journal
of
Asian and
African
Studies 1
(3):
213-19.
1973. The
Aboriginal
Tribes
of India,
Delhi etc.: Macmillan.
1988. The Korkus
of
the
Vindhya Hills,
Delhi: Inter-India Publica?
tions.
F?RER-HAIMENDORF, Christoph
von 1943a. Avenues to
Marriage
among
the Bondos of
Orissa,
Man in India 23
(2):
168-72.
1943b.
Megalithic
Ritual
among
the Gadabas and Bondos of
Orissa,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society of Bengal
9
(1):
149-78.
1945. The Reddis
of
Bison Hills
[Vol.
II of The
Aboriginal
Tribes
of
Hyderabad],
London: Macmillan.
1950. Youth Dormitories and
Community
Houses in
India, Anthropos
45: 119-44.
1954. Review of Verrier
Elwin,
Bondo
Highlander,
Bulletin
of
the
School
of
Oriental
Studies,
16
(1):
177-8.
F?RER-HAIMENDORF,
Elizabeth von
1958, 1964, 1970,
1976. An An?
thropological Bibliography of
South
Asia,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton
(4
vols).
GAUSDAL,
J. 1953. Ancestral and Sacrificial Clans
among
the
Santal,
Journal
of
the Asiatic
Society of Bengal
19
(1):
1-97.
1960. The Santal
Khuts,
Oslo: Instituttet for
Sammenlignende
Kul
turforskning/H. Aschenhong (W. Nygaard).
GAUTAM,
M.K. 1977a. In Search
of Identity:
Case
of
the Santal
of
Northern
India,
Leiden: no
publisher.
143
1977b. The Santalization of the
Santal,
in Kenneth David
(ed.),
The
New Wind:
Changing
Identities in South
Asia,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
GHOSH,
R. 1966. Koras of
Midnapur,
Man in India 46
(1):
81-6.
GRIGNARD,
F.A. 1909. Oraons and Munda from the Time of their Sett?
lement in
India, Anthropos
4: 1-19.
GUHA, U.,
M.K.A.
SIDDIQUI
and P.G.R. MATHUR 1970. The
Didayi:
A
Forgotten
Tribe
of Orissa,
Calcutta:
of India.
GUPTA,
S.P. 1964. An
Appraisal
of the Food Habits and Nutritional State
Among
the
Asur, Korwa,
and the Sauria
Pahariya
of
Chota-Nagpur Plateau,
Bulletin
of
(1):
127-79.
HARI MOHAN 1961. Socio-Economic
Organization
and
Religion among
the Hill Kharias of
Dhalbhum,
Bulletin
of
the Bihar Tribal Research
Institute,
3
(1):
180-212.
1979. The Korwa: A
Study
in Culture
Change,
Bulletin
of
the Bihar
Tribal Research Institute 21
(1-2):
79-104.
HERMANNS,
M. 1966. Die
Religi?s-Magische Weltanschauung
der Pri?
mitivst?mme
Indiens,
Vol. II: Die
Bhilala, Korku, Gond, Baiga,
Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner
Verlag.
HOFFMANN,
J.
(with
A. VAN
EMELEN)
1930 et
seq. Encyclopaedia
Mundarica,
Patna:
Superintendant
of Government
Printing (14-15 vols).
HUFFMAN,
Franklin E. 1986.
Bibliography
and Index
of
Mainland Sou?
theast Asian
Languages
and
Linguistics,
New Haven and London: Yale Uni?
versity
Press.
ICKE-SCHWALBE, Lydia
1979.
Historical-Ethnological
Classification of
the Munda and Oraon in
Chotanagpur,
Journal
of
Social Research 22
(2):
57-70.
1983a.
Village
Studies
among
Christian and Non-Christian Munda
in
Chotanagpur,
Journal
of
Social Research 26
(1):
1-34.
1983b. Die Munda und Oraon in Chota
Nagpur: Geschichte,
Wirt?
schaft
und
Gesellschaft,
Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
1988. Familienwirtschaft und Clan in b?uerlichen
Stammesgesell?
schaften
Indiens,
in J. Herrmann and Jens K?hn
(eds.),
Staat und Gesell?
schaftsformation,
Berlin: Ver?ff. d. ZIAGA d. Adw. Band 16: 271-5.
IZIKOWITZ,
Karl Gustav
n. d. The Gotr
Ceremony
of the Boro
Gadaba,
in
Stanley
Diamond
(ed.),
Primitive Views
of
the
World,
New York and Lon?
don: Columbia
University
Press.
JAIN,
R.K. 1958. Features of
Kinship
in an Asur
Village,
Eastern Anthro?
pologist
12
(1):
25-40.
JORDAN-HORSTMANN,
M. 1972a. Review of
Sugiyama Koichi,
A
Study
of
the Munda
Village Life
in
India, Anthropos
67: 280-4.
1972b. Der dumme Weber:
Spotterz?hlungen
bei den
Mundas,
An?
thropos
67: 564-85.
144
KARV?,
Irawati 1965.
Kinship Organization
in
India, Bombay:
Asia
Publishing
House.
KOCH
AR,
V.K. 1970. Social
Organization among
the
Santal,
Calcutta:
Editions Indian.
KONOW,
Sten 1908. Notes on the Munda
Family
of
Speech
in
India,
Anthropos
3: 68-82.
KUIPER,
F.B.J. 1962. Nahali: A
Comparative Study,
Amsterdam: N.V.
Noord-Hollandsche
Uitgevers Maatschappij.
1965. Consonant Variation in
Munda, Lingua
14: 54-87.
...
1966. The Sources of the Nahali
Vocabulary,
in N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Stu?
dies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
LEUVA K.K. 1963. The Asur: A
Study of
Primitive Iron
Smelters,
Delhi:
Bharatiya Adimjati
Sevak
Sangh.
INDIA,
Vol. IV: Munda and Dravidian Lan?
guages
(1906),
Calcutta:
Superintendant
of Government
Printing.
MCDOUGAL,
Charles 1963a. The Social Structure
of
the Hill
Juang,
Ann
Arbor:
University
Microfilms.
1963b. The Social Structure of the Hill
Juang:
A
Pr?cis,
Man in
India 43
(3):
183-91.
1964.
Juang Categories
and
Joking Relationships,
Southwestern Jour?
nal
of Anthropology
20
(4):
319-45.
MCDOUGALL,
John 1977.
Agrarian
Reform vs.
Religious
Revitalization:
Collective Resistance to Peasantization
Among
the
Mundas,
Oraons and San?
tals, 1858-95,
Sociology
n.s. 11
(2):
295-327.
MAHAPATRA,
A.K. 1980. Forces of
Change Among
the Tribes of Rural
Bengal,
with
Special
Reference to
Santals,
Bulletin
of
the Cultural Research
Institute 14
(3-4):
23-8.
MAHAPATRA,
K. 1976. Echo-Formation in
Gtaq,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: Uni?
versity
of Hawaii
Press,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 815-31.
MAHAPATRA,
S. 1977.
Ecological Adaptation
to
Technology
-
Ritual
Conflict and
Leadership Change:
The Santal
Experience,
in Kenneth David
(ed.),
The New Wind:
Changing
Identities in South
Asia,
The
Hague:
Mou?
ton.
MAJUMDAR,
D.N. 1930. Social
Organization among
the
Korwa,
Man in
India 10
(2-3):
104-15.
1932. The
Cycle
of Life
among
the
Korwas,
Man in India 12
(4):
253-75.
1937. A Tribe in
Transition,
Calcutta:
Longmans,
Green & Co.
1939. Tribal Cultures and Acculturation
(Presidential Address),
Pro?
ceedings of
the 26th Indian Science
Congress,
Lahore.
145
1944. The Fortunes
of
Primitive
Tribes,
Lucknow: Universal Publis?
hers.
1950. The
Affairs of
a
Tribe,
Lucknow: Universal Publishers.
MANDELBAUM,
David G. 1970.
Society
in
India, Berkeley
and Los
Angeles: University
of California Press.
MARTEL,
G. 1979. Les
Birhors, chasseurs, collecteurs,
nomades du
Bihar,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 66: 105-13 et
seq.
MAZUMDAR,
B.C. 1927. The
Aborigines of
Central
India,
Calcutta: Uni?
versity
of Calcutta.
MOHANTY,
S.U.C. 1973-4.
Bond-Friendship among
the
Gadaba,
Man in
Society
1: 130-55.
1981-2.
Didayi,
a
Picturesque
Tribe of
Orissa,
Adibasi 21: 1-10.
MUKHERJEA,
C.L. 1962. The
Santals,
Calcutta: A.
Mukherjee.
MUKHOPADHYAY,
S. 1975. The Austrics
of
India: Their
Religion
and
Tradition,
Calcutta: K.P.
Bagchi.
MUNRO, A.C.M.,
and G.V. SITAPATI 1931. The Soras of the Parlaki
medi
Agency,
Census
of India,
Vol.
I, part
IIIB: 200-4.
NIGAM,
R.C. 1971.
Survey of
Kanauri in Himachal
Pradesh,
Calcutta:
Census of India
Monographs
3.
ORANS,
Martin 1965. The Santal: A Tribe in Search
of
a
Great Tradi?
tion,
Detroit:
Wayne
State
University
Press.
PANDYE,
S.S. 1962. Tribal
People
of the
Melghat:
The
Korku,
Indian
Geographical
Journal 37: 91-4.
PARKIN,
Robert J. 1983. L?vi-Strauss and the Austroasiatics: 'Elemen?
tary
Structures' Under the
Microscope,
Journal
of
the
of Oxford
14
(1):
79-86.
...
1985. Munda
Kinship Terminologies,
Man 20
(4):
705-21.
1986a.
Comparative
Munda
Kinship:
A
Preliminary Report, Oxford
Studies
on
India 1
(1):
59-74.
1988a.
Marriage,
Behaviour and Generation
among
the Munda of
Eastern
India, Zeitschrift f?r Ethnologie
113
(1):
67-85.
1990.
Terminology
and Alliance in India: Tribal
Systems
and the
North-South
Problem,
Sociology
24
(1).
forthcoming-a.
The Sons
of
Man: An Account
of
the Munda
of
Cen?
tral India.
forthcoming-b. Munda,
in
Encyclopedia of
World
Cultures,
New Ha?
ven:
HRAF/Sage.
PATNAIK,
N. 1964. Caste Formation
among
the
Juang
of
Orissa,
Man in
India AA
(1):
22-30.
PATTANAYAK,
D.P. 1968. Some Comments on
Parenga Kinship Terms,
Indian
Linguistics, Murray
B. Emeneau Festschrift Volume: 250-6.
146
PETIT,
C. 1974. 'La Culture mat?rielle des
Saora',
th?se
pour
le doctorat
de 3?me
cycle,
Universit? de Paris III.
PFEFFER, Georg
1982. Status and
Affinity
in Middle
India,
Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner
Verlag.
1983. Generation and
Marriage
in Middle India: The
Evolutionary
Potential of 'Restricted
Exchange',
Sociology
n.s. 17
(1):
87-121.
1984. Mittelindische
Megalithen
als Merit?konomische
Kategorien,
PaideumaZO: 231-40.
...
ms.
Exchange
of Souls:
Complementary Agnation
in Gadaba Mor?
tuary
Rites.
PINNOW,
Hans
J?rgen
1963. The Position of the Munda
Languages
with?
in the Austro-Asiatic
Language Family,
in H.L. Shorto
(ed.), Linguistic
Com?
parison
in Southeast Asia and the
Pacific,
London: School of Oriental and
African Studies.
1966. A
Comparative Study
of the Verb in the Munda
Languages,
in
N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague
etc.: Mouton.
PRASAD,
N. 1961. Land and
People of
Tribal
Bihar,
Ranchi: Bihar Tribal
Research
Institute,
Government of Bihar.
PRASAD,
S. 1962a.
Linguistic Affinity
of
Bhumij Dialect,
Bulletin
of
the
Bihar Tribal Research Institute 4
(1):
69-75.
1962b. A Pilot
Survey
for the
Demographic Study
of
Asurs,
Bulletin
of
(2):
103-17.
1974. Where the Three Tribes Meet: A
Study
in Tribal
Interaction,
Allahabad: Indian International Publishers.
PRZYLUSKI,
J. 1930.
Emprunts anaryens
en
indo-aryen,
Bulletin de la
Soci?t?
Linguistique
de Paris 30
(2):
196-201.
RAMADAS,
G. 1931. The
Gadabas,
Man in India 11
(2):
160-73.
RAMAMURTI,
G.V. 1931. A Manual
of
the So:ra
(or Savara) Language,
Madras: Government Press.
1938.
Sora-English Dictionary,
Madras: Government Press.
RAY
CHOWDHURY,
T.C. 1929. The
Bhumij
of
Mayurbhanj (Orissa),
Man in India 9
(2-3):
95-115.
RIZBI,
B.R. 1977. The Hill Korwa of
Surguja, Madhya Pradesh,
in A.K.
Danda
(ed.),
Tribal Situation in Northwest
Surguja,
Calcutta:
Anthropological
Survey
of India.
ROSNER,
V. 1956. The
Turis,
March
of
India 8
(7):
44-7.
ROUT,
S.S.P. 1962.
Types
of
Marriage among
the
Juang
of
Keonjhar
District, Orissa,
Orissa Historical Research Journal 9
(3):
168-77.
...
1969-70. Handbook on the
Juang,
Adibasi 1969-70
(1-2):
1-97.
ROY,
Sarat Chandra 1912. The Mundas and their
Country,
Ranchi: Man
in India.
1915. The Oraons
of
Chota
Nagpur,
147
1925. The
Birhors,
1926.
Asurs,
Ancient and
Modern,
Journal
of
the Bihar and Orissa
Research
Society
12
(1):
147-52.
1935a. The Hill
Bhuiyas,
1935b. Past
Migration
of the Kharia
Tribe,
Journal
of
the Bihar and
Orissa Research
Society
21
(4):
214-30.
...
and R.C. ROY 1937. The
Kharias,
ROY,
S.N. 1927. The Savaras of
Orissa,
Man in India 7
(4):
277-336.
ROYCHOUDHURY,
B.K. 1963. The Mahali: A
Basket-making
Tribe of
West
Bengal,
Bulletin
of
(3):
30-5.
SACHCHIDANANDA,
1979. The
Changing Munda,
Delhi:
Concept
Pu?
blishing Company.
SAHAY,
K.N. 1977. Tribal
Self-image
and
Identity,
in S.C. Dube
(ed.),
Tribal
Heritage of India,
Vol. I:
Ethnicity, Identity
and
Interaction,
Delhi
etc.: Vikas.
SAHU,
L.H. 1942. Hill Tribes
of Jeypore,
Cuttack: Servants of India
Society.
1943.
Bhumiya Marriages,
Man in India 23: 173-4.
...
1952. The Gadabas of
Orissa,
Modern Review 91: 468-70.
...
1953. The
Gadabas, Vanyajati
2
(2):
61-3.
SANDHWAR,
A.N. 1978. The Korwa
of
Palamau: A
Study of
their So?
ciety
and
Economy,
Vienna: Acta
Ethnologica
et
Ling?istica 44,
Series Indica
9.
SATPATHY,
G. 1963-4.
Parenga,
Adibasi 1963-4
(3):
165-6.
SEN,
B.K. 1955. Notes on the
Birhor,
Man in India 35
(2):
110-18.
SEN,
J. 1965.
Ethnographic
Notes on the
Birhors,
Bulletin
of
the Anthro?
pological Society of
India 14
(1-2):
45-58.
SENGUPTA,
S.K. 1970. The Social
Profile of
the
Mahalis,
Calcutta: K.P.
Mukhopadhyay.
SINGH,
B. 1977a.
Aspects
of Kodaku
Culture,
in A.K. Danda
(ed.),
Tribal
Situation in Northeast
Surguja,
Calcutta:
of India.
1977b.
Gathering Economy
of Kodaku: A Case
Study,
in A.K. Danda
(ed.),
Tribal Situation in Northeast
Surguja,
Calcutta:
of India.
and A.K. DANDA 1986. The Kodaku
of Surguja,
Calcutta: Anthro?
pological Survey
of India.
SINGH,
K.S. 1983. Birsa Munda and his Movement
1874-1901,
Calcutta:
Oxford
University
Press.
SINGH,
V.K. 1972. A Socio-Cultural
Study
of
Gadaba, Vanyajati
20
(2):
102-8.
SINHA,
D.P. 1958a. Cultural
Ecology
of the Birhor: A
Methodological
Illustration,
Journal
of
Social Research 1
(1):
86-96.
1960. Portrait of a Birhor Chief:
Biographical Study
in Culture
Change,
Journal
of
Social Research 3
(1):
57-68.
148
1968. Culture
Change
in an Inter-Tribal
Market,
London: Asia Pu?
blishing
House.
SINHA, Surajit
1957. The Media and Nature of
Hindu-Bhumij
Interac?
tions,
Journal
of
the Asiatic
Society of Bengal,
Letters 23
(1):
23-38.
1958b.
Changes
in the
Cycle
of Festivals in a
Bhumij Village,
Journal
of
Social Research 1
(1):
24-9.
1962. State Formation and
Rajput Myth
in Tribal
India,
Man in
Indian
(1):
35-80.
1966. Ethnic
Groups, Villages
and Towns
of Pargana Barabhum,
Calcutta:
of India.
...
, J. SEN and S. PANCHBHAI 1969. The
Concept
of Diku
among
the Tribes of
Chotanagpur,
Man in India 49
(2):
121-38.
SITAPATI,
G.V.
1938-9, 1940-1,
1942-3. The Soras and their
Country,
Journal
of
the Andhra Historical Research
Society
12
(2): 57-76,
12
(3):
157
68,
12
(4): 189-207,
13
(2)
113-26 and 14
(1):
1-16.
1948-9. The
Interp?n?tration
of the
Aryan
and the
Aboriginal
Cul?
tures in India with
Special
Reference to the
Soras, Quarterly
Journal
of
the
Mythic Society
39: 29-39.
SOMASUNDARAM,
A.M. 1949. A Note on the Gadabas of
Koraput
District,
Man in India 29
(1):
36-45.
SOMERS, George
E. 1977. The
Dynamics of
Santal Traditions in a Pea?
sant
Society,
Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
SRIVASTAVA, A.R.N.,
and K.K. VERMA 1967.
Demographic Aspects
of
Marriage among
the Korwas of
Palamau,
Journal
of
Social Research 10
(1):
53-63.
STAMPE,
David
1965,
1966. Abstracts of Recent Work in Munda
Lingui?
stics,
International Journal
of
American
Linguistics
1965: 332-41 and 1966:
74-80, 165-6,
390-7.
STANDING, Hilary
1976. 'Munda
Religion
and Social
Structure',
London:
School of Oriental and African
Studies,
Ph.D. thesis.
1981.
Envy
and
Equality:
Some
Aspects
of Munda
Values,
in Adrian
C.
Mayer (ed.),
Culture and
Morality: Essays
in Honour
of Christoph
von
F?rer-Haimendorf,
Delhi: Oxford
University
Press.
SUBBA
RAO,
A.V. 1965. Traces of Culture
Change among
Kathera Gada?
bas in Andhra
Pradesh,
Journal
of
Social Research 8
(2):
63-6.
SUBBARAYAN,
V. 1948.
Forgotten
Sons
of India,
Madras: Government
Press.
SUGIYAMA,
Koichi 1969. A
Study of
the Munda
Village Life
in
India,
Tokyo:
Tokai
University
Press.
SURYANARAYANA,
M. 1977.
'Marriage, Family
and
Kinship
of the Sa
oras of Andhra
Pradesh',
Waltair: Andhra
University,
Ph.D. thesis.
TEDESCO,
Paul 1943. Sanskrit milati 'To
Unite', Language
19
(1):
1-18.
1945. Sanskrit munda-
'Shaven',
Journal
of
Society
65: 82-98.
149
THIEME-BRESLAU,
Paul 1939. Indische W?rter und
Sitten, Zeitschrift
der Deutschen
Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
93: 105-37.
