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.