Digital Resources Journal of Language Survey Report 2021-028

A Summary of the 1989 Mayurbhanj Survey

Bryan Varenkamp

A Summary of the 1989 Mayurbhanj Survey

Bryan Varenkamp

SIL International® 2021

Journal of Language Survey Report 2021-028

 2021 SIL International®

ISSN: 2766-9327

As a peer-reviewed journal for original research articles, SIL Electronic Survey Reports (ISSN: 1559-1417) has been well-known since 1999. The SIL journal title was changed to Journal of Language Survey Reports, starting with the first issue in 2021.

Fair-Use Policy: Documents published in the Journal of Language Survey Reports series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes (under fair use guidelines) free of charge and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of Journal of Language Survey Reports or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder.

Orphan Works Note: Data and materials collected by researchers in an era before documentation of permission was standardized may be included in this publication. SIL makes diligent efforts to identify and acknowledge sources and to obtain appropriate permissions wherever possible, acting in good faith and on the best information available at the time of publication.

Series Editor Angela Kluge

Managing Editor Eric Kindberg

Copy Editor Eleanor J. McAlpine

Compositor Marisa McHenry

Abstract

The main goal of the sociolinguistic survey of the Mayurbhanj District of Orissa, conducted in September 1989, was to get an overview of the overall language situation in the district, paying special attention to the Munda languages: Bhumij, Birhor, Ho, Mahali, Munda, Mundari, and Santali. The survey findings suggest that among these languages there are at least two distinct groups with distinct languages: the Bhumij, who call themselves Sadar Bhumij, and the Mundari, who call themselves Tamdia Mundari. As for the Munda, it remains unclear whether they constitute a separate group with a separate language. The lexicostatistical analysis findings confirm the distinct grouping of the Bhumij and Mundari varieties, although this distinct grouping is not extremely obvious. Furthermore, the lexical similarity percentages suggest that Birhor is a distinct language variety of its own. The intelligibility testing results conducted in different Bhumij and Mundari communities suggest that both language groups basically understand each other sufficiently, while at the same time claiming separate identities. The test results do not indicate, however, whether the understanding between both groups is high enough for them to benefit from the same language development program, at least as far as comprehension is concerned. To gain a better understanding of who exactly the different people groups in the Mayurbhanj District are, where they live, what languages they speak and understand and to what degree, and what their language development needs are more survey research is needed.

(This survey report written some time ago deserves to be made available even at this late date and without the usual anonymous peer-review. Conditions were such that it was not published when originally written. The reader is cautioned that more recent research may be available elsewhere. Historical data are quite valuable as they provide a basis for a longitudinal analysis and help us understand both the trajectory and pace of change as compared with more recent studies.—Editor)

Contents

Languages Mentioned in This Report 1 Introduction and goals 2 Groups and languages 3 Location of the groups 4 The Mundari/Munda/Bhumij question 5 Lexical similarity 6 Recorded-text test results 7 Other groups 8 Suggestions for further research 9 Summary References

iv

Languages Mentioned in This Report

Languages mentioned in this report with ISO 639-3 codes • Birhor [biy] • Ho [hoc] • Mahali [mjx] • Munda [unx] • Mundari [unr] • Santali [sat]

v

1 Introduction and goals

This is a summary of the findings from a sociolinguistic survey of the Mayurbhanj District of Orissa. The compiler of this summary, Bryan Varenkamp with SIL International, and P. K. D. with IEM, were responsible for the data collection. The survey was sponsored by the Indian Evangelical Mission (IEM) and conducted in the month of September 1989. The initial goals of this survey were dictated by the purpose to expand the work of IEM in Mayurbhanj and surrounding areas and to start language development projects in the region. We sought answers to these questions: 1. What are the Munda and Dravidian languages in Mayurbhanj District? 2. Who speaks those languages? (Some groups may have lost their own language and adopted another.) 3. Are there dialect variations within each of these languages, and are they inherently intelligible with one another? 4. What are the attitudes of the people toward their own languages and the languages surrounding them and influencing them? 5. In what contexts are each of the languages used by the communities that speak them? 6. What is the climate for future work among the various groups? 7. If it proved necessary for a particular group, we would seek to find out how bilingual the group is with the appropriate second language, i.e., Oriya, Hindi, Santali, Mundari, Ho(?).