THUSU, K.N.,
and M. JHA 1972. Clan and
Family Among
the Ollar
Gadba of
Koraput (of Orissa),
Eastern
Anthropologist
25
(2):
161-8.
TOPNO,
M. 1955. Funeral Rites of the Mundas on the Ranchi
Plateau,
Anthropos
50: 715-34.
TOPNO,
S. 1970. The
Changing
Pattern of Munda Personal
Names,
Ea?
stern
Anthropologist
23: 171-8.
TRIPATHI,
B. 1973. A Portrait
of Population,
Cuttack: Census of India.
TROISI,
J. 1976. The Santals: A
Classified
and Annotated
Bibliography,
Delhi: Manohar.
1979
[1978].
Tribal
Religion: Religious Beliefs
and Practices
among
the
Santals,
Delhi: Manohar.
TURNER,
Victor W. 1967.
Aspects
of Saora Ritual and Shamanism: An
Approach
to the Data of
Ritual,
in A.L.
Epstein (ed.),
The
Craft of
Social
Anthropology,
London: Tavistock.
VIDYARTHI,
L.P. 1960. The Birhor
(The
Little Nomadic Tribe of In?
dia),
in A.F.K. Wallace
(ed.),
Men and
Cultures, Philadelphia: University
of
Pennsylvania
Press. 519-25.
1964. Cultural Contours
of
Tribal
Bihar,
Calcutta: Punthi Pustak.
...
and B.K. RAI 1977. The Tribal Culture
of India,
Delhi:
Concept
Publishing
Co.
...
and V.S. UPADHYAY 1980. The Kharia: Then and
Now,
Delhi:
Concept Publishing
Co.
VITEBSKY,
Piers 1980.
Birth, Entity
and
Responsibility:
The
Spirit
of
the Sun in Sora
Cosmology,
L'Homme 20
(1):
47-70.
1982.
'Dialogues
with the Dead: The
Experience
of
Mortality
and
its Discussion
among
the Sora of Central
India',
London: School of Oriental
and African
Studies,
Ph.D. thesis.
forthcoming.
The Creation of
Metaphor
in Sora Ritual
through
Grammatically
Parallel Verse
Forms,
in David
Stampe (ed.), Proceedings of
the Second International
Congress of
Austro-Asiatic
Linguistics
[1979],
My?
sore:
Central Institute of Indian
Languages.
VOEGELIN, CF.,
and A.M. VOEGELIN
1966, Languages
of the World:
Indo-Pacific Fascicule
Eight, Anthropological Linguistics
8
(4):
1-64.
WILLIAMS,
B.J. 1968. The Birhor of India and some Comments on Band
Organization,
in R.B. Lee and I. de Vore
(eds.),
Man the
Hunter, Chicago:
Aldine
Publishing
Co.
YAMADA, Ryuji
1970. Cultural Formation
of
the
Mundas, Tokyo:
Tokai
University
Press.
YEATTS,
M.W.M. 1931.
Madras,
Census
of India,
Vol.
XIV, part
1.
150
ZIDE,
A.R.K. 1976. Nominal
Combining
Forms in Sora and
Gorum,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic Stu?
dies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 1259-94.
ZIDE,
Norman H. 1969. Munda and Non-Munda Austro-Asiatic
Langua?
ges,
in T.A. Sebeok
(ed.),
Current Trends in
Linguistics,
Vol. V: South
Asia,
Paris and The
Hague:
Mouton.
...
and David STAMPE 1968. The Place of
Kharia-Juang
in the Munda
Family,
in B. Krishnamurti
(ed.),
Studies in Indian
Linguistics (Professor
M.B. Emeneau
Sastripurti Volume),
Poona and
Annamalainagar:
Centres of
Advanced
Study,
Deccan
College,
Poona
University
and Annamalai
University.
...
and A.R.K. ZIDE 1976. Proto-Munda Cultural
Vocabulary:
Evi?
dence for
Early Agriculture,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Ha?
waii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 1295-1334.
Chapter
II
ANON 1957. The Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
Delhi: Publications
Division, Ministry
of Information and
Broadcasting.
BONINGTON,
M.C.C. 1931. The Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
Census
of
India Vol. II:
66-79,
87-8.
CHANDA,
S. 1971. A
Study
of Car Nicobarese
Families,
Man in India 51
(1):
27-40.
1972. Some Traditional Festivals of Car Nicobarese and
Significance
Thereof,
Bulletin
of
(3-4):
81-5.
1976. The Hostile Jarawa of Andaman and the Semi-Hostile Shom?
pen
of Great Nicobar
Islands,
Journal
of
Social Research 19
(2):
64-73.
CHENGAPA B.S. 1951. On the Shom-Pen of Great
Nicobar,
Census
of
India Vol. XVII: lxxii-lxxv.
DAS,
A.R. 1977. A
Study
on the Nicobarese
Language,
Calcutta: Anthro?
pological Survey
of India.
DIFFLOTH,
G. 1974. Austro-Asiatic
Britan?
nica
480-4.
GUPTA,
S.K. 1951. The Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
Census
of
India
Vol.
XVII, Appendix
A: xli-lix.
HAMILTON,
G. 1790. A Short
Description
of Car
Nicobar,
Asiatic Rese?
arches 2: 337-44.
HUTTON,
J.H. 1931. Notes on the Andamanese and
Nicobarese,
Man in
India 11
(1):
1-14.
KLOSS,
C.B. 1903. In the Andamans and
Nicobars,
London: John
Murray
(reprinted
Delhi: Vivek
Publishing House, 1971).
151
LAL,
P. 1977. Great Nicobar Island: A
Study
in Human
Ecology,
Calcutta:
of India.
MAN,
E.H. 1889. A
Dictionary of
the Central Nicobarese
Language,
Lon?
don: W.H. Allen.
1932. The Nicobar Islands and their
People,
London:
Royal
Anthro?
pological
Institute.
MANN,
R.S. 1975.
'Change'
and
'Continuity' among
the
Nicobarese,
Ea?
stern
Anthropologist
28
(4):
327-39.
1978. Innovation
Perspective
in Nicobarese
Ethnography:
Some Ob?
servations,
Man in India 58
(4):
349-65.
MATHUR,
K.K. 1967. Nicobar
Islands,
New Delhi: National Book Trust.
MAZUMDAR,
Dutta 1955. The
Supernatural
World of the Tarik of Car
Nicobar,
Bulletin
of
the
Anthropological Survey of
India 4
(2):
1-6.
MYLIUS,
K. 1962. The Nicobars and a
Bibliography
on the
Islands,
Ori?
ental
Geographer
6: 82-96.
NAG,
M.K. 1967. The
Peoples
of Great
Nicobar,
Indian Museum Bulletin
2
(2):
29-35.
NANDAN,
A.P. 1986. Some Cultural
Aspects
of the Nicobarese of the
Great Nicobar
Island,
Human Science 35
(4):
312-17.
PANDIT,
T.N. 1970. Area
Study:
Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
in
S.C. Sinha
(ed.),
Research
Programmes
on
Cultural
Anthropology
and Allied
Disciplines,
Calcutta:
of
India, pp.
317-32.
RADHAKRISHNAN,
R. 1976. A Note on the
Morphology
of the Cau?
sative in
Nancowry,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu:
University
of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Lingui?
stics
Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 1035-40.
SYAMCHAUDHURI,
N.K. 1977. The Social Structure
of
Car Nicobar
Islands: An Ethnic
Study of Cognation,
Calcutta:
of
India.
TEMPLE,
R.C. 1901. Census
of
India Vol. Ill: 139-284.
1909. Andaman and Nicobar
Islands,
Delhi: Publications
Division,
Ministry
of Information and
Broadcasting.
UPADHYAY,
V.S. 1981. Retrieval from the
Precipice:
An Action
Ap?
proach
for Survival of the
Shompens
or
Great Nicobar
Island,
Bulletin
of
the
International Committee
for
Current
Anthropological
and
Ethnological
Rese?
arch 23: 83-7.
WHITEHEAD,
G. 1924. In the Nicobar
Islands,
London:
Seeley,
Service
&Co.
Chapter
III
ANNANDALE, N.,
and H.C. ROBINSON 1903.
Semang
and Sakai
Tribes,
Fasciculi
Malayenses
1: 1-52 et
seq.
152
ASMAH HAJI OMAR 1976. The Verb in
Kentakbong,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu:
The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 951-70.
BENJAMIN,
G. 1966. Temiar Social
Groupings,
Federated Museums Jour?
nal n.s. 11: 1-25.
1967a. Temiar
Kinship,
Federated Museums Journal n.s. 12: 1-25.
...
1967b. 'Temiar
Religion', Cambridge:
Ph.D. thesis.
1968a.
Headmanship
and
Leadership
in Temiar
Society,
Federated
Museums Journal n.s. 13: 1-43.
1968b. Temiar Personal
Names, Bijdragen
tot de
Taal-,
Land- en
Volkenkunde 124: 99-134.
1976a. Austroasiatic
Subgroupings
and
Prehistory
in the
Malay
Pe?
ninsula,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austro?
asiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics
Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 37-128.
1976b. An Outline of Temiar
Grammar,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: Uni?
versity
of Hawaii
Press,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 129-87.
1980.
Semang, Senoi, Malay: Culture, History, Kinship
and Cons?
ciousness in The
Malay Peninsula,
Canberra: Australian National
University.
BLAGDEN,
CO. 1903. The
Comparative Philology
of the Sakei and Se?
mang
Dialects of the
Malay Peninsula,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society,
Straits Branch 39: 47-63.
BRANDT,
J.H. 1961. The
Negritos
of Peninsula
Thailand,
Journal
of
the
Siam
Society
49
(2):
123-60.
1965. The Southeast Asian
Negrito
-
Further Notes on the
Negrito
of
Thailand,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
53
(1):
27-44.
CAREY,
Iskander 1961.
Tengleq
kui serok: An Introduction to the Temiar
Language
with an
Ethnographical Summary,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka.
1968. Mendrik
Kinship Terminology,
Federated Museums Journal
n.s. 13: 49-56.
1970a. The Kensiu
Negritos
of
Baling, Kedah,
Journal
of
the
Malay?
sian Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
43
(1):
143-54.
1970b. A Mendrik
Vocabulary,
Federated Museums Journal n.s. 15:
185-91.
1973. A Brief Account of the Mah
Meri,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society of Bengali (2):
185-94.
1976a.
Orang Asli,
the
Aboriginal
Tribes
of
Peninsula
Malaysia,
Ox?
ford: Kuala
Lumpur.
153
1976b. The Administration of the
Aboriginal
Tribes of West
Malay?
sia,
in D.J. Banks
(ed.),
The
Changing
Identities in Modern Southeast
Asia,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
COLE,
F.C 1945. The
Peoples of Malaysia,
New York: D. van Nostrand
&Co.
COLLINGS,
H.D. 1949a. A
Temoq
Word List and
Notes,
Bulletin
of
the
Raffles Museum,
Series B.4: 69-85.
1949b.
Aboriginal Notes,
Bulletin
of
the
Raffles Museum,
Series B.4:
86-103.
COUILLARD,
M.A. 1980. Tradition in Tension:
Carvings
in a
Jah Hut
Community, Penang:
Penerbit Universiti Sains
Malaysia.
DENTAN,
Robert Knox 1968. The Semai: A Nonviolent
People of
Ma?
laya,
New York: Rinehart & Winston.
1970a. Labels and Rituals in Semai
Classification, Ethnology
9: 16
25.
1970b. Hocus and Pocus and Extensionism in Central
Malaya:
Notes
on Semai
Kinship Terminology,
American
Anthropologist
72: 358-62.
1975. If there were no
Malays,
who would the Semai
be?,
Contribu?
tions to Asian Studies 7: 50-64.
1976. Ethnics and Ethics in Southeast
Asia,
in D.J. Banks
(ed.),
The
Changing
Asia,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
1978. Notes on
Childhood in a Non-violent Context: The Semai
Case,
in A.
Montagu (ed.), Learning Non-Aggression,
New York: Oxford Uni?
versity
Press.
DIFFLOTH,
Gerard F. 1968. Proto-Semai
Phonology,
Federations Mu?
seums Journal
n.s. 13: 65-74.
1974. Austro-Asiatic
Britannica
(15th
edn.), Macropaedia:
480-4.
1975. Les
langues
mon-khmer de
Malaisie,
classification
historique
et
innovations,
Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 6
(4):
1-19.
1976a.
Minor-Syllable
Vocalism in Senoic
Languages,
in
Philip
Jen?
ner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Hono?
lulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications
13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 229-47.
1976b.
Jah-Hut,
an Austroasiatic
Language
of
Malaysia,
Southeast
Asian
Linguistic
Studies 2: 73-118.
1977. Towards
a
History
of Mon-Khmer: Proto-Semai
Vowels,
Tonan
Ajia Kenkyu
14
(4):
463-95.
DONNER,
W. 1978. The Five Faces
of
Thailand: An Economic
Geogra?
phy,
London: Hurst & Co.
ENDICOTT,
Kirk 1974. 'Batek
Negrito Economy
and Social
Organiza?
tion',
Harvard: Ph.D. thesis.
154
1975. Brief
Report
on the
Semaq
Beri of
Pahang,
Federation Mu?
seums
Journal
n.s. 20: 1-24.
1979. Batek
Negrito Religion,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
EVANS,
I.H.N. 1913. Notes on the Besisi of
Tamboh,
Kuala
Langat,
Selangor,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 5
(1):
1-15.
1914a. Notes on the
Aborigines
of
Lenggong
and Kuala
Kenering,
Upper Perak,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 5
(2):
64-73.
1914b. Notes on the
Aborigines
of the Ulu
Langat
and Kenaboi
Districts of
Selangor
and
Jelebu,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Mu?
seums 5
(2):
74-81.
1915. Notes
on
Some
Aboriginal
Tribes of
Pahang,
Journal
of
the
Federated
Malay
States Museums 5
(4):
192-219 et
seq.
1916. Some Notes on the
Aboriginal
Tribes of
Upper Perak,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 6
(4):
203-14.
1920. Further Notes on the
Aboriginal
Tribes of
Pahang,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 9
(1):
16-33.
1922a. Further Notes on
Negrito
Beliefs and
Customs,
Journal
of
the
Federated
Malay
States Museums 9
(4):
191-221.
1922b.
Ethnological Miscellanea,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 9
(4):
271-2.
1923. Studies in
Religion, Folk-Lore,
and Custom in British North
Borneo and the
Malay Peninsula, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1924. An
Expedition
to Gunom
Benom,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 12
(1):
1-6.
1925. An
Ethnological Expedition
to South
Siam,
Journal
of
the
Federated
Malay
States Museums 12
(2):
35-57.
1926. Results of an
Expedition
to
Kedah,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 12
(3):
73-82.
1927.
Papers
on the
Ethnology
and
Archaeology of
the
Malay
Penin?
sula, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1937. The
Negritos of Malaya, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
FIX,
A.G. 1974.
Neighbourhood Knowledge
and
Marriage
Distances: The
Semai
Case,
Annals
of
Human Genetics 37
(3):
327-32.
1975.
Fission,
Fusion and Lineal Effect of the
Population
Structure
of the Semai Senoi of
Malaysia,
American Journal
of Physical Anthropology
43
(2):
295-302.
1977. The
Demography of
the Semai
Senoi,
Ann Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Museum of
Anthropology, Anthropological Papers
no. 62.
...
and LUAN ENG LIE-INJO 1975. Genetic Microdifferentiation in the
Semai
Senoi,
American Journal
of Physical Anthropology
43
(1):
47-55.
FREEDMAN,
Derek 1968.
Thunder,
Blood and the
Nicknaming
of God's
Creatures, Psychoanalytic Quarterly
37
(3):
353-99.
155
HEELAS,
Paul 1983.
Indigenous Representations
of Emotions: The Che?
wong,
Journal
of
the
Anthropological Society of Oxford
14
(1):
87-103.
HOANG,
M. 1976. La Tha?lande et ses
populations,
Brussels: Editions
Complexe.
HOOD,
M.S. 1974. 'An
Ethnographic Investigation
of the Semelai of Ma?
laysia',
Oxford: B. Litt, thesis.
1975. The Semelai Sura and Oral
History: Myth
and
Ideology
in an
Orang
Asli World
view,
Akademika 7: 1-16.
HOOKER,
M.B. 1967. Semai House Construction in Ulu
Slim, Perak,
Federations Museums Journal
n.s. 12: 27-34.
HOWELL, Signe
1981a. The 'Che
Wong' Revisited,
Journal
of
the Ma?
laysian
Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
54
(3):
57-69.
1981b. Rules not
Words,
in Paul Heelas and
Anthony
Lock
(eds.),
Indigenous Psychologies,
London: Academic Press.
1982.
Chewong Myths
and
Legends,
Kuala
Lumpur: Malaysian
Branch
Royal
Asiatic
Society Monographs
11.
1983.
Chewong
Women in Transition: The Effect of Monetization
on a
Hunter-Gatherer
Society
in
Malaysia,
in Khin Thitsa and
Signe
Howell
(eds.),
Women and
Development
in South-East Asia
I, Canterbury:
Univer?
sity
of Kent Centre of South-East Asian
Studies,
Occasional
Papers
1: 46-79
(reprinted 1985).
1984.
Society
and Cosmos:
Chewong of
Peninsular
Malaysia, Singa?
pore
etc.: Oxford
University
Press.
...
1985. Formal
Speech
Acts As One
Discourse,
Man 21
(1):
79-101.
1986.
Equality
and
Hierarchy
in
Chewong Classification,
in R.H.
Barnes,
Daniel de
Coppet
and R.J. Parkin
(eds.),
Contexts and Levels: An?
thropological Essays
on
Hierarchy,
Oxford: Journal of the
Anthropological
Society
of
Oxford,
Occasional
Papers
no. 4.
...
n. d. From Child to Human:
Chewong Concepts
of
Self,
in Gustav
Jahoda and I.M. Lewis
(eds.), Acquiring
Culture: Cross Cultural Studies in
Child
Development,
London: Croom Helm.
1989a. 'To be
angry
is not to be
human,
but to be fearful is': Che?
wong Concepts
of Human
Nature,
in
Signe
Howell and
Roy
Willis
(eds.),
Societies at Peace:
Anthropological Perspectives,
London and New York: Rou
tledge.
1989b.
Society
and Cosmos:
Chewong of
Peninsular
Malaysia,
Chi?
cago
and London: The
University
of
Chicago
Press
(paperback edition).
JENNINGS,
Sue 1980. Temiar Dance and the Maintenance of
Order,
in
Paul
Spencer (ed.), Society
and the Dance: The Social
Anthropology of
Process
and
Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
JENSEN,
Knud-Erik 1977-8. Relative
Age
and
Category:
The
Semaq
Beri
Case,
Folk 19-20: 171-81.
JIMIN BIN IDRIS 1968. Distribution of
Orang
Asli in West
Malaysia,
Federation Museums Journal
n.s. 13: 44-8.
156
1972. A
Brief
Note on the
Orang
Asli
of
West
Malaysia
and their
Administration,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Jabatan
Orang
Asli.
KARIM,
Wazir-Jahan 1980. Introduction to the Ma' Betis?k of Peninsular
Malaysia,
Federation Museums Journal
n.s.
25: 119-58.
1981. Ma' Betisek
Concepts of Living Things,
London: Athlone
Press.
KINZIE, J.D.,
and K. KINZIE 1966. The Jahai
Negritos:
A
Glimpse
of a
Culture in
Transition,
Federation Museums Journal n.s. 11: 26-33.
LAPIQUE,
L. 1895. A la recherche des
Negritos,
Tour du Monde 1 & 2:
passim.
LOW,
J. 1850. The
Semang
and Sakai Tribes of the
Malay Peninsula,
Journal
of
the Indian
Archipelago
4: 424-32.
MAXWELL,
W.E. 1879. The
Aboriginal
Tribes of
Perak,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society,
Straits Branch 4: 46-50.
