TheNaga Language Groups within the Tibeto-Burman Language Family George van Driem The Nagas speak languages of the Tibeto-Burman fami­ Ethnically, many Tibeto-Burman tribes of the northeast ly. Yet, according to our present state of knowledge, the have been called Naga in the past or have been labelled as >Naga languages< do not constitute a single genetic sub­ >Naga< in scholarly literature who are no longer usually group within Tibeto-Burman. What defines the Nagas best covered by the modern more restricted sense of the term is perhaps just the label Naga, which was once applied in­ today. Linguistically, even today's >Naga languages< do discriminately by Indo-Aryan colonists to all scantily clad not represent a single coherent branch of the family, but tribes speaking Tibeto-Burman languages in the northeast constitute several distinct branches of Tibeto-Burman. of the Subcontinent. At any rate, the name Naga, ultimately This essay aims (1) to give an idea of the linguistic position derived from Sanskrit nagna >naked<, originated as a titu­ of these languages within the family to which they belong, lar label, because the term denoted a sect of Shaivite sadhus (2) to provide a relatively comprehensive list of names and whose most salient trait to the eyes of the lay observer was localities as a directory for consultation by scholars and in­ that they went through life unclad. The Tibeto-Burman terested laymen who wish to make their way through the tribes labelled N aga in the northeast, though scantily clad, jungle of names and alternative appellations that confront were of course not Hindu at all. The diverse N aga language any interested reader of ethnographical and linguistic liter­ communities observed their own indigenous religions and ature on the Nagas and their closest Tibeto-Burman neigh­ represented a lineage of cultural traditions entirely dis­ bours in northeastern India, and (3) to address the issue of tinct from the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist traditions ofln­ the provenance of the various Tibeto-Burman language dia proper. Other etymologies have been proposed relating communities designated collectively as Naga. the ethnonym N aga to words or expressions in one or other language of the many diverse Naga languages. One such The Tibeto-Burman family vies with lndo-European for etymology proposes that the term derives from an expres­ the title of the language family with the most speakers in sion denoting piercing, a practice prevalent amongst some the world. Numerically, however, most speakers ofTibeto­ of theNaga tribes. Whether or not any such alternative ex­ Burman languages are represented by a single branch. The planations in fact represent the genuine etymology of the Sinitic languages Mandarin, Hakka, Cantonese and the name, or just reflect folk etymologies, they evidently take other Chinese >dialects< account for most speakers as a their inspiration from popular perceptions by outsiders of historical consequence of the southward expansion ofH<'m salient features ofNaga material culture. language and culture from northeastern China from the 3rd century BC onwards. Yet Sinitic is just one of many branch­ es. Most of the branches of the Tibeto-Burman language 311 George van Driem TheN aga language groups within the Tibeto-Burman language family Kazakhstan Tibeto-Burman Mongolia Uzbekistan Kyrgyztan WestHimalayish G~ ~ Sinitic ... and all languages Chinese Inner Mongolia ~8 Turkestan which can be ~ Tajikistan demonstrated to be 0 genetically related to Tibetan Chinese Burmese Afghanistan these three 8 ~ ~8 ~s~ China G ~a~~ Tibet b. Fig. 1. One of the language families identified byJulius Heinrich ~Digarish ~~ Pakistan von Klaproth in his polyphyletic view ofAsian linguistic stocks (1823a1 Bhutan ~ Chepangic Midzhuish 8Nungtsh 8 . 1823b). He explicitly excluded languages today known to be Kra-Dai or 8 ~ ~G Kareruc e I e e 1 •e Daic (e.g. Thai, Lao, Shan) and known to be Austroasiatic (e.g. M on, ••••• •e ee••• e • Vietnamese, Nicobarese, Khmer). ~e~~ Nepal • · 8 e e •• Bangla- e•• • e ~ r::0 o ~s 8 ~ ~ Brahrnaputr•n G~ ~gS desh e Burma family are represented solely in India. In fact, the linguistic India e Karbi Kukish Laos and prehistorical centre of diversity of the language phy­ 8Mru lum lies decidedly within the Indian subcontinent. b. Fig. 2. Major branches of the Tibeto-Burman language family Thailand The Tibeto-Burman family oflanguages was first identi­ (van Driem 2001). fied in Paris by the German scholar Julius von Klaproth in his Asia Polyglotta in 1823. The first explicitly polyphyletic attention back to the centre ofTibeto-Burman linguistic view of Asian linguistic stocks had been presented over a diversity, which lies in the eastern Himalayas and the In­ century earlier, in 1692, by Nicolaes Wits en, former mayor do-Burmese borderlands. The patch of fallen leaves on the of Amsterdam. Yet by the beginning of the nineteenth