2 Groups and languages

During the four weeks of survey, we were not able to answer many of the above questions. The following sums up just what we were able to do and includes some observations and suggestions for what needs to be done next. In table 1, I have included a list of the languages and their 1981 and 1971 census figures for Mayurbhanj District. The 1981 figures refer explicitly to languages while the 1971 figures are for ethnic groups, not necessarily the languages of the people (Nanda and India Director of Census Operations, Orissa 1982).

1 2

Table 1. Census figures for Mayurbhanj District

Language family Language 1981 1971 Munda Bhumij 27,146 79,600 Birhor (Mankidi/-kirdia) --- 133 Gadaba --- 17 Ho 118,534 27,090 Juang 0 1 Kharia 918 10,930 Kisan 0 69 Kol --- 12 Kora 51 --- Korwa ------Mahle (Mahali) --- 3,891 Mirdhas --- 181 Munda 41,524 4,727 Mundari 61,879 8,292 Parenga --- 16 Paroja --- 113 Santali 403,004 340,327 Saora (Savara) 187 2,087 Dravidian Dharua? --- 533 Gond 454 16,659 Khond/(Kui) (1,907) 0 193 Koya --- 87 Kurukh/Oraon 0 1,783 Madia --- 260 Pentia? --- 3,853

The groups on the list with which we personally came in contact were the Bhumij, Birhor, Ho, Mahali, Munda, Mundari, and Santali. Kharia and Savara people were reported to us as being in the area, but we were not able to make contact with them. Another group we encountered and from whom we were able to obtain a wordlist and text was the Mohanta people, who speak an Indo-Aryan language, seemingly most similar to Bengali but also somewhat similar to Oriya with some borrowed words from surrounding Munda languages. They themselves claim they speak a non-standard form of Bengali.

3 Location of the groups

The Ho are primarily located in the Singhbhum district of Bihar and in the Mayurbhanj district. The Bhumij come from the Singhbhum district of Bihar and can be found there today. Some were encountered there on a previous survey. In Mayurbhanj the Bhumij (who call themselves Sadar Bhumij, see below) can be found all over the district but primarily on the western side of the Simli Pahar, often near Ho people. The Mundari (Tamdia) can also be found all over the district but primarily on the eastern side of the Simli Pahar. The Mahali can be found usually with Santalis who are more numerous in the northern and eastern parts of the district. The Birhor are more difficult to locate as most of the year they are in the forest of the Simli Pahar, but they come out and camp during the monsoons just outside of Bisoi, Baldia (west of Baripada), Khunta (near Udala), and Dordura (near Jashipur), all within Mayurbhanj District. The Kharia and Savara are reportedly in the jungles near Gundipur and just north of Madhupur. For a discussion on the Munda, see section 4. 3

Map. Mayurbhanj District and some of its survey locations

Source : OSMF. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316417044#map=9/22.0335/86.1026. CC BY-SA 2.0. Map modified by the author. OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). Accessed 22 October 2020.

4 The Mundari/Munda/Bhumij question

One of the biggest questions that evolved was group identity among the Bhumij, Bhumij Munda, Munda, Mundari, and Mundari Bhumij. It was not at all clear just who these groups are, as some communities claimed more than one name for their identity. Among the Mundari, there were reportedly different castes, which also tended to confuse the issue. So who the Bhumij, the Mundari, and the Munda are became an urgent question. Before we could do much cross-checking of wordlists and text-testing, we felt the need to try to identify who each of these groups are. So far, we have concluded that there are at least two groups that we can definitely identify: the Bhumij, who call themselves Sadar Bhumij, and the Mundari, who call themselves Tamdia Mundari. Much of the confusion was caused by both groups calling themselves by a variety of names. The Bhumij refer to themselves as Munda, Bhumij Munda, Sadar Bhumij, or just Bhumij. The Mundari refer to themselves as Tamdia Bhumij, Tamdia Munda, Munda, or Mundari. For the remainder of this summary Bhumij and Mundari will be used to refer to these two groups. Both the Mundari and Bhumij communities in general were quite receptive towards us and very helpful. This may indicate good possibilities for future work among these people. It is still unclear as to whether the Mundas are a separate group with a separate language, as stated in the 1981 census (Nanda and India Director of Census Operations, Orissa 1982), or if these figures include various groups of Bhumij and Mundari who used Munda as the name of their language in the census. 4