MEI CHING 1960. Minorities
of Malaya, Singapore:
translated from the
Chinese
by
the
Scholarly
Book Translation
Service, Annapolis, Maryland.
NAI PAN HLA 1974.
Comparative Study
of Old and Modern
Mon,
Ka
goshima University
Bulletin 1974
(October):
1-22.
NEEDHAM, Rodney
1956.
Ethnographic
Notes on the
Siwang
of Central
Malaya,
Journal
of
the
Malaysian
Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
29
(1):
49-69.
1960. Research
Projects
in Southeast
Asia,
Bulletin
of
the Inter?
national Committee on
Urgent Anthropological
and
Ethnological
Research 3:
63-71.
1964.
Blood, Thunder,
and
Mockery
of
Animals, Sociologus
14
(2):
136-49.
1974a. Some
Ethnographic
Notes on Semelai in Northern
Pahang,
Journal
of
the
Malaysian
Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
47
(2):
123-9.
1974b.
Chewong (Siwang)
in
Perspective,
Journal
of
the
Malaysian
Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
47
(2):
105-12.
1976. Minor
Reports Concerning Negritos
in Northern
Pahang,
Jour?
nal
of
the
Malaysian
Branch
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
49
(2):
184-93.
NOONE,
H.D. 1936. A
Report
on the Settlements
and,Welfare
of the
Ple-Temiar Senoi of the Perak-Kelantan
Watershed,
Journal
of
the Federated
Malay
States Museums 19
(1):
1-85.
1949a. The First Fruits of the Hill Rice Harvest
among
the Temiar
Senoi of the Plus-Temiar
Aboriginal Area,
Bulletin
of
the
Raffles Museum,
Series B.4: 5-7.
NOONE,
R.O.D. 1949b. Nutritional
Aspects
of the
Preparation
of the Hill
Paddy among
the Temiar
Senoi,
Bulletin
of
the
Raffles Museum,
Series B.4:
8-10.
157
OGILVIE,
CS. 1940. The 'Che
Wong',
a
Little Known Primitive
People,
Malayan
Nature Journal 1
(1):
23-5.
1948. More on the Che
Wong, Malayan
Nature Journal 3
(1):
15-29.
...
1949. Che
Wong
Word List and
Notes,
Bulletin
of
the
Raffles
Mu?
seum,
Series B.4: 11-39.
PARKIN,
Robert
ms-a.
Cognates
and Loans in Aslian Kin Terms.
ROBARCHEK,
C.A. 1987.
Blood, Thunder,
and the
Mockery
of Anthro?
pology:
Derek Freeman and the
Semang
Thunder-God. With a
Rejoinder by
Derek
Freeman,
Journal
of Anthropological
Research 43
(4):
273-308.
1989. Hobbesian and Rousseauan
Images
of Man:
Autonomy
and
Individualism in a Peaceful
Society,
in
Signe
Howell and
Roy
Willis
(eds.),
Societies at Peace:
Anthropological Perspectives,
London and New York: Rou
tledge.
...
and R.K. DENTAN 1987. Blood Drunkenness and the
Bloodthirsty
Semai:
Unmaking
Another
Anthropological Myth,
American
Anthropologist
89
(2):
356-65.
SCHEBESTA,
Paul 1925. The
Semangs
of
Patalung,
Man 25: 23-6.
1926. The
Jungle
Tribes of the
Malay Peninsula,
Bulletin
of
the
London School
of
1927. The
Negritos
of the
Malay
Peninsula: Subdivisions and
Names,
Man 27: 89-94.
1928. Grammatical Sketch of the Jahai
Dialect,
Bulletin
of
the Lon?
don School
of
1929.
Among
the Forest
Dwarfs of Malaya,
London: Hutchinson.
1952. Die
Negrito Asiens,
Vienna:
M?dling (2 vols) (Studia
Instituti
Anthropos,
Vol.
6).
SCHMIDT,
Pater Wilhelm 1901. Die
Sprachen
der Sakei und
Semang
auf
Malakka und ihr Verh?ltnis zu den
Mon-Khmer-Sprachen, Bijdragen
tot de
Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde 52
(8):
399-583.
SEIDENFADEN,
Eric 1958. The Thai
Peoples, Bangkok:
The Siam So?
ciety.
SKEAT, W.W.,
and CO. BLAGDEN 1906.
Pagan
Races
of
the
Malay
Peninsula,
London: Macmillan
(2 vols).
SRISAVASDI,
B.C. 1963. The Hill Tribes
of Siam, Bangkok:
Khun Aroon.
TAN CHEE BANG 1975. Central Government and 'Tribal' Minorities:
Thailand and West
Malaysia Compared,
in A.R. Walker
(ed.),
Farmers in the
Hills:
Ethnographic
Notes on the
Upland Peoples of
North
Thailand,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Universiti Sains
Malaysia.
158
WERNER,
R. 1973. Mah Meri Art and
Culture,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Muzium
Negara.
1975. Jah-Hut Art and
Culture,
Kuala
Lumpur: University
of Ma?
laysia
Press.
WILKINSON,
R.J. 1910. The
Aboriginal Tribes, Papers
on
Malay
Sub?
jects, Supplement,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Federated
Malay
States Government Press.
1915. A
Vocabulary
of Central
Sakai, Papers
on
Malay Subjects,
2nd
series,
no.
3,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Federated
Malay
States Government Press.
1923. A
History
of the Peninsula
Malays
with
Chapters
on
Perak
and
Selangor, Papers
on
Malay Subjects, Singapore:
Federated
Malay
States
Government
Press/Kelly
& Walsh.
WILLIAMS-HUNT,
P.D.R. 1952. An Introduction to the
Malayan
Abori?
gines,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Government Press.
Chapter
IV
ANON 1894. Les Mois de
Ta-My (r?gion
de la
Canelle),
Revue Indochi?
noise
(le s?rie)
11: 82-113.
1907. Note
sur la
province
de
Quang-Tri,
Revue Indochinoise 1907
(2?me semestre):
1583-94.
1933.
Monographie
de la
province
de
Bassac,
Extr?me-Asie 19: 409
26.
1959.
Ratanakiri,
Cambodia's 16th
Province,
Cambodia
Today
5:
16-21.
1962a. Traits
caract?ristiques
dans les moeurs et coutumes des tri?
bus
montagnardes
au sud du
Vietnam,
Direction de l'Action Sociale
pour
les
Montagnards (JPRS
Translation
13443).
1962b. Mondolkiri and its Khmer
Loeu,
Cambodia
Today
43: 24-7.
1962c. Province de
Ratanakiri, Cambodge d'Aujourd'hui
44: 14-16.
1970.
Minority Groups
in
Thailand, Washington
D.C:
Department
of the
Army, Ethnographic Study
Series
Pamphlet
no. 550-107.
ANTOINE,
M. 1949. Les
Bahnars,
Revue ?ducation 16
(June-August):
11-15.
?RHEM, Kaj
1988. Into the Realm of the Sacred: An
Interpretation
of
Khasi Funeral
Ritual,
in Sven
Cederroth,
C. Corlin and J. Lindstrom
(eds.),
On the
Meaning Of
Death:
Essays
on
Mortuary
Rituals and
Eschatological
Beliefs, Uppsala:
Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis.
AUNG
THURIN,
M. 1976.
Kingship,
the
Sangha,
and
Society
in
Pagan,
in
K.R. Hall and J.K. Whitmore
(eds.), Explorations
in
Early
Southeast Asian
History:
The
Origins of
Southeast Asian
Statecraft, University
of
Michigan
Center for South and Southeast Asian
Studies, Papers
on
South and Southeast
Asia 11.
159
AYM?,
G. 1930.
Monographie
du Ve territoire
militaire,
Hanoi:
Imprime?
rie d'Extr?me-Orient.
AYMONIER,
E.
1885a,
1885b. Notes sur le
Laos,
Excursions et Recon?
naissances 20: 315-86 and 22: 255-347.
1892. Une mission en Indochine: relation
sommaire,
Bulletin de la
Soci?t?
G?ographique
de
Paris,
7e
s?rie,
13
(2):
216-49 and 339-74.
AZEMAR,
Le P?re 1886. Les
Stiengs
de
Bro'lam,
Excursions et Recon?
naissances 27: 147-60 and 28: 215-50.
BANKER,
J.E. 1972. Bahnar
Religion,
Southeast Asia2
(1): 88-90,
121-4.
BARADAT,
R. 1941. Les Samre ou Pear:
population primitive
de l'Ouest
du
Cambodge,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 41
(1):
1-149
et
seq.
BAREH,
Hamlet 1968. The
History
and Culture
of
the Khasi
People,
Calcutta: Manimala.
1974.
Meghalaya, Shillong:
North-Eastern India News and Features
Service.
1977. The
Language
and Literature
of Meghalaya,
Simla: Institute
for Advanced
Study.
BARKATAKI,
S. 1977. The
Khasis, Pathsala,
Assam: Bani Prakash.
BARKER, M.A.,
and M.E. BARKER 1970.
Proto-Vietnamuong (Anna
muong)
Final Consonants and
Vowels, Lingua
24: 268-85.
BARKER,
M.E. 1966.
Vietnamese-Muong
Tone
Correspondences,
in N.H.
Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague:
Mou?
ton.
1968. The Phonemes of
Mu'o'ng,
Studies in
Linguistics
20: 59-62.
BAUDENNE,
A. 1913. Les Khas de la
r?gion
de
l'Attopeu,
Revue Indochi?
noise 44
(3):
260-74 and
(4):
421-43.
BEL,
J.M. 1898. Mission au Laos et en Annam:
Annam-Pays
Khas-Bas
Laos,
Bulletin de la Soci?t?
G?ographique
de Paris 7e s?rie 19: 261-90.
BENNISON,
J.J. 1931. Census
of
India Vol.
XI, part
II.
BERNARD. N. 1904. Les
Khas, peuple
inculte du Laos
fran?ais,
Bulletin
de
G?ographie Historique
et
Descriptive
11: 283-389.
BERNATZIK, H.A.,
and E. BERNATZIK 1958. The
Spirits of
the Yellow
Leaves,
London: Robert Hale.
BESNARD,
H. 1907. Les
populations
moi du
Darlac,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 7
(1-2):
61-86.
BHOWMIK,
K.L. 1971. Tribal India: A
Profile
in Indian
Ethnology,
Cal?
cutta.
BITARD,
P. 1952. Carte
ethno-linguistique
de la
r?gion
de V unsai
(Cam?
bodge),
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises 27
(1):
8ff.
BIXLER,
N. 1971. Burma: A
Profile,
London: Pall Mall Press.
BLAGDEN,
CO. 1913. The Classification of the Annamese
Language,
Journal
of
the
Royal
Asiatic
Society
1913: 427-32.
160
1914.
Etymological Notes,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
4
(1):
57-61.
1920. Mon
Inscriptions, Epigraphica
Birmanica 1-2: 69-168.
BLOOD,
H.F. 1966. 'A Reconstruction of
Proto-Mnong',
Indiana Univer?
sity:
thesis.
BOCHET,
G. 1951. El?ments de conversation
franco-ko'ho:
Us et coutu?
mes des
montagnards
de la
province
de
Haut-Donnai,
Dalat: Service
g?ograph.
de l'Indochine.
and
Jacques
DOURNES 1953.
Lexique polyglotte: k?ho, vietnamien,
fran?ais, r?glai, Saigon:
Editions France-Asie.
BOELES,
J.J. 1963. Second
Expedition
to the Mrabri of North Thailand
('Khon Pa'),
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
51
(2):
133-60.
BONDET DE LA
BERNARDIE,
J. 1949. Le dialecte des Kha
Boloven,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises n.s. 24
(3):
57-78.
BONHOMME,
A. 1916. Au
pays muong,
Revue Indochinoise n.s.
26:
29-50.
BOUDAREL,
G. 1965. In the Land of
Monkey
Hunters and Tree
Eaters,
New Orient 6: 165-70 and 179.
BOULBET,
J. 1957.
Quelques aspects
du coutumier
(n'dri)
des Cau
Maa',
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises 32: 112-78.
1964. Modes et
techniques
artisanales du
pays ma',
Bulletin de la
Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises 39
(2):
169-288.
1965. Modes et
techniques
du
pays maa',
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 52
(1):
359-414 et
seq.
1966. Le miir: Culture itin?rante avec
jach?re
foresti?re en
pays
maa',
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 53
(1):
77-98 et
seq.
1967.
Pays
des Maa': Domaine des
g?nies Nggar Maa', Nggar Yang,
Paris: Publications de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient no. 62.
1972.
Dialogues lyriques
des Cau
Maa',
Fran?aise
BOUROTTE,
B. 1955. Essai d'histoire des
populations montagnardes
du
Sud-Indochinois
jusqu'? 1945,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises
30: 5-116.
BRENGUES,
J. 1905. Note sur les
populations
de la
r?gion
des
montagnes,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
2: 19-48.
BRIGGS,
L.P. 1945. Dvaravati: The Most Ancient
Kingdom
of
Siam,
Journal
of
Society
65: 98-107.
BURTON,
E. 1966. A Brief Sketch of Cua Clause
Structure,
Van-hoa
Nguy?t-san
15
(1):
187-90.
CADI?RE,
L. 1905. Les hautes vall?es du
Song-Giaoh,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
5
(3-4):
349-67.
1940. Note sur les Moi du
Quang-tri,
Bulletin de l'Institut Indochi?
nois
pour
l'Etude de l'Homme 3
(1):
101-7.
161
CAMERON,
A.A. 1911. A Note on the
Palaungs
of the
Kodaung
Hill
Tracts of the Momeik
State,
Census
of
India Vol.
IX,
Part
1, Appendix
A:
v-xlii.
CARBONNEL,
J.P. 1968. La red?couverte des
Saoch, pseudo-Negritos
du
Cambodge,
Bulletin et M?moires de la Soci?t?
Anthropologique
de Paris 3
(4):
376-7.
CHAROENMA,
N. 1982. The
Phonologies
of a
Lampang
Lamet and Wi
ang Papao Lua,
in
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
XI,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
CHATTERJI,
S.K. 1974. Kirata-Jana-Krti: The
Indo-Mongoloids
-
Their
Contribution to the
History
and Culture
of India,
Calcutta: Asiatic
Society
of
Bengal.
CHATTOPADHYAY,
K.P. 1941. Khasi
Kinship
and Social
Organization,
University of
Calcutta
Anthropological Papers
n.s. 6: 1-40.
1949. Khasi Land
Ownership
and
Sale,
Eastern
Anthropologist
2
(3):
133-7.
1960. Some
Changes
in Khasi
Culture,
Journal
of
the Asiatic
Society
of Bengal
2: 25-37.
C
DES, George
1931. Review of Henri
Gourdon, L'Indochine,
Bulletin
de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 31
(1-2):
225-9.
1951. Les
r?gies
de la succession
royale
dans l'ancien
Cambodge,
(2):
117-30.
1964. A Possible
Interpretation
of the
Inscription
at Kedukan Bukit
(Palembang),
in J. Bostin and R. Roolvink
(eds.), Malayan
and Indonesian
Studies:
Essays
Presented to Sir Richard Winstedt on his
Eighty-fifth
Birth?
day,
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
1966. Les M?ns de
Dvaravati,
in Ba
Shin,
J. Boisselier and A.B.
Griswold
(eds.), Essays offered
to G.H.
Luce,
Ascona: Artibus
Asiae, Supple
mentum XXIII
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 112-16.
COGGIN-BROWN,
J. 1911-12. Some Customs of the
Tawnpeng Palaungs,
Proceedings of
the
University of
Durham
Philosophical Society
4
(1):
1-8.
COHEN,
P.D. 1966.
Presyllables
and
Reduplication
in
Jeh,
in David D.
Thomas, Nguyen
Dinh Hoa and David Blood
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
II,
Saigon: SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
COLONNA,
M. 1938.
Monographie
de la
province
de
Saravane,
Bulletin
des Amis du Laos 2: 81-121.
CONDOMINAS, Georges
1952.
Rapport
d'une mission
?tymologique
en
pays
Mnong Gar,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 46
(1):
303
13.
1954.
Enqu?te linguistique parmi
les
du
Sud
Indochinois,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 46
(2):
573
97.
1955. Notes sur le T?m B? mae
baap
an
ku?n, ?change
des sacrifices
entre un enfant et ses
p?re
et m?re
(Mnong Rlam),
Archives Internationaux
d'Ethnographie
47
(2):
127-59.
162
1957. Nous avons
mang?
la
for?t (de
la
pierre-g?nie g?o),
Paris:
Mercure de France.
1960. Les
Mnong
Gar du centre
Vi?t-Nam,
in
George
Murdock
(ed.),
Social Structure in South-East
Asia, Viking
Fund Publications in
Anthropo?
logy
29.
1965a. Two Brief Notes
Concerning Mnong Gar, Lingua
15
(1):
48
52.
1965b.
L'exotique
est
quotidien:
Sar
Luk,
Vietnam
central,
Paris:
Terre Humaine.
1974. L'entraide
agricole
chez les
Mnong
Gar
(Proto-Indochinois
du
Vietnam
centrale),
Etudes Rurales 53-6: 407-20.
1977. Pour une definition
anthropologique
du
concept d'espace
so?
ciale,
(2):
5-54.
1980.
Agricultural Ecology
in the Southeast Asian Savanna
Region:
The
Mnong
Gar of Vietnam and their Social
Space,
in D.R. Harris
(ed.),
Human
Ecology
in Savanna
Environments,
London: Academic Press.
COOPER,
J.S. 1966.
Halang
Verb
Phrase,
in David Thomas
(ed.), Papers
on
Four Vietnamese
Languages,
Auckland:
Linguistic Society
of New Zealand
Te Reo
Reprints 2).
1973. An
Ethnography
of
Halang Rhymes,
in David D. Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV, Carbondale,
Illinois: Center
for Vietnamese Studies.
...
and N. COOPER 1964.
Halang Phonemes,
in David D. Thomas et
al
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
I,
Saigon: SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
COSTELLO,
N.A. 1966. Affixes in
Katu,
in David D.
Thomas, Nguyen
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
II, Saigon: SIL/Ling.
Circle of
Saigon.
1969. The Katu Noun
Phrase,
in Richard Johnston et al
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
III, Saigon: SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
1971. Katu
Vocabulary, Saigon: Department
of Education.
1973.
Socially Approved
Homicide
among
the
Katu,
Southeast Asia
2
(1):
77-89.
COTTES,
A. 1905. Mois ou Khas de la
partie
m?ridionale de la Chaine
d'Annam,
Revue Coloniale
(April 1905):
194-204.
CUISINIER,
Jeanne 1939. Mission au
pays muong,
L'Anthropologie
49:
489-90.
1946. Les
Mu'o'ng, g?ographie
humaine et
sociologie,
Paris: Institut
d'ethnologie
Travaux et Memoirs 45.
1951. Pri?res
accompagnant
les rites
agraires
chez les
Mu'o'ng
de
M?n-Duc,
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient no.
33.
DAM BO
[= Jacques
DOURNES]
1950. Les
du
Sud-Indo-chinois
(P?msiens),
France-Asie 52
(Ann?e 5)
49-50: 931-1203.
DANG NGHIEM VAN 1973. Le Khmu au
Viet
Nam,
?tudes Vietnamien?
nes
36: 69-148.
163
DAS
GUPTA,
P.K. 1960. Land
Ownership
and
Seng among
the War
Khasi, Vanyajati
8
(3):
112-17.
1961a.
Riseng
or Land of
Cognates among
the War
Khasi,
Eastern
Anthropologist
14
(2):
152-60.
1961b. A Note on Inter-Ethnic
Relationships
and Certain
Changes
in the Life of the War Khasi of
Sheila, Vanyajati
9
(3):
104-14.
1964.
Marriage among
the War
Khasi,
Man in India 44
(2):
146-60.
1966.
Family among
the War
Khasi,
Journal
of
the Indian Anthro?
pological Society
1966: 167-75.
1968. A Note on
Clan
among
the War
Khasi,
Journal
of
the Indian
1968: 131-40.