cen­ forest floor provides a more informative framework than a tury, enough language documentation had accumulated in false tree, such as the misleading and now defunct Indo­ Europe that the well-travelled and knowledgeable Klaproth Chinese or >Sino-Tibetan< model (van Driem 2003). Each branch of the family shown in Fig. 1 contains between b. Fig. 3· Geographical distribution of the major branches ofTibeto­ was able to identify and distinguish twenty-three Asian one and over forty completely different languages. The Burman. Each dot represents a major subgroup, not a single language. (vanDriem 2002). language families based on his systematic comparison of The metaphor of fallen leaves implies the existence of a tree. representation is schematic and neutral with respect to lexical roots. Some of his families have been augmented, Yet we cannot lift our gaze from the forest floor to see the different higher-order subgrouping hypotheses about the diminished or redefined, but today his Tibeto-Burman tree because we cannot look directly into the past. Instead, branching of the family, e.g. Sino-Bodic, Newaric, Brah­ >N agas< in the past, and other groups of northeastern India model remains the most well-informed model and also still historical comparative work will hopefully enable us to see maputran. The subgroups Sinitic, Bai, Tujia, Qiangic and that sometimes tend to be confused with the Nagas. The represents the most agnostic and thus inherently least con­ the shadows which the branches cast between the leaves on the Ersu cluster lie within the present-day political bor­ most common alternative names for the various language troversial theory of the genetic relationship between the the forest floor. Whether a language family appears to be ders of China. The Bodish, Tshangla and Lolo-Burmese communities are provided in order to aid the unravelling diverse Naga languages and languages such as Burmese, more rake-like or more tree-like is often a function of the branches are represented both inside China and on the In­ of the complex ethnic and linguistic nomenclature used lo­ Chinese, Tibetan, Sherpa, Limbu, Newari and other lan­ state of the art in historical comparative linguistics rather dian subcontinent. All other groups lie within India, Nepal, cally and in the specialist literature. The geographical loca­ guages of the same linguistic stock. than a statement about linguistic phylogeny. It is relevant Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh. tions of the language communities are also indicated. to note, however, that with the inexorable progress oflndo­ We know more now than Klaproth did. Many previously European linguistic studies, even the twelve branches of The key to understanding the prehistory of this language The groups numbered here from 1 to 8 live to the west or unknown Tibeto-Burman languages and subgroups have this most well-studied language family, once depicted in family therefore lies in India, and the centre of diversity to the north of the N agas. Group 9 comprises the com­ been identified since 1823. In 2001 in Cambridge, I intro­ the pleasing shape of a branching oak, have gradually as­ lies specifically in the northeastern corner of the Subcon­ munities usually called >Northern Nagas<1 even though duced the metaphor of fallen leaves illustrated in Fig. 2 sumed a more rake-like appearance and so come closer to tinent, where we also find the Naga languages. Below are Northern N a gas are linguistically more closely affiliated to (van Driem 2001). The model attempts to identify all the the fallen leaves model. listed the groups in India which are called Naga, some Brahmaputran, i.e. Group 4 1 and perhaps also to Kachin­ constituent branches of the family and draw the focus of neighbouring groups that have been loosely categorised as ic, i.e. Group 17. Groups 10 to 12 are the linguistic groups 312 313 George van Driem TheN aga language groups within the Tibeto-Burman language family narrowly defined as Nagas, comprising the languages of Tibeto-Burman subgroups and language communities 4b-4 Tiwa (a.k.a. Lalung)-in the Karbi sb Eastern Tani (a.k.a. >Abor<, Adi, Padam- the Ao branch, the Angami-Pochuri branch and the Zeme Lepcha- Sikkim and Darjeeling district Anglong or Mikir Hills around Umswai Minyong group) - east of the Subansiri branch. Groups 13 to 16 represent the immediate southern 1a. Lepcha (a.k.a. Rong) 4b-s Dimasa (a.k.a. >Bodo<)- sb-1 Damu-perhaps near the Subansiri, and eastern neighbours of the Nagas. Groups 18 to 38 are 2 Hrusish- in Kameng district in northern Cachar Hills precise whereabouts unknown branches of Tibeto-Burman languages spoken outside easternArunachal Pradesh 4b-6 Hojai (a.k.a. >Bodo<)- sb-2 Bori- along the Siyom and Sike in an area of northeastern India. More information on all of these 2a Dhfmmai (a.k.a. Miji)-between northern Cachar Hills enclosed by the Luyor hills on the east, the groups can be found in my 2001 handbook.