5 Lexical similarity

A comparison of the eight wordlists collected on this survey with each other and with all the Bhumij wordlists (five), one Mundari wordlist, two Santali wordlists, two Ho wordlists, and an Oriya wordlist from a previous study of Ho dialects resulted in the following table of lexical similarity percentages. The subsequent comments regarding the percentages are tentative and should not be used to make any decisive conclusion at this point in time. The underlined lists were collected during this survey.

Table 2. Lexical similarity percentages Asthia Mundari 94 Dhungarisai Mundari 89 90 Baripada Mundari 70 80 78 Mundari (Dictionary) (Bhaduri 1931) 85 84 81 75 Madhupur Bhumij 86 86 82 74 96 Podadie Bhumij 80 80 79 75 88 90 Dumadie Bhumij 82 79 78 72 86 86 85 Haldi Phokari Bhumij 88 87 87 74 83 80 79 80 Balasore Bhumij 83 82 80 81 79 77 78 75 80 Bandgaon Bhumij 74 76 75 72 75 77 74 73 77 70 Bisoi Birhor 73 78 74 72 75 77 72 72 74 67 84 Dhungarisai Birhor 74 70 72 73 76 70 74 70 72 70 71 68 Baripada Santali 71 69 70 74 73 68 70 66 71 66 71 70 90 Santali (Dictionary) (Campbell 1899) 69 67 64 76 70 75 74 67 70 74 68 66 94 86 Bisoi Mahali/Santali 83 82 79 90 79 82 81 77 81 89 71 68 74 74 74 Chaibasa Ho (Dictionary) (Deeney 1978) 75 75 74 78 75 76 73 72 73 81 68 64 66 68 66 98 Thakurmunda Ho 16 16 18 14 17 20 16 20 22 12 21 21 16 14 13 12 12 Mohanta 17 20 21 11 20 17 13 19 20 13 20 24 15 15 13 11 10 64 Oriya

The lexical similarity percentages table has been organized as much as possible from most similar to least similar. However, it can be seen that distinct groupings of similarity are not extremely obvious. The Mundari lists show a high similarity to each other, with the exception of the Mundari dictionary (Bhaduri 1931). This may indicate that the Mundari in Mayurbhanj may be somewhat different from the Mundari spoken in the Ranchi area (location of the dictionary work). The Mundari lists show less similarity to the Bhumij lists, although it is interesting to note the relatively high similarity each of them has to the Balasore Bhumij. I have no explanation for this. I attribute the high lexical similarity percentage between the Mundari dictionary (Bhaduri 1931) and the Ho dictionary (Deeney 1978) to the comparison of synonyms for various word items found in the dictionaries. According to the dictionaries, Mundari and Ho share many of these synonyms. Such synonyms are difficult to elicit on the field and are thus not available for comparison with other elicited data, resulting in lower percentages of lexical similarity. However, the similarity between Mundari and Ho is quite clear. This would suggest the need for intelligibility testing comparing Mundari and Ho. If the Mundari spoken in Mayurbhanj proves to be inadequately intelligible with the Mundari spoken in Ranchi (see comment above), intelligibility testing between these two languages will be all the more important. It is possible the Mundari of Mayurbhanj will prove to be adequately intelligible with Ho. The Bhumij lists tend to be more congruous in their similarity percentages. The Madhupur Bhumij collected during this survey shows, in general, a greater similarity to the other Bhumij wordlists than to the Mundari, although the difference is marginal. Both the Bhumij and Mundari wordlists generally show greater similarity to the two Indo-Aryan languages than do the Ho or Santali lists. But the Birhor lists 5 show the greatest similarity to Oriya, which may indicate a greater assimilation of Oriya into the lives of the Birhor. A discussion of the Birhor percentages follows in section 6.