DAVIES,
H.R. 1909. Yiin-nan: The Link Between India and the
Yangtze,
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
DEB
ROY,
H.L. 1981. A Tribe in Transition: The Jaintia
of Meghalaya,
New Delhi: Cosmos Publications.
DESSAINT,
W.Y. 1973. The Mai of Thailand and
Laos,
Bulletin
of
the
International Committee
on
and
Ethnological
Research
15: 9-25.
...
1981. The T'in
(Mai), Dry
Rice Cultivators of Northern Thailand
and Northern
Laos,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
69
(1-2):
107-37.
DESTENAY,
A.L. 1968.
Nagel's China,
Geneva:
Nagel
Publishers.
DEVEREUX, George
1937.
Functioning
Units in
H?(rh)ndea(ng) Society,
Primitive Man 10
(1):
1-7.
1947. Potential Contribution of the Moi to the Cultural
Landscape
of
Indochina,
Far Eastern
Quarterly
5
(6):
390-5.
DIFFLOTH,
G?rard 1974. Austro-Asiatic
Bri?
tannica
480-4.
1977. Mon-Khmer Initial Palatals and 'Substratumized' Austro
Thai,
in
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
VI,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
1980. The Wa
Languages, Linguistics of
the Tibeto-Burman Area 5
(2): passim.
1982.
Registres,
devoisement, timbres, vocaliques:
leur histoire en
Katouique,
in
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
XII,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Hawaii.
DIGUET,
E. 1908. Les
montagnards
du
Tonkin,
Paris: Challamet.
DODD,
W.C 1923. The Tai Race: Elder Brother
of
the
Chinese,
Cedar
Rapids,
Iowa: Torch Press.
DONNER,
W. 1978. The Five Faces
of
Thailand: An Economic
Geogra?
phy,
London: Hurst & Co.
DOURNES, Jacques
1950. Dictionnaire sr?
(k?ho)-fran?ais, Saigon:
Im?
primerie
d'Extr?me-Orient.
1951. Nri: recueil des coutumes sr? du
Haut-Donnai,
France-Asie 6
(60):
1232-41.
164
1954. F?tes saisonni?res des
Sr?,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr
Orienta
(2):
599-609 et
seq.
1974. Une documentation sur les
parlers k?ho,
Asie du Sud-Est et
Monde Insulindien 5
(1):
161-70.
1978.
Mythes
sr?: trois
pi?ces
de litt?rature orale d'une ethnie Aus
troasiatique,
Paris:
CeDRASEMI/SELAF.
DOWDY,
H.E. 1965. The Bamboo
Cross,
London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
DRAGE,
G. 1907. A Few Notes on
Wa, Rangoon: Superintendant
of
Government
Printing.
DUFOSSE,
M. 1934.
Monographie
des
peuplades kouys
du
Cambodge,
Extr?me-Asie 10
(83):
553-68.
DUPONT,
P. 1959.
L'Arch?ologie
m?ne de
Dv?ravati,
Paris: Publications
de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
DURAND,
E.M. 1907. Les Mois du
Son-Phong,
Revue Indochinoise
(Au?
gust):
1055-68.
EBIHARA,
M. 1966. Interrelations between Buddhism and Social
Systems
in Cambodian Peasant
Cultures,
in M. Nash
(ed.), Anthropological
Studies in
Theravada
Buddhism,
New Haven: Yale
University
Press.
1974. Khmer
Village
Women in Cambodia: A
Happy Balance,
in
CJ. Matthiasson
(ed.), Many
Sisters: Women in Cross-Cultural
Perspectives,
New York: Free Press.
EHRENFELS,
U.R. 1941.
Mother-Right
in
India, Hyderabad:
Govern?
ment Central Press.
1952. Matrilineal Civilizations in
India,
The Hindu 30 March 1952:
12.
1953. Khasi
Kinship Terminology
in Four
Dialects, Anthropos
48:
398-412.
1955. Three Matrilineal
Groups
of
Assam,
American
Anthropologist
57
(2):
306-21.
ENRIQUEZ,
CM. 1923a. Races
of Burma,
Delhi: Government of
India,
Central
Publishing
Branch.
1923b. A Burmese
Arcady,
London:
Seeley,
Service & Co.
D'ESNAMBUC,
P. 1953. Rites du
mariage
au
Cambodge,
Indochine Sud
Est
Asiatique
22
(October):
53-7.
FERLUS,
Michel 1971a. La
langue
souei: mutations
consonantiques
et
bipartition
du
syst?me vocalique,
Linguistique
de
Paris 66
(1):
379-88.
1971b.
Simplification
des
groupes consonantiques
dans deux dialectes
austroasiens du
Sud-Laos,
Linguistique
de Paris 66
(1):
389-403.
1972a. Un
an
de mission de recherches
ethnolinguistiques
au
Laos,
(2):
31-3.
165
1972b. Notes sur les dialectes austroasiens du Sud
Laos,
Asie du
(2):
35-49.
1972c. La
cosmogonie
selon la tradition
khmou,
in J.M.C Thomas
and L. Bernot
(eds.), Langues
et
techniques,
nature et
soci?t?,
Vol. I:
Approche
linguistique,
Paris: Editions Klincksieck.
1974a. Delimitation des
groupes linguistiques austroasiatiques
dans
le centre
indochinoise,
(1):
15-23.
1974b. Les
langues
du
groupe austroasiatique nord,
Asie du Sud-Est
et Monde Insulindien 5
(1):
39-68.
1974c. Le
groupe viet-muong,
Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien
5
(1):
69-78.
1974d. Review of K.D.
Smith,
A
Phonological
Reconstruction
of
Proto-North-
Bahnaric,
(1):
183-5.
1974e. Probl?mes de mutations
consonantiques
en
thavung,
Bulletin
de la Soci?t?
Linguistique
de Paris 69
(1):
311-23.
1974f.
Lexique souei-francais,
Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien
5
(1):
141-59.
1975. Vietnamien et
proto-viet-muong,
Asie du Sud-Est et Monde
Insulindien 6
(4):
21-55.
1977. Etude d'une strate de
changements phon?tiques
dans l'ancien
Cambodge,
m
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
VI,
Honolulu: Univer?
sity
of Hawaii Press.
...
and NGUYEN PHU PHONG 1976-7.
Analyse
de
quatre
articles
d'ethno-linguistique Vi?t-Muong publi?es
?
Hanoi,
Cahiers d'Etudes Vietna?
miennes 3: 3-16.
FERRELL,
R. 1971. Le
P'u-man, langue austroasiatique,
Bulletin de la
Soci?t?
Linguistique
de Paris 66
(1):
405-6.
FILBECK,
D.L. 1964.
Concepts
of Sin and Atonement
among
the
T'in,
Practical
Anthropology
11: 181-4.
...
1971. The T'in of Northern Thailand: An
Ethnolinguistic Survey,
Behaviour Science Notes 6: 19-31.
1976. Mai
(Thin),
inW.A.
Smalley (ed.),
Phonemes and
Orthogra?
phy: Language Planning
in Ten
Minority Languages of Thailand,
Canberra:
Australian National
University,
Pacific
Linguistics
Series C 43.
1978. T'in: A Historical
Study,
Canberra: Australian National Uni?
versity,
Pacific
Linguistics
Series B 49.
FLATZ,
G. 1970. The Khalo' or Mae Rim
Lawa,
a
Remnant of the Lawa
Population
of Northern
Thailand,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
58
(2):
87-104.
FOSTER,
B.L. 1972.
Ethnicity
and
Economy:
The Case
of
the Mons in
Thailand,
Ann Arbor:
University
Microfilms.
1973. Ethnic
Identity
of the Mons in
Thailand,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
61
(1):
203-26.
1974.
Ethnicity
and
Commerce,
American
Ethnologist
1: 437-48.
...
1976.
Friendship
in Rural
Thailand, Ethnology
15: 251-67.
166
1977. Mon Commerce and the
Dynamics
of Ethnic
Relations,
Sou?
theast Asian Journal
of
Social Science 5
(1-2):
111-22.
1982. Commerce and Ethnic
Differences:
The Case
of
the Mons
in
Thailand, Athens,
Ohio: Ohio
University
Press
Papers
in International
Studies,
Southeast Asia Series no.
59SA.
FOURNIER,
A. 1974. Les
Khasi,
une
population
mon-khmer de
l'Inde,
(1):
79-95.
FRAISSE,
A. 1948. Une civilisation de clairi?re au
Laos,
Annales de
G?ographie
310: 158-61.
1949a. Les
sauvages
de la
Nom-om,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes
Indochinoises 24
(1):
27-36.
1949b. Notes sur les Phou
Teng
et Thai
Bo,
des Etudes Indochinoises 24
(2):
51-3.
1950a. Les tribus So du Cammon
(Laos),
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des
Etudes Indochinoises 25
(2):
171-85.
1950b. Les tribus Sek et Kha de la
province
de Cammon
(Laos),
(3):
333-48.
1951. Les
villages
du
plateau
des
Boloven,
(1):
53-72.
FRIEDMAN,
Jonathan 1975.
Tribes,
States and
Transformations,
in Mau?
rice Bloch
(ed.),
Marxist
Analyses
and Social
Anthropology,
London:
Malaby
Press
(ASA
Studies
2).
GAIDE,
L. 1905. Notice
ethnographique
sur
les
principales
races
indig?nes
du Yunnan et du nord de
l'Indochine,
Revue Indochinoise 1905:
471-80,
544
52, 646-57,
703-16 and 838-54.
GAIT,
E.A. 1906.
History of Assam,
Calcutta:
Superintendent
of Gover?
nment
Printing.
GANZER,
B. 1979.
Kategorie
und Verw ants
chaftsterminologie
in der
Theorie der
pr?skriptiven Allianz,
Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
GARCIN,
F. 1891. Au Tonkin: un an chez les
Muong,
Paris: Pion.
G?RDING, E.,
and K. LINDELL 1977. Tones in Northern Kammu: A
Phonetic
Investigation,
Acta Orientalia 36: 321-32.
GAYET,
G. 1949. Evolution r?cente des
du
Sud
Indochinois,
Education 16
(June-August):
127-47.
GERBER,
T. 1951. Coutumier
Stieng,
Bulletin de ?cole
Fran?aise
d'Extr.
Orient45
(1):
227-71.
GORGONIEV,
Y-A. 1966. A Grammar
of
the Khmer
Language,
Moscow:
Nauka
Publishing
House.
GRADIN,
D. 1966. Consonantal Tone in Jeh
Phonemics,
in David Tho?
mas,
Nguyen
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
II,
Sai?
gon:
SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
1972. Rites of
Passage among
the
Jeh,
South-East Asia 2
(1):
53-61.
GRAHAM,
W.A. 1924.
Siam,
London: Alexander
Maring (2 vols),
Vol.
1.
167
GRANTHAM,
S.G. 1921. Census
of India,
Vol.
X, part
2.
GREGERSON,
K.D. 1969. The Phonemes of Middle
Vietnamese,
Bulletin
de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochinoises 44
(2):
131-93.
1976.
Tongue-Root
and
Register
in
Mon-Khmer,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu:
The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 323-69.
...
and K.D. SMITH 1973. The
Development
of To'drah
Register,
in
David Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Car
bondale,
Illinois: Centre for Vietnamese Studies.
...
, K.D. SMITH and David THOMAS 1976. The Place of Bahnar wit?
hin
Bahnaric,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic Lin?
guistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 371-421.
GREGERSON,
M. 1972. The Ethnic Minorities of
Vietnam,
South-East
Asia 2
(1):
11-17.
GROSLIER,
B-P. 1952. Introduction to P.
Bitard,
Carte
ethno-linguistique
de la
r?gion
de V unsai
(Cambodge),
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes In?
dochinoises 27
(1):
5-7.
1954. Review of J.F. Embree and W.L.
Thomas,
Ethnie
Groups of
Northern Southeast
Asia,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise 46 (2):
661-73.
GROSSIN,
P. 1925. La Province
muong
de
Hoa-binh,
Revue Indochinoise
44: 433-55.
GUERLACH,
R.P.
1884,
1895. Chez les
sauvages Bahnar,
Missions Ca?
tholiques
16:
41,
70-1 and 27: 397-9.
GUESDE,
P. 1910. Le
Cambodge
et ses
ressources,
Revue Indochinoise
1910: 218-39.
GRIGNARD,
T. 1911. Note sur une
peuplade
des
montagnes
du
Quang
binh: les
Tac-Cui,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 11
(1-2):
201-5.
GUILLEMINET,
P. 1941. Recherches sur les
croyances
des tribus du Haut
Pays
d'Annam: les Bahnar du Kontum et leurs
voisins,
les
magiciens,
Bulletin
de l'Institut Indochinois des Etudes de l'Homme 4
(1-2):
7-33.
1943. L'?conomie des tribus mois de
l'Indochine,
Revue Indochinoise
Juridique
et
Economique
21: 69-124.
1949a. Coutumes
jurudiques contemporaines
du
Pays
des Bahnars et
de leur
voisins,
et
quelques autres,
Revue Education 16
(June-August):
127-47.
1949b. La tribu des Bahnars du Kontum:
origines, mentalit?, croyan?
ces,
?tat
social, occupations,
Revue Education 16
(June-August):
47-63.
1952a. La tribu Bahnar du
Kontum,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me- Orient 45
(2):
393-561.
1952b. Coutumier de la tribu
Bahnar,
des
Sedang,
et des Jarai de
la
province
de
Kontum,
selon le coutume
appliqu?
dans les tribunaux de cette
province
de 1908 ?
1939,
Paris: Publication de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me
Orient 32
(2 vols).
168
1960.
Langues sp?ciaux
utilis?s
par
la tribu bahnar du Kontum
(Sud
Vi?t-Nam
Indochine),
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 50
(1):
117-32.
...
and R.P.J. ALBERTY 1959. Dictionnaire
bahnar,
Paris: Publicati?
ons de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 40.
GURDON,
P.R.T. 1914. The
Khasis,
London: Macmillan.
GUTELMAN,
M. 1974. L'?conomie
politique
du
pavot
?
opium
dans le
Triangle d'Or,
?tudes Rurales 53-6: 513-25.
HAGUET,
H. 1905. Notice
ethnique
sur les Moi de la
r?gion
de
Quang
ngai,
Revue Indochinoise 1905: 1419-26.
HALLETT,
H.S. 1890. A Thousand Miles on an
Elephant
in the Shan
States, Edinburgh
and London: Blackwood.
HALLIDAY,
R. 1913.
Immigration
of the Mons into
Siam,
Journal
of
the
Siam
Society
10
(3):
1-14.
1917. The
Talaings, Rangoon:
Government Press.
1922. The Mons in
Siam,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
12
(2):
69-79.
HALPERN,
J.M. 1957. Trade Patterns in
Laos, Proceedings of
the Ninth
Pacific
Science
Congress
Vol.
3, Bangkok: Department
of Science: 242-5.
1958.
Aspects of Village Life
and Culture
Change
in
Laos,
New York:
Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs.
1960. Laos and her Tribal
Problems, Michigan
Alumnus
Quarterly
67
(10):
59-67.
1964.
Economy
and
Society of
Laos: A
Brief Survey,
New Haven:
Yale
University
South-East Asian Studies
Monograph
Series 5.
HAMP,
Eric 1976. On
Mon-Khmer,
Its
Kin,
and
Principles,
in
Philip
Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publi?
cations 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 423-9.
HARDING,
H.I. 1927. K'ala
Language:
Addendum to Davies' 'Vocabula?
ries of Mon-Khmer
Languages
of Yunnan and Western
Tibet',
Journal
of
the
Burma Research
Society
27
(2):
165-8.
HARMAND,
J. 1879. De Bassac ?
Hu?,
G?ographique
de Paris 17: 75-104.
HARRIS,
G.L. et al. 1966. Area Handbook
for Thailand, Washington,
D.C: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
HART,
D. n.d. 'Draft Tribal List for
Upper Burma',
Yale
University
(roneo).
HARVEY,
G.E. 1933. Wa
Pr?cis, Rangoon.
1957. The Wa
People
of the Burma-Chinese
Border,
St.
Antony's
Papers
[Oxford]
2: 126-35.
HAUDRICOURT,
A.G. 1966. The Limits and Connections of Austroasia?
tic in the
Northeast,
in N. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
169
1966b. Notes de
g?ographie linguistique austroasiatique,
in Ba
Shin,
J. Boisselier and A.B. Griswold
(eds.), Essays offered
to G.H.
Luce,
Ascona:
Artibus
AsiaeSupplementum
23
(2 vols),
Vol. I: 131-8.
HAUPERS,
R. 1969,
Stieng Phonemics,
in Richard Johnston et al
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
HAUTEFEUILLE,
L. 1914.
Vingt jours
au
Laos,
Revue Indochinoise:
1583-94.
HAYES,
La
Vaughan
H. 1982a. The Mutation of *R in
pre-Thavung,
in
Philip
N. Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
XI,
Honolulu:
University
of
Hawaii Press.
1982b. On Daic Loans and Initial Mutations in
Thavung,
in
Philip
N.
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
XI,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
1984. The
Register System
of
Thavung,
in
Marybeth
Clark and Phi?
lip
N. Jenner
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
XII,
Honolulu
University
of Hawaii
Press.
HEADLEY,
R. 1977. A Pearic
Vocabulary,
in
Philip
N. Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
VI,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Hawaii.
HEINE-GELDERN Robert 1958. Phi
Tong Luang
and Tac
Cui,
Bulletin
of
the International Committee
on
and
Ethnological
Research 1: 31-4.
HENDERSON,
E.J.A. 1965. The
Topography
of Certain Phonetic and
Morphological
Characteristics of South East Asian
Languages, Lingua
15: 400
34.
1966. Khasi and the L-clusters in
Seventeenth-Century
Tonkinese: A
Preliminary Glance,
in Ba
Shin,
J. Boisselier and A.B. Griswold
(eds.), Essays
offered
to G.H.
Luce,
Ascona: Artibus Asie
Supplementum
23
(2 vols),
Vol. I:
139-50.
HENDERSON,
J.W. et al 1971. A rea Handbook
for Burma, Washington,
D.C: U.S. Government
Printing
Office.
HICKEY,
Gerald C 1964. The
Major
Ethnic
Groups of
the South Viet?
namese
Highlands,
Santa Monica: Rand
Corporation.
1967. The
Highland People of
South Vietnam: Social and Economic
Development,
Santa Monica: Rand
Corporation.
1982a. Sons
of
the Mountains:
Ethnohistory of
the Vietnamese Cen?
tral
Highlands,
to
1954,
University
Press.
1982b. Free in the Forest:
Ethnohistory of
the Vietnamese Central
Highlands, 1954-76,
University
Press.
HLA PLE 1967. A Tentative List of Mon Loan Words in
Burmese,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
50
(1):
71-94.
HOANG M. 1976. La Thailande et ses
populations,
Brussels: Editions
Complexe.
HODSON,
T.C 1921. The Garo and Khasi
Marriage Systems Compared,
Man in India 1
(2):
106-27.
HOEFFEL,
E. 1936.
Lexique franco-biat, Saigon: Imprimerie
de l'Union
Nguyen
Van Cua.
170
HOFFET,
J-H. 1933. Les Moi de la cha?ne
annamitique
entre Tourane et
les
Boloven, Terre, Air,
Mer
-
La
G?ographie
59
(1):
1-43.
HOURS,
Bernard 1973a. Les rites de d?fense chez les Lav? du
Sud-Laos,
(3):
31-60.
1973b.
Rapports inter-ethniques
dans le Sud-Laos:
changements
so?
ciaux et
r?gression
rituelle chez les
Lav?,
Paris: Orstom.
HUARD, P.,
and A. MAURICE 1939. Les
Mnongs
du
plateau
central
indochinois,
Bulletin de l'Institut Indochinois
pour
(1):
27-148.
HUFFMAN,
Franklin E. 1976a. The Relevance of Lexicostatistics to Mon
Khmer
Languages,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Ocea?
nic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 539-74.
1976b. The
Register
Problem in Fifteen Mon-Khmer
Languages,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1: 575-89.
1986.
Bibliography
and Index
of
Mainland Southeast Asian
Langua?
ges
and
Linguistics,
University
Press.
HUTCHINSON, E.H.,
and Eric SEIDENFADEN 1934. The Lawa of Nor?
thern
Siam,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
27
(2):
153-77.
IWATA KEIJI 1959. Ethnic
Groups
in the
Valley
of the Nam
Song
and
Nam Lik: Their
Geographic
Distribution and Some
Aspects
of Social
Change,
Japanese
Journal
of Ethnology
23
(12):
63-79.
IZIKOWITZ,
Karl Gustav 1941.
Fastening
the Soul: Some
Religious
Traits
among
the
Lamet, G?teborg H?gskolar ?rskriftA7 (14):
3-32.
1943. The
Community
House of the
Lamet,
Ethnos 8: 19-60.
1951a.
Lamet,
Hill Peasants in French
Indochina,
G?teborg:
Etno
logiska
Studier 17.
1951b.
Lamet, Jungle
Peasants of
Indochina,
Eastern
Anthropologist
4: 124-32.
1969.
Neighbours
in
Laos,
in F. Barth
(ed.),
Ethnic
Groups
and Bo?
undaries, Bergen
etc.: Scandinavian
University
Books for
Universitetsforlaget.
JACQUES,
C 1970. The
Inscriptions
of
Khmer,
Nokor Khmer 2: 18-25.
JANNEAU,
G. 1914. Le
Cambodge d'autrefois,
Revue Indochinoise 4:
405-18 and 6: 617-32.
JANZEN,
H.
1976,
Structure and Function of Clauses and Phrases in
Pale,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Special Linguistic
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 1 :
669-91.
...
and M. JANZEN 1972. Grammar
Analysis
of Pale Clauses and Phra?
ses,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
55: 47-99.
171
J?RUSALEMY,
M. 1949. Les
Sedangs,
Education 16
(June-August):
7-10.
JOHNSTON,
B.M. 1976.
Kuy,
in W.A.
Smalley (ed.),
Phonemes and
Orthography: Language Planning
in Ten
Minority Languages of Thailand,
University,
Pacific
Linguistics
Series C 43.
JOUIN,
B.Y. 1949a. La mort et le tombe: l'abandon de la
tombe,
Paris:
Travaux et M?moires de l'Institut 52.
1949b. Les
M'n?ngs,
Revue Education 16
(June-August):
35-6.
1950.
Enqu?te d?mographique
au Darlac
1943-1944,
Bulletin de la
(3):
281-97.
KALAB,
M. 1968.
Study
of a Cambodian
Village,
The
Geographical
Jour?
nal 134: 521-37.
1976. Monastic
Education,
Social
Mobility,
and
Village
Structure
in
Cambodia,
in D.J. Banks
(ed.), Changing
Asia,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
KANIA, R.S.,
and S.H. KANIA 1979. The So
People
of
Kusuman,
Nor?
theastern
Thailand,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
67
(1):
74-110.
KAUFFMAN,
H.E.
1972,
1977. Some Social and
Religious
Institutions of
the Lawa
(Northwest Thailand),
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
60
(1):
237-306
and 65
(1):
181-226 et
seq.
KEMLIN,
J.E. 1909-10. Les rites
agraires
des
Reungao,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 9
(3):
493-522 and 10
(1):
131-58.
1910. Les
songes
et leur
interpr?tation
chez les
Reungao,
Bulletin de
l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 10
(3):
507-38.
1917. Alliances chez les
Reungao,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr.
Orient 17
(4):
1-119.
KERR,
A.F.G. 1924.
Ethnologie Notes,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
18
(2):
135-44.
1927. Two 'Lawa'
Vocabularies,
Journal
of
the Siam
Sociey
21
(1):
53-63.
KHUON SOKAMPHU 1975. The Case of
Diversity
in Cambodian
Dialects,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
63
(2):
78-85.
KRAISI NIMMANAHEMINDA 1963. The Mrabri
Language,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
51
(2):
179-84.
1965. An Inscribed Silver-Plate Grant to the Lawa of Boh
Luang,
Felicitation Volumes
of
Southeast Asian Studies Presented to His
Highness
Prince Dhaninivat
K.B.B., Bangkok:
Siam
Society (2 vols),
Vol. 2: 233-8 et
seq.
...
and J. HARTLAND-SWANN 1962.
Expedition
to the 'Khon Pa'
(or
Phi
Tong Luang?)
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
50
(2):
165-86.
KUN CHANG 1967. National
Languages,
in T. Sebeok
(ed.),
Current
Trends in
Linguistics,
Vol.
2,
The
Hague
etc: Mouton.
KUNSTADTER,
Peter 1965. The
Luaq (Lawa) of
Northern Thailand:
Aspects of
Social
Structure, Agriculture
and
Religion,
Princeton: Center of
International
Studies,
Research
Monographs
21.
172
1966a. Residential and Social
Organization
of the Lawa of Northern
Thailand,
Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology
22: 61-84.
1966b. The
Luaq
and Skaw Karen of
Maehongson Province,
Nor?
thwestern
Thailand,
in Peter Kunstadter
(ed.),
Southeast Asian
Tribes,
Mi?
norities and
Nations,
Princeton: Princeton
University
Press
(2 vols),
Vol. 2:
Chapter
17.
1974.
Usage
et tenure des terres chez les Lua'
(Thailande),
Etudes
Rurales 53-6: 449-66.
1978. Subsistence
Agricultural
Economics of Lua' and Karen Hill
Farmers,
Mae
Sariang District,
Northwestern
Thailand,
in Peter Kunstadter
(ed.),
Farmers in the
Forest,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Hawaii.
1983.
Animism, Buddhism,
and
Christianity: Religion
in the Life
of the Lua'
People
of Pa
Pae,
North-West
Thailand,
in John McKinnon and
Wanat Bhruksasri
(eds.), Highlanders of Thailand,
Kuala
Lumpur:
Oxford
University
Press.
et al. 1978. The Environment of Northern
Thailand,
in Peter Kunst?
adter
(ed.),
Farmers in the
Forest,
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
(ed.)
1967. Southeast Asian
Tribes, Minorities,
and
Nations,
Prin?
ceton: Princeton
University
Press.
LAFONT,
P-B. 1967. Notes sur
les structures sociales des
Mnong
Rlam
du
Centre-Vietnam,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 53
(2):
675-83.
LANESSON,
J-L. de 1889. L'Indo-Chine
fran?aise,
Paris: F. Alcon.
LAUBIE,
Y. 1939. Tablettes divinatoires d'une
peuplade Kha,
Bulletins
et Travaux de l'Institut Indochinois
pour
(2):
221-9.
L
AVALLE,
A. 1901. Notes
ethnographique
sur diverses tribus du Sud-Est
de
l'Indo-Chine,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 1
(4):
291
311.
LEACH,
Edmund R. 1954. Political
Systems of Highland
Burma: A
Study
of
Kachin Social
Structure,
London: G. Bell.
LE
BAR,
F.M. 1967. Observations on the Movement of
Khmuq
into Nor?
thern
Thailand,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
55
(1):
67-79.
et al. 1964. Ethnic
Groups of
Mainland Southeast
Asia,
New Haven:
Human Relations Area Files Press.
...
and A. STUDDARD
(eds.)
1960. Laos: Its
People,
Its
Society,
Its
Culture,
New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press.
LECLERE,
A. 1898. Les
Pnongs, peuple sauvage
de
l'Indochine,
M?moires
de la Soci?t?
d'Ethnographie
1898
(Oriental
and American
Section):
137-208.
1909. Les
S?auch,
(2):
91-114.
LEF?VRE-PONTALIS,
P. 1892. Notes sur
quelques populations
du nord
de
l'Indochine,
Journal
Asiatique (8e s?rie)
19: 237-69.
173
1896. Notes sur
quelques populations
du nord de
l'Indochine,
Journal
Asiatique (9e s?rie)
8: 129-54.
LEGAY,
R. and K'MLOI DAY GOT 1971. Pri?res lac
accompagnant
les
rites
agraires,
(2):
111-213.
LEGAY,
R. and TRAN-VAN-TOT 1967. Essai
bibliographique pratique
sur les
populations montagnards
du Sud-Vietnam
(1935-1966),
Bulletin de la
(3):
257-99.
LEGAY,
R. 1975. Position de th?se: sraeou la rizi?re chez les
Lac,
Asie du
(2):
237-9.
LEGER,
D. 1971. Notes sur les dialectes
Bahnar,
Asie du Sud-Est et
Monde Insulindien 2
(4):
44-9.
1974. La maison bahnar et ses
dependences d'apr?s
des documents
in?dits de P.
Guilleminet,
(2):
25-87.
LE
MAY, Reginald
1926. An Asian
Arcady:
The Land and
Peoples of
Northern
Siam, Cambridge:
William Heffer.
LE
PICH?N,
J. 1938. Les chasseurs de
sang (Ka Tu),
Bulletin des Amis
du Vieux Hu? 25: 357-409.
LEROI-GOURAN,
A. and J. POIRIER
(eds.)
1953.
Ethnologie
de l'Union
Fran?aise,
Paris:
Pays
d'Outre
Mer,
s?ries 6
(2 vols).
LE VAN HAO 1971. Les ?tudes et recherches
ethnologiques
au Nord Viet
Nam,
Etudes Vietnamiennes 32: 9-54.
LEWITZ,
Saveros 1972. Deux cas de doublets en
khmer,
in J.M. Thomas
and L. Bernot
(eds.), Langues
et
techniques,
nature et
soci?t?,
Vol. I:
Approche
lingistique,
1976. Note on Words for Male and Female in Old Khmer and Modern
Khmer,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austro?
asiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics
Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 761-71.
LINDELL,
K. 1974. A
Vocabulary
of the Yuan Dialect of the Kammu
Language,
Acta Orientalia 36: 191-207.
...
, J-?. SWAHN and DAMRONG TAYANIN 1977. A Kammu
Story:
Listener's
Tales,
Lund: Curzon Press.
LINGUISTIC SURVEY OF BURMA
(1917). Rangoon: Superintendant
of Government
Printing.
INDIA,
Vol. II: The Mon-Khmer and Siamese
Chinese Families
(1904).
Calcutta:
Superintendant
of Government
Printing.
LIN YUEH-HUA 1961. The
Minority Peoples
of
Yunnan,
China Recon?
structs
(December):
26-9.
LONG SEAM 1981. Contacts externes des
langues m?n-khmer,
Bulletin
de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
LOWIS,
C.C. 1901. Census
of
India Vol.
XII, part
1.
1906. A Note on the
Palaungs
of
Hsipaw
and
Tawngpeng, Ethnogra?
phic Survey of India,
Burma no. 1.
1908.
Imperial
Gazeteer
of
India:
Burma,
Vol.
I,
Calcutta:
Super?
intendant of Government
Printing.
174
1910. The Tribes
of Burma, Rangoon: Superintendant
of Govern?
ment
Printing.
LUCE,
G.H. 1931. Note on the
Peoples
of Burma in the 12th-13th
Century,
Census
of
India Vol.
XI, part
1: 296-302 and
Appendix
F.
1953. Mons of the
Pagan Dynasty,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
36: 1-19.
1959a. Notes on the
Peoples
of Burma in the 12th-13th
Century
A.D.,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
42
(1):
52-74.
1959b. Old
Kyaukse
and the
Coming
of the
Burmese,
Journal
of
the
Burma Research
Society
42
(1):
75-108.
1965.
Danaw,
a
Dying
Austroasiatic
Language, Lingua
14: 98-129.
1970. Old Burma
-
Early Pagan,
Ascona: Artibus Asi
(3 vols).
1972.
Riang-lang:
Parable of the
Prodigal Son,
in J.M.C Thomas
and L. Bernot
(eds.), Langues
et
techniques,
nature et
soci?t?,
Vol. I:
Appro?
che
linguistique,
MACEY,
P. 1906. Etude
ethnographique
sur diverses tribus
aborig?nes
ou
autochtones habitant les
provinces
des
Hua-phano-ha-tang-hoc
et du
Cammon,
au
Laos,
Actes du XlVe
Congr?s
International des
Orientalistes,
le
Tome,
5e
Section: 3-63.
1907a. Etudes
ethnographiques
sur les
Khas,
Revue Indochinoise
1907: 240-9.
1907b. Etudes
ethnographiques
et
linguistiques
sur les k'katiam
Pong-houk
Thai
Pong,
MAHAPATRA,
L.K. 1960. Some
Urgent
Tasks of Research in
India,
Bulle?
tin
of
the International Committee on
and
Ethnological
Research 3: 52-62.
MAIER,
J.G. 1969. Cua
Phonemes,
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
MAITRE,
H. 1912. Les
jungles
moi: mission Henri
Ma?tre,
Paris: Larose.
MALLERET, L.,
and G. TABOULET 1937.
Groupes ethniques
de l'Indo?
chine
Fran?aise,
Paris and
Saigon:
Publications de la Soci?t? des Etudes
Indochinoises.
MANGRAI,
S.S. 1965. The Shan States and the British
Annexation,
It?
haca: Cornell
University
Southeast Asia
Program,
Data
Paper
57.
MANLEY,
T.M. 1972. Outline
of
Sre
Structure,
Honolulu:
University
of
Hawaii
Press,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 12.
MANOT,
C 1972. Mon
Wedding,
Proettebatr
Vity?asthan
Khm?r-M?n 1:
47-53.
MARGUET,
E. 1906.
Monographie
de la
province
r?sidentielle de
Pursat,
MARING, J.M.,
and E.G. MARING 1973. Historical and Cultural Dic?
tionary of Burma,
Metuchen: Scarecrow Press.
MARNEFFE, H.,
and L. BEZACIER 1940. Les
groupes sanguins
en In?
dochine du
Nord,
pour
l'Etude de l'Homme
3
(2):
57-100.
175
MARTIN,
Marie A. 1974a. Les
Pear, agriculteurs-cueilleurs
du Massif des
Cardamones
(Cambodge),
Etudes Rurales 53-6: 439-47.
1974b.
Remarques g?n?rales
sur les dialectes
pear,
Asie du Sud-Est
et Monde Insulindien 5
(1):
25-37.
1974c.
Esquisse phonologique
du
somree,
Insulindien 5
(1):
97-106.
1975. Les dialectes
pear
dans leurs
rapports
avec les
langues
natio?
nales,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
63
(2):
86-95.
MARTINI,
F. 1951. Notes
d'etymologie khm?re,
(2):
219-23.
1964. Review of W.A.
Smalley,
Outlines
of Khmuq Structure,
Bulle?
tin de la Soci?t?
Linguistique
de Paris 59
(2):
283-5.
1966. Review of H.L. Shorto et
al, Bibliography of
Mon-Khmer and
Tai
Linguistics,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 53
(1):
300-3.
MASPERO,
G. 1929. Un
empire
colonial
fran?aise: L'Indochine,
Paris
and Brussels: Les ?ditions G.
van
Oest,
Vol. I.
MASPERO,
H. 1912. Etudes sur la
phon?tique historique
de la
langue
annamite
-
les
initiales,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 12
(1):
1-127.
1952.
L'Annamite;
Les
langues mon-khmer,
both in A.Meillet and
M. Cohen
(eds.),
Les
langues
du
monde,
Paris: CNRS
(2nd edn.).
1955. Mat?riaux
pour
l'?tude de la
langue t'?ng,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 47
(2):
457-507.
MATHUR,
P.R.G. 1979. The Khasi
of Meghalaya (Study
in Tribalism and
Religion),
New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
MATRAS,
J. 1973. Possession et
proc?d?s th?rapeutiques
chez les Brou
du
Cambodge,
(1):
71-97.
and Michel FERLUS 1971. Les
langues austroasiatiques,
Asie du
(4):
55-93.
and Michel FERLUS 1972. Pr?sentation des feuilles de cartes de la
famille
austroasiatique
et de la famille austron?sienne
continentale,
Asie du
(4):
13-16.
and M. MARTIN 1972. Contribution ?
l'ethnobotanique
des Brou
(Cambodge
-
Province
Ratanakiri),
Journal
d'Agriculture Tropicale
et de Bo?
tanique Appliqu?e (1-3):
1-49 and
(4-5):
93-139.
MATRAS-TROUBETSKOY,
J. 1974a.
L'essartage
chez les Brou du Cam?
bodge: organisation
collective et autonomie
familiale,
Etudes Rurales 53-6:
421-37.
1974b. Elements de vocabulaire
brou,
Insulindien 5
(1):
137-40.
1975. ?l?ments
pour
l'?tude du
village
et de l'habitation
brou,
Asie
du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 6
(2):
199-228.
1978. L'ordinaire et la f?te: la cuisine chez les brou
(Cambodge
-
176
Province de
Ratanakiri),
(3-4):
111
40.
1979. Conduire celui
qui part:
fun?railles et rites de
s?paration
chez
les
Brou,
m Alice Cartier
(ed.), Langue formelle, langue quotidienne: quelques
langues d'Asie,
Paris: Universit? Ren? Descartes.
1980. Sacrifice et
possession
chez les Brou: une revanche des fem?
mes?,
(1-4):
415-29.
MAUNG THA HLA 1973. Ethnie Communalism in Thailand and
Burma,
Journal
of
the Burma Research
Society
56: 31-45.
MEYER,
C. 1966.
Kambuja
and
Kirata,
?tudes Cambodiennes 5: 17-33.
MIGOZZI,
J. 1973.
Cambodge, faits
et
probl?mes
de
population,
Paris:
?ditions de CNRS.
MILLER,
J.D. 1972. Bru
Kinship,
Southeast Asia 2
(1):
62-70.
MILNE,
L. 1921. An
Elementary Palaung Grammar,
Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
1924. The Home
of
an Eastern
Clan,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MI MI KHAING 1946. Burmese
Family,
London:
Longmans,
Green &
Co.
MITANI,
Y. 1977.
Palaung
Dialects: A
Preliminary Comparison,
South
East Asian Studies 15
(2):
193-212.
MITRA,
A.K. 1956. The
Riang
of
Tripura,
Bulletin
of
the
Department of
Anthropology
5
(2):
21-120.
MOLE,
R.L. 1970. The
Montagnards of
South Vietnam: A
Study of
Nine
Tales, Rutland,
Vermont: CE. Tuttle.
MORDANT,
Commandant 1934.
Monographie
du Ve territoire
militaire,
Extr?me-Asie 83:
589-96,
86: 729-36 and 87: 782-5.
MORGAN-WEBB,
C. 1911. Census
of India,
Vol.
IX,
Part 1.
MORIZON,
R. 1932. Les
populations
Pear des
Cardamones,
Extr?me-Asie
67
(August):
684-8.
1936. Essai sur le dialecte des
populations
Pear des
Cardamones,
Paris: Editions Internationales.
MUKHERJEE,
B. 1959. Trends of
Changes
in the
Riang
Culture Since
Independence,
Bulletin
of
the
Department of Anthropology
8
(2):
103-8.
1960. Cross-cousin
Marriage among
the
Riang, Anthropos
55: 734-8.
MUNSON,
F.P. et al. 1963. U.S.
Army
Area Handbook
for Cambodia,
Washington,
D.C.:
Special Operations
Research Office.
NAG,
M.K. 1965. Effects of
Christianity
on a Few
Aspects
of Khasi Cul?
ture,
Bulletin
of
the
Anthropological Survey of
India 14
(1-2):
1-34.
NAI PAN HLA 1976.
Comparative Study
of Old Mon
Epigraphy
and
Modern
Mon,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic Lin?
guistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 891-918.
1986. Remnant of a Lost Nation and their
Cognate
Words to Old
Mon
Epigraph,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
74: 122-55.
177
NAKANE,
Chie 1967. Garos and Khasi: A
Comparative Study
in Matri
lineal
Systems,
Paris: Mouton.
NATARAYAN,
N. 1977. The
Missionary among
the
Khasi,
New Delhi:
Sterling
Publishers.