6 Recorded-text test results

A Mundari text was obtained at the outset of this particular survey and was administered as a test in a few communities. In each of the Mundari communities, all the Mundaris claimed the texts as their own language. Also, the Bhumij were able to identify the same texts as Mundari almost always within the first sentence or two. A Bhumij text was obtained on the Ho survey and was administered briefly in test form to some Mundari communities. Table 3 shows the results (B=Bhumij community, M=Mundari community, AVG=average score, SS=sample size, SD=standard deviation, blanks (---)=test was not administered, and underline=hometown result).

Table 3. Recorded text test score results

Community/Group Mundari text Bhumij text AVG SS SD AVG SS SD Dumadie (B) 82 6 9.84 100 10 0.00 Madhupur (B) 90 1 0.00 95 1 0.00 Jamboni (M) 97 10 6.75 96 9 6.01 Dhungarisai (M) 100 1 0.00 100 1 0.00 Ashram (M) ------100 2 0.00

Although the sample sizes at most of these places was insufficient for drawing any clear conclusions, by the end of our time there, we were working on the assumption that we had encountered two groups who basically understood one another sufficiently, but both of whom claimed separate identity. Interestingly enough, whenever a Bhumij was asked what language the Mundari text was, he immediately replied, “Tamdia Munda”, and identified himself as speaking differently from that language, although he would claim that there is a relationship between his language and Mundari. However, almost none of the Mundari speakers tested could correctly identify the Bhumij text as Bhumij. Some thought it was Ho. When asked in a questionnaire we administered if they would accept literature in the language of the other group, all but one community said no. A strong group identity seemed to prevail in each of the communities. Also, both the Mundari and Bhumij had their own publications from a Mundari society and a Bhumij society, each in their own language. More study needs to be done to find out whether the understanding between these two groups is high enough for them to benefit from one language development program; but even if the understanding is high enough, the sociolinguistic factors may still require that a separate language development project be provided for each. Also, other questions must be answered, such as (1) can the Mundari profitably use the already existing Mundari literature from the Ranchi area, since Tamdia (their place of origin) is very near Ranchi?, and (2) are the Bhumij sufficiently distinct from Ho linguistically to warrant a separate language development project, and if not, are there sociolinguistic factors that will require it? We also had brief encounters with the Birhor, a nomadic jungle group sometimes called Mankirdi (monkey) by Oriyans. We were able to collect two Birhor wordlists from different places. These wordlists were 84 percent similar to each other, but much less similar to the Bhumij, Ho, Mundari, and Santali wordlists (see table 2). The highest similarity percentage to any other Munda group was a 78 percent to Dhungarisai Mundari. The group as a whole was quite closed to us as outsiders. The low similarity to Santali/Mahali (66%–71%) and the slightly higher similarity to the Mundari and Bhumij may indicate that the Birhor will understand one of these latter languages better than Santali. The similarity percentages seem to indicate that Birhor is a distinct language or dialect of its own, worthy of more in- depth study to determine its language development needs. 6

We were not able to obtain a text from either Birhor community. At Bhadhoni Colony near Bisoi we were able to play a Santali text and a Ho text for one man. He scored 90 percent on the Santali and 90 percent on the Ho text. He could not say whether the people at large would understand either text. The community seemed to use Birhor among themselves but claimed to speak Oriya and Santali with outsiders. It is unclear whether they will be able to understand Santali or Ho literature or whether they will accept either one. The first impression was that they would not accept either one, nor would they feel a need to read. We came in contact with a Mahali community near the Birhor at Bhadhoni colony near Bisoi. They were living among the Santali, to whom they are historically and linguistically connected. They claimed their language was Santali and that they were merely a subcaste (basket weavers) of the Santalis. The word-list comparison shows an 86 percent lexical similarity to Campbell’s (1899) Santali-English Dictionary and a 94 percent similarity to a Santali wordlist elicited near Baripada, Mayurbhanj. We were able to test five people on a Santali text. The average score was 96 percent with a standard deviation of 5.29. Although it is premature to draw a firm conclusion, we felt that, at least within this community, already existing written materials in Santali may prove adequate. As mentioned above, we were able to obtain a Santali text, create a test, and complete “hometown” testing, almost all in the leprosy ashram just outside Baripada. Santalis from both east and west Mayurbhanj participated. The average score for the ten participants was 98 percent with a standard deviation of 5.43.