NEEDHAM, Rodney
1960a. Alliance and Classification
among
the
Lamet,
Sociologus
10: 97-108.
1960b. Research
Projects
in Southeast
Asia,
Bulletin
of
the Inter?
national Committee
on
and
Ethnological
Research 3:
63-71.
NEIS,
P. 1883.
Explorations
chez les
sauvages
de l'Indochine ? l'Est du
M?kong,
G?ographique
de Paris 4: 481-504.
NER,
M. 1930. Au
pays
de droit
maternel,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
NGUYEN DANG LIEM 1978. The National
Language Policy
and the
Minority Groups
in the
Republic
of
Vietnam,
in
A.Q.
Perez et al.
(eds.),
Pa?
pers from
the
Conference
on the Standardization
of
Asian
Languages, Manila,
Philippines,
Dec.
19-21, 1974,
University.
NGUYEN TU CHI 1971.
Croquis Muong,
?tudes Vietnamiennes 32: 55
161.
NGUYEN XU AN LINH 1976. Notes sur les
rapports
des minorit?s ethni?
ques
et les authorit?s
politiques
au
Sud
Vietnam,
Pluriel/D?bat
6: 27-45.
NISHIDA,
T. 1973. A
Preliminary Study
of the Bisu
Language
-
a Lan?
guage
of Northern Thailand
Recently
Discovered
by Us,
in David
Dellinger
et al
(eds.), Papers
in South East Asian
Linguistics 3,
Canberra: Australian
National
University.
OBAYASHI,
T. 1964. The Lawa and
Sgaw
Karen in Northwestern Thai?
land,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
52
(2):
199-216.
ODENDAL,
M. 1894. Les routes de l'Annam au
M?-kong,
Revue Indochi?
noise 12: 131-61 and 13: 1-50.
OLIVIER,
G. 1968.
Anthropologie
des
Cambodgiens,
Paris: Publications
de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient
(hors s?rie).
ORANS,
Martin 1955.
[Contribution in]
M.G.
Zadrozny (ed.),
Area Hand?
book on
Cambodia, Chicago:
O'SULLIVAN,
K. 1962. Concentric
Conformity
in Ancient Khmer Kins?
hip Organization,
Bulletin
of
the Institute
for Ethnology,
Acad?mica Sinica
13: 87-98.
PAKEM,
B. 1972. The Socio-Political
System
of the Jaintia Tribes of
Assam: An
Analysis
of
Continuity
and
Change,
in Suresh
Singh (ed.),
Tribal
Situations in
India,
Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced
Study.
PAOLEWITCH,
0.1930.
Quelques
notes
d'ethnographie: M?ns-Pegouans,
Khmers ou
autochtones,
(3):
267-73.
178
PARKIN,
Robert J. 1986b.
Prescriptive
Alliance in Southeast Asia: The
Austroasiatic
Evidence, Sociologus
36
(1):
52-64.
1988b.
Prescription
and Transformation in Mon-Khmer
Kinship
Ter?
minologies, Sociologus
38
(1):
55-68.
ms-b. Descent in Old Cambodia:
Deconstructing
a Matrilineal
Hy?
pothesis.
PAVIE,
M.A. 1881. Excursion dans le
Cambodge
et le
royaume
de
Siam,
Excursions et Reconnaissances 10: 99-146.
1902. Mission Pavie
-
Indochine:
Anthropologie; Pr?histoire,
Paris.
PERCHERON,
P. 1934.
Magie
et sorcellerie chez les
Mois,
La
G?ographie
62: 134-60.
PHAN HU'U DAT 1978. Les
premiers acquis
de
l'ethnologie vietnamienne,
(1-2):
155-77.
PHILLIPS,
R.L. 1973. Vowel Distribution in
Hr?,
in David Thomas and
Nguy?n
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Center for
Vietnamese Studies.
PHRA PETCHABUNBURI 1921. The Lawa or Chaubun in
Changvad
Petchabun,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
14
(1):
19-43.
PHRA WINIT WANADOM 1926. Some Information
Concerning
the 'Phi
Tawng Luang'
Obtained From a Few Residents of a
Village
in the Nam Wa
District,
East of
Nan,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
20
(2):
171-4.
PIAT,
M. 1962.
Quelques correspondances
entre le Khmer et le
Bru,
lan?
gue montagnard
du
Centre-Vietnam,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des ?tudes In?
dochinoises 37
(3):
311-23.
PINNOW,
H-J. 1959. Versuch einer historischem Lautlehre der Kharia
Sprache,
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
PITCHFORD,
V.C 1937. The Wild Wa States and Lake
Nawngkhio,
The
Geographical
Journal 90: 223-32.
PLAYFAIR,
A. 1909. The
Garos,
London: David Nutt.
POR?E-MASPERO,
E. 1961.
Kr?ng p?li
et rites de la
maison, Anthropos
56:
179-251,
548-628 and 883-929.
1969. Etudes sur les rites
agraires
des
Cambodgiens,
Vol
III,
The
Hague:
Monde d'outre-mer
pass?
et
pr?sent (3 vols).
et al. 1958. C?r?monies
priv?es
des
Cambodgiens,
Phnom Penh:
?ditions de l'Institut
Bouddhique.
PUGH, B.M, 1969,
The
Garos,
The
Khasis,
The
Jaintias,
in S. Barkataki
(ed.),
Tribes
of Assam,
New Delhi: National Book Trust.
1976. The
Story of
a
Tribal,
Delhi: Orient
Longman.
QUARITCH WALES,
H.G. 1969.
Dvaravati,
the Earliest
Kingdom of
Siam,
London: Bernard
Quaritch.
1973.
Early Burma,
Old Siam: A
Comparative Commentary,
Lon?
don: Bernard
Quaritch.
QUEGINIER,
M. 1943. Note sur une
peuplade
moi de la chaine anna
mitique
sud: les Cau
S'r?,
pour
l'Etude de
l'Homme 6: 395-401.
179
RAQUEZ,
A. 1902.
Pages Laotiennes,
Hanoi: Schneider.
...
1905,
1906. Au
Laos,
Revue Indochinoise 1905: 1783-1810 and 1906:
123-39.
RAYNAUD,
Dr 1962. ?tudes des
phon?mes vietnamiens,
Bulletin de la
(2):
117-253.
REINACH,
L. de 1911. Le
Laos,
Paris.
ROUX,
H. 1927. Les Tsa
Khmu,
Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me
Orient 27: 169-222.
ROY,
David 1936.
Principles
of Khasi
Culture, Folk-Lore,
47: 375-93.
...
1938. The Place of the Khasi in the
World,
Man in India 18: 132-4.
ROY,
P. 1964.
Christianity
and the
Khasis,
Man in India 44
(2):
105-15.
ROY,
S.C 1921. Khasi
Kinship Terms,
Man in India 1
(3):
233-238d.
SACCHIERO,
G.B. 1890. Alcuni cenni sulla Tribu dei
Palaung,
Bollettino
d?lia Societ?
Geogr?fica
Italiana 1890: 920-5.
SCHROCK,
J.L. et al. 1966.
Minority Groups
in the
Republic of Vietnam,
Washington,
D.C.:
Department
of the
Series.
1972.
Minority Groups
in North
Vietnam, Washington,
D.C: De?
partment
of the
Series.
SCOTT,
J.G. 1896. The Wild Wa: A
Head-Hunting Race,
Asiatic
Quart?
erly
Review 1
(1-2):
138-52.
1901.
Wa,
Census
of
India Vol.
I, Ethnographic Appendix:
214-21.
1909. Burma: A Handbook
of Practical,
Commercial and Political
Information,
London: A.
Moring.
1932. Burma and
Beyond,
London:
Grayson
and
Grayson.
SEIDENFADEN,
Eric 1918. Some Notes about the
Chaubun,
a
Disappea?
ring
Tribe in the Korat
Province,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
12
(3):
1-11.
1919. Further Notes about the
Chaubun, etc.,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
13
(3):
47-53.
1926. The Kha
Tong Lu'ang,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
20
(1):
41-8.
1940. The Lawa of
Umphai
and Middle Me
Ping,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
32
(1):
29-36.
1943. Review of R.
Baradat,
'Les S?mre
ou
Pe?r',
Journal
of
the
Siam
Society
34
(1):
73-80.
1950. Notes to
Williams-Hunt, 'Irregular
Earthworks in Eastern
Siam: An Air
Survey', Antiquity
24
(93):
35-6.
1952. The Kui
People
of Cambodia and
Siam,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
39
(2):
144-80.
1956. An
Appreciation
of Colonel Henri Roux's
'Quelques
minorit?s
ethniques
du Nord-Indochine'
(France-Asie
Jan.-Feb.
1954),
Journal
of
the
Siam
Society
43
(2):
143-61.
...
1958. The Thai
Peoples, Bangkok:
The Siam
Society.
180
SHADAP-SEN,
N.C. 1981. The
Origin
and
Early History of
the Khasi
Synteng People,
Calcutta: KLM.
SHAFER,
Robert 1940. L'Annamite et le
Tibeto-Birman,
Bulletin de
l'Ecole
Fran?aise
d'Extr?me-Orient 40
(2):
439-42.
1948. ?tudes
sur
l'austroasien,
Linguistique
de
Paris 48
(1):
111-58.
SHARAN,
M.K. 1974. Studies in Sanskrit
Inscriptions of
Ancient Cam?
bodia,
New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
SHORTO,
H.L. 1960. Word and
Syllable
Patterns in
Palaung,
Bulletin
of
the School
of
Oriental and
African
Studies 23: 544-57.
1962. A
Dictionary of
Modern
Spoken Mon,
Oxford: Oxford Univer?
sity
Press.
1963. The 32
Myos
in the Medieval Mon
Kingdom,
Bulletin
of
the
School
of
Oriental and
African
Studies 26: 572-91.
1965. The
Interpretation
of Archaic
Writing Systems, Lingua
14:
88-97.
1973. Three Mon-Khmer Word
Families,
Bulletin
of
the School
of
Oriental and
African
Studies 36
(2):
374-81.
1979. The
Linguistic Protohistory
of Mainland South East
Asia,
in
R.B. Smith and W. Watson
(eds.), Early
South East Asia:
Essays
in Archaeo?
logy, History
and Historical
Geography,
New York and Kuala
Lumpur:
Oxford
University
Press.
SIMMONET,
C. 1967. Vietnam: Mission on the Grand
Plateaus,
New
York:
Maryknoll
Publishers.
SINHA,
A.P. 1967. Social Structure of a Pnar
Village,
Man in India 47:
189-99.
SION,
J. 1949. Les Bahnars
Jolongs
de la Province de
Kontum,
Revue
Education 16
(June-August):
17-20.
SMALLEY,
W.A. 1954. Sr? Phonemes and
Syllables,
Journal
of
the Ame?
rican Oriental
Society
74: 217-22.
1965.
Ciang:
Khmu' Culture
Hero,
in Felicitation Volumes
of
Sou?
theast Asian Studies Presented to His
Highness
Prince Dhaninivat
K.B.B.,
Bangkok:
Siam
Society (2 vols),
Vol. 1: 41-54.
1973.
Bibliography
of
Khmu',
in David Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh
Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Center for Vietnamese Stu?
dies.
SMITH,
K.D. 1967a. A
Sedang Vocabulary, Saigon
and Kontum:
Depart?
ment of
Education/SIL.
1967b.
Sedang Dialects,
Bulletin de la Soci?t? des Etudes Indochi?
noises 42
(3):
193-255.
1968.
Laryngealisation
and
De-Laryngealisation
in
Sedang
Phone
mics, Linguistics
38: 52-69.
1969a.
Sedang Ethnodialects,
Studies in
Linguistics
11
(5):
143-7.
1969b.
Sedang Affixation,
(eds.),
Mon
Khmer Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
181
1973a.
Denasolaryngealisation
in
Sedang Folk-Linguistics,
in David
Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale:
Center for Vietnamese Studies.
1973b. More on
Sedang Ethnodialects,
in David Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Center for Vietnamese
Studies.
1975.
Phonology
and
Syntax
or
Sedang:
A Vietnam Mon-Khmer
Language,
Ann Arbor:
University
Microfilms.
SMITH,
R.L. 1973c.
Reduplication
in
Ngeq,
in David Thomas and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Center for Vietnamese
Studies.
SMITHIES,
M. 1972.
Village
Mons of
Bangkok,
Journal
of
the Siam So?
ciety
60
(1):
307-32.
SMYTH,
H.
Warrington
1898. Five Years in Siam
-
From 1891 to 1896:
Vol.
I,
London: John
Murray (2 vols).
SPENCER,
L.E. 1968. Notes on
the Jaintia
Dialect,
Journal
of
the Assam
Research
Society
18: 1-21.
SRISAVASDI,
B.C. 1963. The Hill Tribes
of Siam, Bangkok:
Khun Aroon.
STEINBERG,
D.J. et al. 1959. Cambodia: Its
People,
Its
Society,
Its
Culture,
New Haven: Human Relations Area Files Press.
STEVENSON,
H.N.C 1944. The Hill
Peoples of Burma,
London: Lon?
gmans
(Burma Pamphlets
no.
6).
SVANTESSON,
J-D. 1983. Kammu
Phonology
and
Morphology,
Lund:
Gleerup.
et al. 1981. Mon-Khmer
Languages
in
Yunnan,
Asie du Sud-Est et
Monde Insulindien 12
(1-2):
91-100.
TAILLARD,
P. 1942. Les
Saoch,
pour
l'Etude de L'Homme 5
(2):
15-45.
TAN-KIM-HUON 1963.
G?ographie
du
Cambodge,
de l'Asie des moussons
et des
principales puissances,
Phnom Penh: Commission des Manuels.
TAUPIN,
M. 1888. Huit
jours
au
pays Braous;
(2):
49-64.
THOMAS,
David. D. 1964. A
Survey
of Austroasiatic and Mon-Khmer
Comparative Studies,
in David D. Thomas et al.
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
I, Saigon: SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
1966a. Mon-Khmer
Subgroupings
in
Vietnam,
in N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Linguistics,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
1969. Mon-Khmer in North
Vietnam,
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
1971. Chrau
Grammar,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 7.
1973. A Note on the Branches of
Mon-Khmer,
in David Thomas
and
Nguyen
Dinh Hoa
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
IV,
Carbondale: Center
for Vietnamese Studies.
182
...
and R.K. HEADLEY 1970. More
on Mon-Khmer
Subgroupings,
Lin?
gua
25
(4):
398-418.
...
and M. SMITH 1967.
Proto-Jeh-Halang, Zeitschrift f?r Phonetik,
Sprachenwissenschaft,
und
Kommunikationsforschung
20
(1-2):
157-75.
...
and THO SANG LUC 1966. Chrau
Vocabulary, Saigon: Department
of Education.
THOMAS, Dorothy
1966b. Chrau
Intonation,
in David
Thomas, Nguy?n
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
II, Saigon: SIL/Saigon
Circle of
Saigon.
...
1972. Chrau
Respect,
South-East Asia 2
(1):
18-25 and 91-3.
THOMPSON,
L.C. 1976.
Proto-Viet-Muong Phonology,
in
Philip Jenner,
L.C.
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu:
The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publications 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 1113-1203.
TR?GER,
G.L. 1963. Review of W.A.
Smalley,
Outlines
of Khmuq
Struc?
ture,
Studies in
Linguistics
17: 103-4.
TRANKY,
M. 1965. Les
Kuys,
?tudes
Cambodgiennes
1965
(Oct.-Dec):
27-31.
TRIER, Jesper
1981. The Khon Pa of Northern Thailand: An
Enigma,
Current
Anthropology
22
(3):
291-3.
TRINQUET,
M. 1908. Le
poste
administratif de
Lang
Ri
(Quang-Ngai),
1912. Essai de vocabulaire
Francais-Moi-Kare,
Revue Indochinoise
2:
309-17,
417-27.
U LE PE WIN 1958. Some
Aspects
of Burmese
Culture,
Journal
of
the
Burma Research
Society
41: 19-38.
VARIOUS 1975. Review of Various
1975,
Problems
of Minority Groups
in
North
Vietnam,
(1-2):
279-84.
VICKERY,
M. 1973. Review of H.L.
Shorto,
A
Dictionary of
the Mon
Inscriptions from
the Sixth to the Sixteenth
Centuries,
Journal
of
the Siam
Society
61
(2):
205-9.
VOLLMAN,
W. 1973. Notes sur les relations
inter-ethniques
au
Cambodge
du XIXe
si?cle,
(2):
171-211.
VU THANH DAT 1968. Notes on the
Vankieu,
Vietnamese Studies 15:
166-74.
WALL,
Barabara 1975. Les
Nya
H?n: Etude
ethnographique
d'une
popu?
lation du Plateau Bolovens
(Sud-Laos),
Vientiane: Editions
Vithagna.
WATSON,
R.L. 1964. Pacoh
Phonemes,
in David D. Thomas et al.
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
I, Saigon: SIL/Linguistic
Circle of
Saigon.
1966. Clause to Sentence Gradations in
Pacoh, Lingua
16: 166-89.
1969a. A Note on
Ta-oi, Nge',
and
Nyaheun,
in Richard Johnston et
al.
(eds.),Mon-Khmer
Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
183
1969b. Pacoh
Names,
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer
Studies
Circle of
Saigon.
1977. Discourse Elements in a Pacoh
Narrative,
in
Philip
Jenner
(ed.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
VI,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of Hawaii.
WATSON,
S.K. 1976. The Pacoh Noun
Phrase,
in K.
Gregerson
and David
Thomas
(eds.),
Mon-Khmer Studies
V,
Manila: SIL.
WEBBER,
Karl E. 1976.
Ethnographic
Notes of the
Chong Population
in Chantaburi
Province,
Southeast
Thailand,
in Thailand Research
Project,
Diffusion of Innovation,
Coast-Hinterland
Continuum, Heidelberg:
South Asia
Institute.
WIENS,
H.J. 1954. China's March Towards the
Tropics, Camden,
Conn.:
Shoestring
Press.
WILSON,
R.S. 1966. A
Comparison
of
Muong
with Some Mon-Khmer
Languages,
in N.H. Zide
(ed.),
Studies in
Comparative
Austroasiatic
Lingui?
stics,
The
Hague:
Mouton.
Y-BIH-NIE-KDAM 1949. Evolution culturelle des
populations
monta?
gnards
du Sud
Indochinois,
Revue Education 16
(June-August)
:
83-90.
YOUNG,
G. 1962. The Tribes
of
Northern
Thailand, Bangkok:
The Siam
Society.
YOU SEY 1976. Similarities Between Old Khmer and Old
Mon,
in Phi?
lip Jenner,
L.C
Thompson
and
Stanley
Starosta
(eds.),
Austroasiatic
Studies,
Honolulu: The
University
Press of
Hawaii,
Oceanic
Linguistics Special
Publi?
cations 13
(2 vols),
Vol. 2: 1249-57.
ZADROZNY,
M.G.
(ed.)
1955. Area Handbook on
Cambodia, Chicago:
184
INDEX TO NAMES OF ETHNIC
GROUPS,
LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE FAMILIES
Names in italics are those of non-Austroasiatic
groups
and
languages;
those in
romans are
Austroasiatic
(at
least in
part). Chapter
numbers refer
especially
to the matter at the start of each
chapter,
the letters a to e to the sections of
the Indroduction.
Upper-case
letters refer to the branches
(and sub-branches,
if with
subsidiary
roman
numbers)
of Austroasiatic
and/or
the initial matter
under each branch. Arabic numbers refer to individual
entries,
not to
page
numbers.
185
Index
Aboriginal Malay,
Ch. Ill
Aceh,
e
Acheh,
e
Ach?nese,
e
Agaria (Asur sub-group),
8
Agaria (Korwa sub-group),
7
Alak, 67, 69, 78,
92
Alakong,
62
Amok,
136
Amwi,
47
Andamanese, 21-27, 28, D,
33
Angku, Q, 143,
145
Angrak,
54
Annamese, c,
100
Antor,
93
Arabic,
Ch. Ill
Arem, 105, 106,
109-118
Arsi,
13
Aslian, Preface, d,
Ch.
Ill, D,
31
32,
43
Asur(i),
Ch.
I, Aii, 6,
8
Asura,
8
At
jeh,
e
Attouat,
84
Austric,
c
Austroasiatic, Preface, a, b, c, d, e,
Ch.
I, 1, 18-19, 20, 21-27,
28, D,
Ch.
IV, 50, 99,
108
119, 133,
134
Austronesian, a, c, d,
e,
Ch.
Ill, D,
39, L, 59, 60, 61,
62
Austro-Thai,
c
Bada,
5
Bada
Gadaba,
16
Bahnar, 61, 62, 63, 66,
67
Bahnar
Kontum,
62
Bahnaric, d,
L
Bai,
93
Baidoya,
1
Baiga,
5
Balahi,
20
Balahi
Nihal,
20
Bantu,
b
Bar(ka) Kharia,
11
Based
Sora,
13
Basque,
b
Batak,
36
Batek, 34, 35, 36,
37
Batek
D?q, D,
36
Batek
Hapen,
36
Batek
H?p,
36
Batek
Tgaq,
36
Batek
Kleb,
36
Batek
N?ng, D,
37
Batek
Teh,
36
Batek
T?q,
36
Bawaraia, Bawasi,
1
Benar,
34
Bengali,
c, 2, 3, 5, 10,
11
Benglong,
148
Benwari,
7
Besisi,
43
Bhagudiya,
12
Bhil, e, 2,
20
Bhilala,
20
Bhilapur,
20
Bhoi,
47
Bhopa,
1
Bhovadaya,
1
Bhuiya,
5
Bhumij,
Ch.
I, 4,
5
Biat,
58
Bi
Bai,
38
Bible
Wa,
136
186
Bi
Brete,
38
Bi
He,
38
Bi
Kled,
38
Bimma
Sora,
13
Bir
Asur,
8
Birhor,
Ch.
I, Aii, 2, 3, 6, 8, 11,
18-19
Birhul,
6
Birjhia (Asur group), 6,
8
Birjhia (Korwa group),
7
Black
Riang,
133
Black
Tai, 100,
122
Bo,
21-27
Boda or
Bodo
Gadaba,
52
B?l??,
61
Boloven, 75, 76,
77
Bo
Luang,
135
Bompoka,
21-27
Bo'nar,
62
Bonda,
17
Bondhi,
1
Bondo, 16,
17
Bondo
Poroja,
17
Bondoya,
1
Bong Mien,
67
Bonom,
62
Bopchi,
1
Boro
Gadaba,
16
B?sre,
61
Bout,
73
Brao, 75, 77, 83,
85
Bri
Hut,
39
Bri
La,
65
Brou, 77, 85,
92
Bru, 77, 85, 87-88, 92, 97,
104-105
Budeh,
56
Budip, 56,
57
Budong, 58,
59
Bulach,
56
Bulang,
144
Bulo,
56
Bunor,
58
Burushaski,
b
Bu
Sre,
57
Buyya,
13
187
By Nyed,
38
Ca-dong,
63
Ca
Going,
74
Californian,
c
Ca-lo,
85
Camorta,
21-27
Cao, 67,
84
Car
Nicobarese,
21-27
Cau
Sre,
61
Central
Aslian,
Ch. Ill
Central
Bahnaric, 62,
67
Central
Mnong,
58
Central
Munda,
Ch.
I,
Bi
Central
Nicobar,
21-27
Central
Sedang,
63
Cha
Cui,
104
Chali,
85
Cham, e, 59, 61, 62, 66,
99
Chaman,
119
Chamic, e, L,
59
Chao
Pa,
31-32
Chaubon,
49
Chaw
T'in,
123
Cheng,
78
Chequered Riang,
133
Chero, e,
13
Cherrapunji Khasi,
47
Chewong,
Ch.
Ill, D, 38,
39
Chhang,
51
Chhattisgarhi, 5,
7
Chhong, K, 51, 54,
93
Chhong Hep,
51
Chhong Law,
51
Chhong-ut,
54
Chhotka
Kharia,
11
Chil,
61
Chinese, c, e,
38, 40, 61, 99, 100,
109-118, 132,
136
Cho-ben,
38
Chon,
146
Chowra, 21-27,
28
Chrau,
60
Churu,
60
Cil,
61
Co
Don,
61
Coi,
113
Con
Kha,
108
Coop,
61
Cor,
63
Cua, 67, 69,
74
Cuoi,
112
Daak,
77
Da-ang,
131
Da-eng,
131
Daksut,
63
Damrey,
93
Danaw, Q,
134
Danja,
63
Dan
Lai,
110
Danr,
7
Danu,
134
Darhi,
7
Da
Vach, 63,
66
Dehari,
7
Deshi,
1
Desia,
16
Dhari,
7
Dhelki
Kharia,
11
Didei,
18-19
Dideyi,
18-19
Didra,
68
Die,
65
Dih,
7
Dih
Bri,
58
Diq,
57
Dire,
18-19
Dko,
47
Dli?
Rue,
59
Domb(o), 9, 12,
16
Dong,
67
Dot,
67
Dram,
65
Dravidian, c, e,
Ch.
I, 3, 13, 16,
18-19,
20
Duan,
72
Dudh
(Asur group),
8
Dudh
Kharia,
11
Dukhia
Nihal,
20
188
Duong,
63
Eastern
Mnong,
59
Eastern Sakai
(inner group),
39
En,
138
Eng,
93
English,
21-27
Erenga,
11
Ernga,
7
Finno-Ugrian,
b
French, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 90,
96,
99
Gadaba,
Ch.
I, 5, 14, 16, 17,
18-19
Gadba,
16
Galler,
85
Gamang,
13
Gar,
59
Garo,
47
Gataq,
Ch.
I, 14, 17,
18-19
Gaung-pyat,
136
Gntare,
18-19
Golar,
62
Gold
Palaung,
131
Gond, 1,
2
Gorait,
e
Gorum,
Ch.
I, 14, 15, 16,
18-19
Great
Nicobarese, 21-27,
28
Greater
Sedang,
63
Gutare,
18-19
Gutob,
Ch.
I, 16, 17,
18-19
Gutob-Remo,
Ch.
I,
18-19
Guywing,
7
Hadang,
63
Hagu,
62
Halang, 62, 63, 64, 71, 71,
83
Halang Duan,
72
Hamba,
Ch. Ill
Hami,
Ch. Ill
H
among,
3
Har?me, 106,
107
Hasada, 3,
4
Hat,
127
Hayan,
63
Hemik,
Ch. Ill
Highland Katu, 84,
95
High
Mountain
Cua,
67
High
Mountain
Pacoh,
89
Hill
Bhuiya,
12
Hill
Kharia,
11
HiU
Korwa,
7
Hill
Shan,
144
Hill
Sora,
13
Hin,
63
Hkala,
143
Hkun
Loi,
136
Hindi, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 20,
21-7
Hmong,
77
Ho, 3,
4
Hodrung,
62
Hok,
119
H?n,
76
Hor,
2
Hor
Hopon,
2
Horo, 3,
4
H?t,
93
Hoteang,
63
Hre, 62, 63,
66
Hroi,
62
Hsap Tai,
136
Hsen(sum),
136
Hu,
119
Huang,
61
Hung,
108
Hungarian,
b
In,
91
Indie, e,
Ch.
I, 8, 11, 20,
47
Indo-Aryan,
Ch.
I,
16
Indo-European,
a, c,
Ch.
I, 3,
5
Indonesian, c,
40
Ine,
91
Jadua
Patua,
e
Jahai, D, 31-32, 33, 34,
41
Jahaic, d,
Ch.
Ill, D, 31-32, 34,
38
Jah
Chong,
39
Jah
Hut, 38, E, 39,
40
Jaintia
Khasi,
47
Jait,
8
Jakun,
Ch.
Ill, 39, 40,
46
Jarai, e, 61, 62, 63, 64,
77
Japanese,
c
Jati,
13
Jedu,
13
Jeh, 63, 64,
65
Jeh
Derale,
65
Jeh
Mang Ram,
65
Jeh
Perak,
65
Jehai,
33
Jehehr,
33
Jelben,
38
Jo-ben,
38
Jolong,
62
Jri,
77
Jro,
60
Jruq,
75
Juang,
Ch.
I, Bi, 12,
13
Juray,
Ch.
I,
15
Kach?,
119
Kachin, 131,
132
Kadai,
e
Kadami,
16
Ka
Going,
63
K'ala, 136, 143, 145,
146
Kaleu(ng),
97
Kaleyi,
16
Kalop,
61
Kalto,
20
Kalurr,
131
Kam
Luaq,
124
Kammu,
119
Kampu Sora,
13
Kanndrau,
93
Kantoa,
93
Kantu, 84,
95
Kantu
Kakat,
95
Kao,
84
Kapu (Gadaba group),
16
Kapu (Sora group),
13
Kare,
66
Karen, e, 119, 133,
135
Karmali, Aii,
2
189
Kasseng, 69,
78
Katang, 74,
96
Katchall,
21-27
Kathera
Gadaba,
16
Katini,
16
Katu, 84,
95
Katuic, Preface, d, 55, 77, M, 84,
95, 97,
98
Katuria,
16
Kawa,
136
Kayong,
74
Ka Yuen
(Yuan),
119
Ke-dieng,
56
Kelao,
e
Kern
D?gne, 144,
145
Kemu,
119
Kensiu, D, 29, 30, 31-32,
41
Keo,
103
Keraq,
3
Kesiong,
59
Keu,
145
Kha,
119
Kha
Bit,
121
Kha
Bo,
107
Kha
Doy,
146
Kha
Haw,
136
Kha
Hok,
119
Kha
Khao, 119,
130
Kha
Khmu,
119
Kha
Kiorr, 129,
146
Kha
Klau,
119
Kha
Lamet,
119
Kha
Mu,
119
Kha Mu
Gia,
104-105
Kha Nam
Ou,
107
Kha
P'ai,
123
Kha
Pakatan,
107
Kha
Phong (Khmuic group),
130
Kha
Phong (Viet-Muong group),
106
Kha
Pong, 106, 125,
130
Kha
Qu?ne,
119
Kha
Tie,
119
Kha
T'in,
123
Kha
Tiol, 129,
146
Kha
Tong Luong, 104-105,
124-125
Kha
Tong Ong,
77
Kha-ut,
54
Khaidya,
11
Khalok,
142
Khaloq,
142
Khamed,
122
Khamen
Boran,
55
Khamet, 122,
135
Khamouk,
119
Khamu,
119
Khang Ai, 119,
120
Khangar,
3
Kharia
(Central
Munda
group),
Ch.
I, 7, 9, Bi,
11
Kharia
(Korwa sub-group),
7
Kharia
Thar,
11
Khasa,
47
Khasi
(Mon-Khmer group), b, c, d,
G, 47,
131
Khasi, Khasiya,
Khassi
(Indie
group),
47
Khat,
84
Kh?a
Prei,
54
Kheria,
11
Kherwal,
2
Kherwari,
Aii
Kherwarian,
Ch.
I, 1, Aii, 2, 7,
Bi
Khiang,
92
Khmer, a, 48, 49, 50, K, 51, 52, 53,
54, 56, 57-9, 58, 62,
93
Khmer
Dom,
93
Khmeric, d,
J
Khmu, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
125, 129,
149
Khmuic, d, 106, P, 127, 130, Q, 135,
146,
148
Kholei, 14,
16
Kh?ng-kh?ng,
108
Khon
Pa,
124
Khrong,
119
Khua
(Bru group),
85
Khua
(Cua sub-group),
67
Khua
(Viet-Muong group),
104-105
Khween,
119
Khynriam Khasi,
47
190
Kien
Ka,
144
Kil,
61
Kintaq, D, 30,
31-32
Kintaq Bong,
30
Kintaq Hangat,
30
Kintaq Kroh,
30
Kintaq Nakil,
30
Kiorr,
146
Kisan
(non-Austroasiatic),
e
Kisan
(Austroasiatic),
10
K'katiam-pong-Houk,
108
K'koai
B'brr?,
88
K'koai
T'trri,
87
K'ktsing
i
M'mull,
126
K'ktsing Kor,
126
Kleb,
38
Kloor,
92
Kmrang,
63
Kniing,
77
Koda
(Dravidian group),
10
Kodaa
(Austroasiatic),
10
Kodaku, 1,
7
K?h?, 61,
69
Kol
(Mon-Khmer),
67
Kol
(Munda),
Ch.
I,
4
Kol
(non-Austroasiatic),
e
Kolarian,
Ch. I
Koli,
e
Kompat,
3
Kon
Hring,
63
Kon
Keu,
145
Kon Ko
De,
62
Kondul,
21-27
Koon
Cau,
61
Koq,
92
Kora,
Ch.
I,
10
Koraku, 1,
7
Koraput Munda,
Ch.
I, Bi,
Bii
Korku,
Ch.
I, Ai, 1, Aii, 7,
20
Korwa,
Ch.
I, 1, 7,
11
Kotua,
63
Kouen,
119
Kou?nes,
119
Koui,
93
Kou
N'ho,
61
191
Koyon,
61
Koyong, 64, 71,
74
Krak,
136
Kraol, 58,
93
Kravet,
77
Krem,
62
Kriang,
92
Krieng,
59
Kroi,
82
Kroong,
119
Krung,
77
Ksak,
119
Kuan
Pa,
31-32
Kuenh,
59
Kui
(Dravidian),
1
Kui
(Austroasiatic)
-
see
Kuy
Kun-Loi,
131
Kuoy,
93
Kurukh, c, e, 1, 3, 7, 10,
20
Kut
Wa,
136
Kuy, 52, 85, 93,
94
Kuy Mahay,
93
Kveet,
77
Kwaa,
119
Kween,
119
Kyong,
59
La, 138-140,
141
Laaw,
119
Lac, 61,
69
La-eng,
131
Lahu, 124,
136
Lakadong,
47
Lalung,
47
Lamam,
82
Lam
(Ban),
59
Lamba
Lanjhia,
13
Lamet, 119, 122, Q,
135
Langya,
65
Lanoh, E, 40, 41,
42
Lanoh
Jengjeng, E,
42
Lanoh
Yir, E,
42
Lao, a, 62, 64, 75, 76, 82, 85, 86, 91,
92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 102,
104
105,108, 119, 123,124, 129,
130,
135
Lao
Theng,
119
Lapar,
34
Larka
Kol,
4
Lat, 61,
69
Latar,
3
Lave
(Waic group),
136
Lav?
(W.
Bahnaric
group), 75, 77,
78,
85
Laven,
75
Lavua,
135
Lawa, 49, Q, 135,
136
Laya,
61
Lern,
136
Leu(ng), 85,
97
Liao,
e
Little
Nicobarese,
21-27
Lodha, e,
13
Lohar,
e
Lohra,
e
Loila,
136
Lolo,
e
Loven,
75
Lower
Lamet,
122
Lowland
Katu,
84
Low Mountain
Pacoh,
89
L?
(Khmu sub-group),
119
Lue
(Tai group), 86, 119, 123,
129
Luaq, 122, 123, 135,
142
L'up,
135
Ly Ha,
111
Lyngngam,
47
Maa
Blaa,
61
Maa Daa
Cuy,
61
Maa Daa
Deung,
61
Maa
Deq We,
61
Maa
Krung,
61
Maaq, 58,
61
Maen,
136
Mahali, Aii,
2
Mahali
Munda,
3
Mahay,
93
Mah
Meri, 38,
43
Mai
Bertak,
40
192
Mai
Darat,
40
Mai
Miloi,
40
Mai
Seraq,
40
M'ai,
93
Makha,
7
Makon,
86
Mal, 123,
127
Malay, 21-27,
Ch.
Ill, D, 31-32, 33,
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44,
45,46
Maler, 2,
13
Ma
Lieng,
109
Malor,
93
Mal
Pahariya, 2,
13
Malto,
13
Man,
e
Mandarin
Chinese,
e
Mandar Khia
Kot,
6
Mandiki,
6
Mandiyar,
7
Mang (U'),
148
Mang Cau,
119
Mang Kong, 85,
88
Mang Tarn,
136
Mani,
Ch. III
Manik,
93
Manjhi,
2
Mankiria,
6
Manu,
93
Maori,
b
Map?,
135
Maq Betisek, F,
43
Marang,
3
Marathi,
20
Maroi,
38
Mawas,
32
May, 104,
109-118
Mba,
77
M?nam,
63
Mendriq, D, 33, 34, 35,
41
Meni(k),
Ch.
III,
34
Menik
Jehai,
33
Menrab,
34
Menriq,
34
Menus
Prey,
52
Mi,
119
Miao, e, 119, 123,
124
Miao-Yao, a, c,
e
Middle
Khmer,
50
Middle
Mon,
48
Mikir,
47
Minchia,
e
Mintil, D,
35
M'lo,
93
M'loa,
93
Mnong, 56, 57-59, 58, 59,
61
Mnong Gar,
59
Mnong Ndee,
59
Mnong Rlam,
59
Mn-raq,
33
Mo,
31-32
Modem
Khmer,
50
Modem
Mon,
48
Modra,
68
Moi,
100
Moi-cao,
63
Mok,
136
Mol,
100
Mon
((Monic group), Preface,
a, e,
21-27,
Ch.
III, 48, 49,
50
Mon
(Muong name),
100
Mon-Anam, b,
99
Monic, d, H,
135
Moni(k),
Ch.
III,
31-32
Mon-Khmer, Preface, b, c, d,
e,
Ch.
IV, G, 47, 50, K, 61, 93, 99,
100, 109-118, 124-125, 126,
132, 135, 136,
148
Monui,
84
Mos, D,
32
Mos-Batek,
D
Mos-Mendriq,
D
Moso,
e
Mrabri,
124
Muasi,
1
Mudi,
10
Mudli
Gadaba,
16
Munda
(sub-family), Preface, b, c,
d, e,
Ch.
1,1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10,
11, 16,
20
Munda(ri) (group, language),
e,
Ch.
I, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11
Mundari-Ho,
Ch. I
Mundli
Gadaba,
16
Muong, 100, 101, 108, 109-118,
148
Muong Ben,
107
Muong Khen,
100
Muong Kong,
85
Mura,
2
Mwal,
100
Mwon,
100
Naguri,
3
Nahal,
20
Nahar,
20
Nam-Nguyen,
101
Nancowry,
21-27
Nanga Poroja,
17
Na
Nhang,
94
Ndee,
59
Negrito, 28,
Ch.
Ill, D, 29-38, 40,
42, K,
104-105
Nehal,
20
Ngar Yang,
61
Ngeq, 85,
92
Ngkriang,
92
Ngoai,
100
Ngoq (Pa),
31-32
Ngung Bo,
84
Nguoi (Muong), 100,
101
Nguoi
La
Vang,
104-105
Nguoi Rung,
114
Nguon, 100, 101, 103,
109-118
Nguon Ta,
84
Ngwe,
131
Ngyong,
89
Nha
Chut,
103
Nha
H?n,
76
Nha
Lang,
118
Nhang Xa,
120
Niakuol,
49
Nicobarese, Preface, b, d,
Ch.
II,
28
Nihal, d,
20
Nimari,
20
193
N'lur,
93
Noar,
98
Nohang,
61
Nong,
57
Nonglum Khasi,
47
Nop,
61
North
Aslian,
Ch. Ill
North
Bahnaric, d, L, Lii, 62, 67,
69, 78, 82,
98
North
Koraput,
Ch.
I,
Biia
North
Luaq,
135
North
Munda, d,
Ch.
I, A,
Aii
Northern
Thai, 119, 122,
135
Northern
Wa, Q
N'tra,
93
Nuoc-minh,
63
Nyar Kur, 49,
135
Nyeq,
38
Nyeu,
93
Nyo,
136
0,93
Oceanic,
c
O'du,
127
Ogne,
76
Oi, 80,
90
Old
Burmese,
48
Old
Khmer, 50,
82
Old
Mon,
48
Ollar
(o),
16
On,
76
Ong,
91
Orang Asli,
Ch.