7 Other groups

The other groups we were told about in the area were the Kharia and Savara (Saora). We were told by the various communities of Adiwasis we visited that both of these groups live primarily in the forests. The Kharia speak a language somewhat like Bhumij and Mundari, but the Bhumij and Mundari speakers claim they cannot understand the Kharia. When the Kharia communicate with the other two groups they reportedly use Oriya. The Savara were said to be more isolated and only speak Oriya. However, it is not certain which language either of these groups speak in their own communities, as the reports were all from outsiders. One Birhor community said the Kharia are always fighting and the Savara speak a non- standard Oriya much like the Mohanta.

8 Suggestions for further research

Much more survey needs to be done in the district of Mayurbhanj to determine just who the different people groups in the district are, where they live, and what languages they speak. More wordlists and recorded-text texts need to be collected and administered, as well as more questionnaires administered and observations made in order to come to some conclusions regarding the need for language development projects. More data are required to make any strong suggestions. It should be kept in mind that none of the groups in Mayurbhanj that have been contacted so far would call Mayurbhanj their group’s primary homeland, except for perhaps the Ho and the Bhumij, who are located primarily in this district and both even more so in Singhbhum district of Bihar. The Mundari regard Ranchi district as their home; the Mahalis and Santals consider Santal Parganas and north of there as their home area. The Birhor see Ranchi and Singhbhum as their homeland; the Kharia recognize Ranchi, Sambalpur and Sundargarh as their home; and the Savara regard Ganjam and Koraput as their homeland. In order to have a complete picture of the language development needs of each group in Mayurbhanj District a survey for each group will need to be conducted which will include that group’s home area. Only then can it be established that a language development project is needed for each group and how the needs of each group can best be met. This summary is submitted with the hope that each of these groups will be surveyed adequately to help draw conclusions regarding the need for literature in the languages of each of the groups in Mayurbhanj District. 7

9 Summary

The main goal of the sociolinguistic survey of the Mayurbhanj District of Orissa was to get an overview of the overall language situation in the district, paying special attention to the Munda languages: Bhumij, Birhor, Ho, Mahali, Munda, Mundari, and Santali. One research objective was to establish who these groups are, as some communities claimed more than one name for their identity. The survey findings suggest that, among these languages, there are at least two distinct groups with distinct languages: the Bhumij, who call themselves Sadar Bhumij, and the Mundari, who call themselves Tamdia Mundari. As for the Munda, it remains unclear whether they constitute a separate group with a separate language. In terms of their lexical similarity, the findings from the wordlist analysis confirm the distinct grouping of the Bhumij and Mundari varieties, although this distinct grouping is not extremely obvious. Furthermore, the lexical similarity percentages suggest that Birhor is a distinct language variety of its own. The results of the intelligibility testing conducted in different Bhumij and Mundari communities suggest that both language groups basically understand one another sufficiently, while at the same time claiming separate identities. The test results do not clearly show, however, whether the understanding between both groups is high enough for them to benefit from the same language development program. To gain a better understanding who exactly the different people groups in the Mayurbhanj District are, where they live, what languages they speak and understand and to what degree, and what their language development needs are more survey research is needed.

References

Bhaduri, Manindra Bhusan. 1931. Mundari-English dictionary. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press. Campbell, Andrew. 1899. A Santali-English dictionary. Pokhuria: Santal Mission Press. Deeney, J. 1978. Ho-English dictionary. Chaibasa: Xavier Ho Publications. Nanda, Amulya Ratna and India Director of Census Operations, Orissa. 1982. District census handbook: Orissa, Mayurbhanj. Cuttack: Survey and Map Publication, Orissa.

8