Ill, 35, 38,
43
Orang Benua,
Ch. Ill
Orang Bukit,
Ch. Ill
Orang
Darat,
Ch.
Ill,
40
Orang Krau,
39
Orang Semang,
Ch. Ill
Orang Ulu,
Ch. Ill
Orang Utan,
Ch. Ill
Oraon,
c, 3,
10
Oriya, 2, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,
18-19
Pacoh, 84, 89,
95
Padaung,
e
Pah,
77
Pahari
(Kharia sub-group),
11
Pahari
(Korwa sub-group),
7
Pahari
Nihal,
20
Pahi,
89
Pai,
21-27
P'ai,
123
P'ai
Luaq,
123
Paiyuh,
21-27
Palaung,
a, 127, Q, 131, 132,
143
Palaungic, d, 122, 129, Q, 132, 144,
146,
148
Pal?,
131
Paleng,
103
Pangan,
Ch. Ill
Pa?o,
12
Pa
Pae,
135
Parenga,
14
Parenga Gadaba,
16
Parja,
13
Parow(k),
136
Patar,
3
Patua
Juang,
12
Patua
Savara, 12,
13
Patua
Sora,
13
Pear, K, 52, 53,
55
Pearic, d, K, 52,
55
Penglung,
131
Phae,
135
Phalok,
142
Pheng,
119
Phi
Bra,
124
Phi
Bri,
59
Phi
Tong Luang,
124
Phong, 86,
108
Phou
Teng,
119
Phray,
135
Phsin,
121
Phuan,
119
Phuong,
84
Piluq,
95
Plains
Gataq,
Ch.
I,
18-19
Plains
Korwa,
7
Plains
Sora, 13,
16
194
Ple(-Temer),
41,
42
Pnar,
47
Pnong, 53,
57-59
Podra,
68
Pol,
52
Pol
Kravanh,
52
Pong,
108
Ponglong,
131
Poong,
108
Por,
52
Poroja, 14,
18-19
P?rr,
93
Potharia,
1
Pou
Hoc,
126
Pou
K'knieng,
130
Pou-ma, Q,
147
Pou
Pong,
130
Poya Gadaba, 14,
16
Pragar,
53
Prang,
57
Praok,
136
Pray,
123
Pre-Angkorian
Old
Khmer,
50
Preh,
58
Preng,
61
Preou,
77
Prong,
57
Proom,
94
Proto-Aslian,
Ch. Ill
Proto-Gataq,
Ch. I
Proto-Jahaic,
D
Proto-Lawa, Q,
135
Proto-Malay,
e,
Ch. Ill
Proto-Munda,
Ch.
I,
11
Proto-Muong,
109-118
Proto-Samtau, Q,
144
Proto-Semelaic,
F
Proto-Senoic,
E
Proto-Viet-Muong,
109-118
Proto-Wa, Q, 136,
137
Proto-Waic, Q
Proto-Wa-Lawa, Q
Proto-Wa-Lawa-La, Q
Pru,
61
Pruq
119
Pu,
21-27
P'u,
123
Pulo
Milo,
21-27
P'u-man, Q, 131,
132
P'uman
(Samtau),
144
Puok, 126, 127,
148
Puok-nget,
126
Puok-za,
126
Puthai,
86
Pyin,
136
Quang Lime,
128
Qu?ne,
119
Ra-ang,
131
Rabah,
66
Rabha,
47
Rahong,
57
Raj,
1
Raonsa,
6
Rarh,
8
Ravet,
136
Rbut,
57
Red
Riang,
133
Reddi,
18-19
Remo,
Ch.
I, 14, 16, 17,
18-19
Rengao,
63
Renh,
95
Rhad?, c, 59, 61,
62
Rhagwansi Nihal,
20
Riang (Austroasiatic), Q, 133,
134
Riang (Tibeto-Burman),
133
Riang Leng,
133
Riang Rioi,
133
Riang R?ng,
133
Rieng, Riong,
61
Riou-Kiou,
c
Riverside-Hill
Gataq,
Ch.
I,
18-19
Rlam,
59
Rmam,
82
Rmang,
56
Rme?,
48
Ro
(= Chrau),
60
Ro
(Maaq sub-group),
61
R?da,
61
195
R?glai,
61
Roh,
62
Rok,
119
RoTo'm,
59
Rong,
5
R?ngao,
62
Rook,
119
Roteang,
63
R'rekou?-B'brr?,
86
Rue, 104,
109-118
Ruma,
1
Rumai,
131
Sa,
118
Saam,
135
Sabara,
13
Sabat,
43
Sabum, E, 41,
42
Sach, 103, 104-105,
109-118
Sadani, 3, 6, 7, 8,
9
Sadri,
11
Sakai
(Sakei),
Ch.
Ill,
31-32
Sakai
Jinaq,
Ch. Ill
Salang, 63,
64
Samre, Preface, K, 52, 53,
55
Samtau,
144
Sano,
5
San(o) Gadaba,
16
Sanskrit,
Ch.
I, 5, 8, 16,
52
Santal(i),
a, e,
Ch.
I, Aii, 2, 3, 6, 7,
9,
11
Saoch, K, 51,
54
Saora,
Ch.
I,
13
Sapuan, 69, 79,
80
Sarda
Sora,
13
Satar,
2
Sauria,
13
Savara,
e,
Ch.
I, 12,
13
Sayan,
63
Sedang, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
72
Se-dieng,
56
Sehabat,
43
Semai, E, 39, 40,
41
Semak
Belum,
42
Semang,
Ch.
Ill,
40
Semaq,
41
Semelai,
Ch.
Ill, F, 44, 45,
46
Semelaic, d,
Ch.
Ill,
F
Semnam, E, 40, 41,
42
Semoq Beri, F, 44, 45,
46
Seng Dhelki,
11
Senoi,
Ch. Ill
Senoi
Hii,
40
Senoi
Serok,
41
Senoic, d,
Ch.
Ill, D, 38, E, 40,
42
Shan,
a, 131, 133, 134, 136, 141,
143,
144
Sheila
Khasi,
47
Shompen, d, 21-27,
28
Shwe
Palaung,
131
Siamese, 54, 86,
91
Silver
Palaung,
131
Sinduraha,
8
Sinduria,
7
Singli,
7
Sisi(q), 43,
46
Siwang,
38
Slouy, 69,
86
So, 85, 86,
87-88
Soai,
86
So-ben,
38
Soenka,
8
Soika,
8
Soman-lo,
21-27
Somray,
52
Somree,
52
Sop,
61
Sora, e,
Ch.
I, 12, 13, 14,
15
Sora-Juray,
Ch. I
S?-Souei,
M
Sou,
139
Souei, 85, 93,
94
Souei-Kuy,
85
Souq, 81,
83
South
Aslian,
Ch. Ill
South
Bahnaric, d, L, Li, 62, 67,
82
South
Koraput,
Ch.
I,
Biib
South
Munda, d,
Ch.
I,
B
South
Nicobarese,
21-27
Southern
Mnong
57
196
Southern
Wa, Q,
136
Sre,
61
Ss-va,
143
Stieng, 53, 56, 57,
63
Strieng,
66
Sudda
Sora,
13
Sui,
54
Sumerian,
c
Suoy (Austronesian),
e
Suoy (Pearic),
55
Synteng,
47
Ta-ang,
131
Ta-cor,
63
Ta River Van
Khieu, 84,
89
Tac
Cui,
104
Tac-minh,
63
Tai
(language family),
a, c, e, 86,
99, 100, 119, 122, 123,
124
125,
126
136,
144
Tai
Loi, 136,
144
Takua, 67,
69
Talaing, 21-27,
48
Taluy,
95
Tamaria,
3
Tame
Wa, 136, 141,
144
Tamil,
16
Tamceun,
82
Tampuon,
82
Tangpril,
95
Tanluin,
48
Ta-oi, 80, 89, 90, 91, 92,
97
Ta-oih,
89
Taor,
20
Tariang,
78
Tarik,
21-27
Tatang,
67
Tay Cham,
115
Tay Hat, 119,
127
Tay (K)tum,
117
Tay Pum,
116
Telia,
8
Telugu, 13, 16,
18-19
Tembe,
41
Temer,
41
Temiar, Preface, d,
Ch.
Ill, D, 33,
E, 39, 40, 41,
42
Temoq,
Ch.
III, F, 45,
46
Temuan,
40
Tenh,
119
Teressa,
21-27
Teressa-Bompoka,
21-27
Teu,
84
Thai
(language),
a, 31-32, 48, 49,
50, 51, 77, 86, 93, 99, 108,
119,123,124-125, 126,135,
142
Thai
Pong, 108, 109-118,
130
Thai
Theng,
119
Thakur,
47
Thania
6,
8
Thaniya,
12
Thap,
84
Thavung, 102, 103,
109-118
Thay Hay,
119
Thay Pa,
104-105
Theeng,
119
Theng,
119
Tho
(Tai),
112
Tho
(Austroasiatic),
112
Tiali,
87
Tiari, 85, 86,
87
Tibeto-Burman, a, b, c, e, 47, 99,
133, 134,
144
Til,
61
T'in, 123, 124,
135
Tiol,
146
Tisia,
7
Tlong,
100
Tmooy Khrong,
119
Tmooy Ksak,
119
Tmooy Mi,
119
Tmooy Rmeet,
122
Tmooy Rook,
119
Tngor,
77
To,
61
Todrah,
68
Tohung,
105
Tola,
61
197
Tolo,
62
Tong,
90
Tonga, D,
31
To
Sung,
62
Tou,
61
Toum,
108
Tow?,
20
Tra-Bong,
67
Trao
Tioma,
61
Trawat,
78
Traw,
67
Tri,
85
Trieng,
66
Tring,
61
Trinkett,
21-27
Trinket-Katchall,
21-27
Trngaw,
77
Tro,
86
Trong,
86
Trouy,
86
Trut,
105
Tung
Va
Wa,
136
Turi,
Ch.
I, Aii,
9
Turkish,
b
Tu
Vang,
103
Umphai,
135
Upper Lamet,
122
Uthlu, 6,
8
'Uu,
119
Va,
136
Van
Khieu,
85
Ve,
77
Viet-Muong, d, N, 99,104-105,
109
118,
130
Vietnamese, a, b, c, e, 48, 50, 56,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66,
67, 84, 85, 89, 97, 99, 100,
101, 104-105, 108, 109-118,
119, 126,
149
Vu, 135,
136
Wa, a, 124, 132, 135, 136,
144
Wa
(Antisdel),
136
Wa
(Davies),
136
Wa
(Drage),
136,
137
Wa of
Kengtung (Scott),
140
Wa
(Milne),
136
Waic,
142
Wa
Kut,
144
Wa-la,
132
Wa
Lon,
136
Wa
Pwi,
136
War
Khasi,
47
West
Bahnaric, d, L, Liii, 69, 82,
85,
98
West
Katuic,
85
White
Striped Riang,
133
Wild
Wa,
136
Xa
Cau, 119,
120
Xa
Giang,
63
Xa
Khao,
120
Xo'dang,
63
Xolang,
105
Yang Lam,
133
Yang
Sek
(Sik),
133
Yang Wan-hkum,
133
Yao, e,
119
Yeh,
65
Yiir,
91
Y?,
93
Yot,
67
Yuan
(Khmu sub-group),
119
Yuan
(Tai language), 119, 123,
135
Yumbri,
125
Zava,
66
198
Maps
CO
O)
IL
o
O
CO
CD
O)
CO
O)
c
os
?i
CO
"O
c
3
CO
c
0
?
o
c
CO
.c
tr
o
CO
c
o
CO
c
CD
X
LU
to
cd
o
CO
CO
CD
O)
co
O)
c
co
?i
CO
"O
c
13
CO
c
CD
?
T3
C
CO
x:
O
2
1c.
Kor?put
Munda
Languages
<94>
t?Car
Nicobar 21
Chowra 22
o
Teressa*.
Bompoka
23
23
^
*^
^Camorta
25
U#
Trinket^
-<8>
KatchallfcV
26
<8->.
26
Nancowry
24
Little
^Nicobar
V
27
%
iGreat
ficobarl
Scale 1 :4m.
-f
<94>
_l_
2. Nicobarese and
Shompen
Treng
Pafalung
31f32
<102>
THAILAND
31
32
29.Yala
30;
-<6>
29
30
Baling.
Kota Baharu
feroh
0;
ôrge
Gri
42
&
3l>*2
bwn
33
Temengor
34
42
41
WEST
Bertam
34
41
MALAYSIA
36
Îpoh.
41 45 36
Cameron
Highlands
.^
40 35
R.Perak'
Kuala
Lipis
36
40
Raub"
38
37
44
38 39
<6> A
Kuala
ITrengganu
JR.Pahang
.Kuala Krau
-<3>
(Temuan)
Kuala Lumk
46
Triang.
<3>1
44
43
Port Dickson
45
45
(Jakun)
^R.Endau
Maiace
Scale 1
:870,000
N
+
<102>
1
Singapore
3. Aslian
Languages
BANGLADESH
<90>
_
4. Khasi Dialects
<94>
ASSAM
<26H
Scale 1:4m.
N
+
<94>
i
?i
<104>
LAOS
THAILAND
50
50
(77)
(82)(
50'
Battafcbang
#
51
53
Siem
Reap
(93)
Stung Treng
52
'(82)
(93)
C AMBODI A
(50)
rantt?ûri^(77J32)
****
.Kg
Ihom
.51. X 52
(58)
(56)
l<12>
55
<12>4
.Phnom
Penh
Scale 1:5.8m
N
+
GULF OF
THAILAND
ifeal
Renn
<104>
_l_
VIETNAM
5. Khmeric and Pearic
Languages
<96>
'Lampang
48
<102>
Pegu
BURMA
481
Bassein
48
r<f(
ANDAMAN SEA
N Scale 1 : 5.8m.
+
<96>
,Thaton
"48
.
MoulmeinV
THAILAND
.Khwae
Petchabun
"49
<16>J
.49
Chaiy?phurn
_.am Chi
Kora
49
.Mae
48
, 48
\
\
\Khlang
.Tavor
49
Kanchanabuni
tburi!
481.
Bangkok
fSongkhra
\
G?LI
/
OF
(THAILAIN
<102>*
6. Monic
Languages
58
Poste
Deshayes.
58
\
58
<108>
.Ban
Dong
.Kratie
CAMBODIA
56
58
.
Srar Khtum
Snoul
56
S 56
Duc
Phongm
56
(82)
61
56
VIETNAM
Bien Hoa. Xuan Loc.
(Cham)
Banmethuot.
(Rhad?)
58
58
57
58
58
56
59 59
59
59
57
61
61
<12H
61
.Da Lat
61
61
61
Tanh Linh
Saigon.
j-6
60
(Cham)
(R?glai)
60
61 60
(Cham)
/Thi^t
(Churu)
61 (R?glai)
.Di Linh
(Cham)
fs
^HINA
SEA
(82;
60
<1<08>
Scale 1:2m.
N
7. South Bahnaric
Languages
<1?8>
63? 65
VIET
>64
71
NAM
64 C
72
DakNsvf
74 66
Hoi An
<16H
70
SOUTH
CHINA
SEA
?Quang Ngai
Kontum
62
(Jarai)
62
.An Khe
Binh Dinh"
Qui
Nhon*
<14>1
Scale 1:3.36m.
(Jarai)
(Rhad?)
62
.Cheo Reo 62
(Cham\
8. North Bahnaric
Languages
77
THAI
<106>
(90)
(91)
(95)
Saravane.
Done
(95)
(92\
LAND
Tateng
.
(Puthai)
75
75J
r(92)
(69)
(91)
LAOS
78
78
79
76
.Pak Son
76f82
Boloven
,8P
Plateau
'78^
80 j
81
(84)
VIET
Ka
NAM
77
<14>
Scale 1:2m.
ho
N
+
<1(
81
83?
77
fSiem
Pang
Voeune Sai.
r77
(Lao)
CA M B O D I.
reng
(Lao)
82
82
{(Jarai)
82
82
Bokeo
.Lomphat
82
(Jarai)
9. West Bahnaric
Languages
<104>
if!8>
Kham
Keut
86
Twinh
V I ETA SOUTH
<18>|
86
CHINA
97?
NAM
86
(SeR
'Thakhek
Sakon
Nakon*
THAILAND
86
97?
86
86
85
85
86
'Savannakhet
88
Tchepone
SEA
aang
Tril
85 97
10 89
ê
.Roi Et
86
.Surin
(Puthai) 90N-\
84
LAOS
96
??
91
95
'
84
"Saravane
>(Pu-4
91
92
thai)
92
??^ng |93.Pakse
Ubon
Sisaket.
.Khu Khan
93 93
93
.AttopeuN
94
U<14> <14H
.Siem
Reap
93
.Battambang
93
CAMBODI A
93
.Stung Treng
.Kg
Thom
Kratie
Scale 1:4m.
N
+ 1
<104>
?i_
10. Katuic
Languages
I <1'04>
<10?>[
CHINA
(?
^~--*Vw^.
\^
VIETNAM S
<22>
^"^
.Yen Bai ^v~
)
.Nghia
Lo
^**^>H
(
loo
-phu ^
tfr
V l&{
100
-Hanoi
iS^y*?
*
^-? ^X .Hoa Binh
JI/q
"
LAOS
V108
.NyrfBinh
/
100
>^T
u u
y .?Thanh Hoa
Wpm
?T^Cua
10?
/
SOUTH
Xieng
.
V^
-k
^
Khouang
^\112110
(
CHINA
107
108^08
.kvinh
SEA
108
107
V
Vu
t.- v,
r<18>
v v 4- Nape
>^V
101
:Mlrinh
<18>
Kam Keut.
^
10a ?,
,>\
102
V Qn?J
\?
W?
Trach
Scale 1-Thi
'
I*** 3??1
^100
X*"9
*"*
facaie i. /m.
Thakhek \
>.
Lt_<m>_\
\<ioyl
11.
Viet-Muong Languages
<100>
Scale 1:5.4m
CHINA
h<22>
+
Muong
Te/
!ou\126
Neua
<104>
rLao Cai. 119
Kengtung
124
119
121
119
7119
119
1120
.Lai Chau
<22>
128
VIETNAM
121
121
.M.Khoi
119 119
f.Dien Bien
Phu
119
119.
119
BURMA
"Vieng
PK.
122
129
119
liang
Rai
124"
119
Chieng Khawng
119
Son La
126
Sam Neua
130 119
127
123
124
.Chiang
Mai
119
S
119
123 .
.124
.Nan
123
.L.Prabang
Pak
Beng
125
r-TrH
1123
127y/
127
LAOS
9"Xieng^s319
Khouang
^v
119 X
119
h<i8>
130?
119
124
"Phrae
THAILAND
7ientTS
x125
125
.Udon
Thakhek
125
.Petchabun
<100>
<1Op
12. Khmuic
Languages
I
A
V *
1,
e
v iSS6
~ v ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~N
Z -4
r0 U)~~U
-~~~~~~~~~~~~v E
<
a
H.H
woS6N U *k t
N 0
E~~
.H ~ ~ ~
U4
-H-HZ~~~~~~~~~~~V
m m
0
U r
op~~I
*<^S^
v
g*
v
cu
rj
A
/VD
CO
\ \ SpsJ
<
f
^
V.
\
>^
T-sfl KD \
(
U
-^
.
o +j ^
y
-H
'""
<?>
T <u,~~
\
<**
*
1
0)
*
c=
S
^
K J
i
o
? 2
K
l
V
*
*> ?
9
<
V
\^-x.
-
y g
S
?
\-^
^?"\
J>
|
(U
?=>
^-n.
\ <^ ?>
?f?e
?-^"^
w -1
a
?*-> S a -s
v- *#
W OC
CL
CN CO
r-
.
V
^ v
co
_1_11
-

A Guide To Austro Asiatic Languages

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Guide To Austro Asiatic Languages

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi