VII. AFFINITIES.

The place of the Mikirs in the Tibeto-Burman family.

Yet they retain, together with these borrowed features, a sufficiently definite stock of original characteristics. Physically they differ much from Khasi and Assamese alike. Their social fabric is based upon clearly marked exogamous groups, with patriarchal principles of marriage and inheritance; they call these by a Khasi name (kur), but have no trace of the matriarchal family as known among the Khasis. They build their houses on posts, while their neighbours, except the Kukis, build on the ground. Their deities are of the primitive kind which is common to all Indo-Chinese races, well known, under the name of Nats, as the object of popular worship and propitiation in Burma.

Ever since the race has been studied, it has been noticed that it was difficult to establish its exact place and affinities in the heterogeneous congeries of peoples who inhabit the mountainous region between India and Burma. This was remarked by Robinson in 1841 and 1849, by Stewart in 1855, by Damant in 1879. At the Census of 1881 an attempt was made to bring the Mikirs into relation with the Boro or Kachārī stock; but it was seen at the time that more must be ascertained regarding their neighbours before any final judgment could be arrived at. Dr. Grierson, on linguistic grounds, has classed them in the Linguistic Survey as intermediate between the Boro and the Western Nagas. It appears to the present writer, in the light of the much fuller information now available, that they should be classed rather with those tribes which form the connecting link between the Nagas and the Kuki-Chins, and that the preponderance of their affinities lies with the latter of these two races, especially those dwelling in the south of the Arakan Roma range, where the Chin tends to merge into the Burman of the Irawadi Valley.

When Robinson and Stewart wrote, it was still remembered that the Mikirs had once been settled in strength in the country (now called North Cachar) to the immediate north of the Barāil Range, and in contact with the Angāmi, the Kachcha, and the Kabui Nagas; and that, exposed as they were in this locality to the inroads of the Angāmis and the oppression of the Kachāri kings, they had migrated westwards to the territory of the Jaintia Raja in search of protection. It was noticed in the Assam Census Report of 1881 that in this region north of the Barāil, where there are now no Mikirs, local names belonging to their language indicated their former presence. When they lived there, they must have been in touch with tribes belonging to the Kuki-Chin stock, who have for centuries occupied the hill ranges to the south of the valley of Cachar, and the mountains between that valley and Manipur.

The institutions of co-operative agriculture by the village lads (p. 11), the bachelors’ house or teràng (id.), the former custom of ante-nuptial promiscuity (p. 19), and the traces of village tabu resembling the Naga genna, still characterizing the annual festival of the Ròngkēr (p. 43), all point to a connection with the Western Naga tribes, rather than to affinity with the Kachāri stock. From the Kuki and Chin tribes the Mikirs are distinguished chiefly by their pacific habits, and by the absence of the dependence upon hereditary tribal chiefs which is so strong a feature among the former. The customs of both races as regards the building of houses upon posts, with a hong or open platform in front, are identical; in Major G. E. Fryer’s paper “On the Khyeng people of the Sandoway District, Arakan,” published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1875 (pp. 39, 99), a Khyeng house is figured which bears a striking resemblance to the Mikir house. The institutions of domestic and individual life among the Khyengs (Chins), as described by Major Fryer, especially as regards marriage, funeral ceremonies, the disposal of the dead (after copious feasting of friends and relatives) by cremation, the rules of inheritance (females being wholly excluded from succession), the treatment of disease, the propitiation of spirits, and the annual festivals in honour of the gods who preside over man’s welfare, present the closest analogy to those of the Mikirs as set forth in this monograph. Like the Mikirs, the Chins are divided into exogamous groups and follow the rule of male kinship; but, like the Mikirs also in this, the approved marriage is that between a man and his first cousin on the mother’s side. It has been noticed already (p. 21) that the word for father-in-law (òng-hai, wife’s father) in Mikir is identical with that for maternal uncle, òng, and that son-in-law, osā, also means nephew (sister’s son). The story of “the Orphan and his Maternal Uncles” illustrates the obligation which lies on a lad to marry his mother’s brother’s daughter (see above, p. 53). Similarly, Harata Kuṅwar, though but a mortal, calls his father-in-law the Bārī-thē Rēchō ònghai (p. 147), and is spoken of by him as osā (id.), while the fairy princesses call him cousin, kòrpō (p. 127). The same phenomenon appears in the Kuki-Chin languages. In Shö or Chin (Khyeng) apū means both maternal uncle and father-in-law; so also in Lushei, pu has both meanings. The following list of words indicating relationship in Mikir and Lushei (representing the Central Kuki-Chins) shows how closely the two languages correspond in this important part of their vocabulary:—

Mikir. Lushei.

grandfather phu pu

grandmother phi pi

grandson su-po tu-pa

granddaughter su-pī tu-nu

father pō pā

mother pei nu

aunt:

father’s sister nī ni

mother’s sister pi-nu nu

father’s brother’s wife nī nu

Among all these tribes the most important index to racial connexion is to be found in their languages. No one would now assert that language, any more than religion, is everywhere a conclusive mark of racial unity; immense masses of the people of India to-day speak languages imposed upon them from without, and Aryan speech has extended itself over many millions in whose blood nothing is due to the original invaders from the north-west. Again, the practices of a predatory state of society bring into the tribe slaves and wives from outside; or, as among the Mikirs (p. 33), aliens may be accepted on equal terms as members, thus modifying the unity of blood. On the other hand, it would be equally unreasonable and opposed to the facts to deny that, among such communities as the Tibeto-Burman peoples of Assam, race and language do, constantly and in a general manner, coincide. People who speak a tongue which is unintelligible to their neighbours are necessarily thrown together into a unity of their own. Their ancestral ideas and institutions, secular and religious, their tribal history, must tend to keep them united, and perpetuate the influence of a common origin by the fact that all outside the community are actual or potential enemies. Language, therefore, when it coincides with tribal separateness, is our chief guide in determining the relationship of the hill tribes of Assam one to another.

Here another qualification is, however, necessary. The word-stock of the Tibeto-Burman races is to a large extent identical. The same methods of arranging the elements of the sentence, in other words the same general principles of grammar, prevail throughout the whole family of speech. We must, therefore, in investigating the nearer kinship of one group to another, not be misled by linguistic resemblances which are common to the whole stock to which both groups belong.

In comparing Tibeto-Burman languages it has been usual to choose for examination in the first place the numerals and in the second the pronouns. The vocabulary of nouns, adjectives, and verbs is liable to disturbing influences which do not equally affect the simple ideas represented by number and person. Let us begin, therefore, with the numerals. These, so far as they are necessary for our purpose, are as follows in Mikir:—

one, īsī

two, hīnī

three, kethòm

four, philī

five, phòngō

six, theròk

seven, theròk-sī

eight, nēr-kèp

nine, sir-kèp

ten, kèp

eleven, krē-īsī

twelve, krē-hīnī

thirteen, krē-kethòm

etc.

a score, ing-koi

twenty-one, ing-koi-rā-īsī

etc.

thirty, thòm-kèp

forty, philī-kèp

etc.

a hundred, phārō

Here the first thing to be noticed is that the three numerals between six and ten are not independent vocables, but compounds; seven is six plus one: eight is ten minus two, and nine is ten minus one. In most of the other languages of the family this is not so; the Boṛo, the Naga, and the majority of the Kuki-Chin languages all have independent words for seven, eight, and nine. It appears to be only in the Kuki-Chin group that we can find an analogy to the Mikir words for these three numerals. In Anāl, a language of the Old Kuki family spoken in Manipur, seven is tak-si which seems to be identical with the Mikir theròk-sī; and in Meithei (the language of the Manipuris) eight is ni-pān,“two from ten,” and nine is ma-pān, “one from ten.”

The word for a hundred, phārō, bears no resemblance to any word expressing this numeral in the Boṛo languages. It agrees with the Angāmi krā, Kezhāmā krī, Sopvoma krē, and in a remarkable way with the words used by the Southern Chins (Taungthā ta-yā = tarā, Chinbòk phyā = phrā, Yawdwin prā, Shö (Chin) krāt). It will be seen that phā- in Mikir, k- in the Naga languages, and ta-, ph-, p- and k- in the Chin dialects, are numeral prefixes, and that the essential element of the numeral is rā (Mikir rō) or rāt. It appears in this form, without any prefix, in several other Kuki-Chin languages.

Here should be mentioned a custom which obtains in Mikir of counting by fours; a group of four is chekē or chikē, which corresponds to the Boṛo zakhai (jakhai). This system is used for counting such things as eggs, betel-nuts, fowls, etc., of the same class; e.g. vo-tī chikē phòngō-rā ē-pum, 21 eggs (4 × 5 + 1): chikē phòngō-rā pum-thòm, 23 eggs (4 × 5 + 3). Possibly one language has borrowed from the other. (This method of counting by fours is common throughout the Aryan languages of Northern India, where a group of four is called (gaṇḍā.)

Our conclusion from these comparisons is that while Mikir has few coincidences, beyond those common to the whole Tibeto-Burman family, with the Boṛo group, it has many with the Naga and Kuki-Chin groups, and especially with the Shö or southernmost Chins.

Before leaving the numerals, something must be said of the prefixes which they exhibit throughout the Tibeto-Burman family. Taking first that member for which we have the oldest materials, Tibetan, the first ten numerals are as follows:—

As written. As now spoken in Central Tibet.

one gchig chik

two gnyis nyī

three gsum sum

four bzhi shi

five lngā ngā

six drug ḍhuk

seven bdun dün

eight brgyad gyā

nine dgu gu

ten bchu chu

Here we observe several different prefixes, once no doubt supplied with vowels, but from the dawn of written record united in Tibetan with the following consonant, and now no longer heard in utterance; in the first three units the prefix is g-: in four, seven, eight, and ten it is b-: in six and nine it is d-: and in five it is l-.

In the Tibeto-Burman languages of Assam and Burma we find the same phenomenon of numeral prefixes; but while some languages have the same prefix throughout the ten units, others, like Tibetan, have several different prefixes. In some cases, again, the prefixes have been incorporated in the numeral and are no longer recognized as separable, while in others they may be dropped when the numeral occurs in composition; in others, again, the prefixes have (as in spoken Tibetan) been dropped altogether.

Of the first class the best examples are the Central Kuki-Chin languages:—

Lai. Shonshē. Lushei.

one pö-kat ma-kat pa-khat

two pö-ni ma-nhi pa-nhih

three pö-thūm ma-ton pa-thum

four pö-lī ma-li pa-lī

five pö-nga ma-ngā pa-ngā

six pö-ruk ma-rūk pa-ruk

seven pö-sari ma-seri pa-sarih

eight pö-ryeth ma-rīt pa-riat

nine pö-kwa ma-ko pa-kuā

ten pö-ra ma-rā shom

Of the second class Mikir, in common with most of the Assam family, is an example; in one and two the prefix ke- (representing the Tibetan g-) has been abraded to ī- and hī-: in three it persists; in these numbers the prefix may be dropped in composition, leaving sī, nī, and thòm remaining. In four and five we have the prefix phi- (for pi-) and pho- (for po- or pa-), representing the b- of Tibetan, but now no longer separable. In six the prefix the- represents the original d-, and has similarly become inseparable. In ten, the form krē represents an original kerā, answering to the Kuki-Chin pö-rā and ma-rā and the Meithei ta-rā. We notice that in Mikir, as in the Naga and Kuki-Chin languages, the hard consonants k, p, t (ph, th) have replaced the soft g, b, and d of the Tibetan. In the Boṛo languages, on the other hand, the original soft consonants of Tibetan are retained, as will be seen from the forms below:—

Boṛo. Dīmāsā. Garo.

one se, sŭi shī sā

two ni, nŭi ginī gnī

three thām gatam gitām

four brè, brŭi bri brī

five bā bongā bonggā

six ro, ḍo ḍo ḍok

In these changes Mikir follows the phonetic laws obtaining in Naga and Kuki-Chin, not those which obtain in Boṛo.

Turning now to the pronouns, the Mikir nē for the first person singular finds it exact equivalent only in the two Old Kuki dialects Anāl and Hirōi, spoken in Manipur, where the corresponding pronoun is ni (Anāl) and nai (Hirōi). In Boṛo the form is āng, in Angāmi ā, in Sema ngi, in Ao nī, in Lhota ā, in Kachcha Naga ānui. In the majority of the Kuki-Chin family another stem, kei or kē, is used. Here Mikir agrees with the two Kuki dialects mentioned and with some of the Naga forms, rather than with Boṛo.

For the second person singular all the Tibeto-Burman languages of Assam have nàng, or closely similar forms.

For the third person Mikir now uses the demonstrative lā, but, as the possessive prefix shows, had formerly ā. In this it agrees with Lai, Lushei, Chiru, Kolren among the Kuki family, and Tangkhul and Maring among the Naga-Kuki group. What the original Boṛo pronoun of the third person was is not now ascertainable; the demonstrative bi (Darrang), bē (Lalung), bō (Dīmāsā) or uā (Garo) is now used instead. This seems to correspond with the Mikir pe-, pi-, pā- in the words mentioned on p. 80. In Angāmi the pronoun is similarly pō, in Sema pā, and in Ao pā. In Meithei and many other Kuki-Chin languages another demonstrative, ma, is used; this may be connected with the Mikir mi, me, in minī, to-day, menàp, to-morrow (see p. 80). But, although ma is used as a separate pronoun for the third person in the majority of the Kuki-Chin group, the prefixed ā- of relation, usual in Mikir, which (as explained on p. 76) is really the possessive pronoun of the third person, is widely employed throughout the family, as a prefix both to nouns and adjectives, in exactly the same way as in Mikir. This coincidence, again, is striking; the Boṛo languages seem to present nothing similar.

The plural pronouns in Mikir are formed by adding -tum to the singular. Exactly the same thing takes place in Tangkhul, a Naga-Kuki language: i, I, i-thum, we; nā, thou, nā-thum, ye; ā, he, ā-thum, they. The plural of nouns, however, in Tangkhul is formed by other affixes, generally words meaning “many” (cf. the Mikir òng).

Mikir has two forms for the pronoun of the first person plural, according as the speaker includes the person addressed or excludes him, ī-tum or ē-tum in the former and nē-tum in the latter case. The first, it will be seen, agrees with the general word for we in Tangkhul. In Angāmi also two forms are used, hē-ko for we exclusive, and ā-vo for we inclusive; the former seems to agree in form, though not in sense, with the Mikir ē-tum. The affinity of Mikir with the Western Naga and Naga-Kuki languages seems to be exemplified here also. The Boṛo languages have not the double form for this person.

The reflexive pronoun or particle in Mikir, che (see p. 80), is represented in Thado Kuki by ki, which is perhaps the same word. Angāmi has the, Meithei na. Boṛo does not appear to possess any corresponding particle.

The interrogative particle -mā in Mikir (p. 80) is mo in most of the Kuki-Chin languages (in some -em, -am), while in Angāmi it is mā, and in Kachcha Naga mē. The same particle (mā) is used in Garo and Boṛo for questions.

Two particles are used in Mikir as suffixes to magnify or diminish the root-word; the augmentative is -pī (as thèng, wood, firewood, thèngpī, a tree; làng, water, làngpī, the great water, the sea), the diminutive is -sō (as hèm, a house, hèmsō, a hut; làng-sō, a brook). Boṛo has -mā for the augmentative, -sā for the diminutive (dui-mā, great river, dui-sā, brook); but Meithei and Thado have the same particles as Mikir, -pī and -chā (ch is equivalent to s).

The Mikir suffix -pō, feminine -pī, corresponding to the Hindī -wālā (see several examples on p. 12 ante), seems to be identical with the Meithei -bā (-pā) and -bī (-pī), though it has nothing like the extensive use in Mikir which -bā (-pā) has in Meithei.

The noteworthy separable prefix ār- in Mikir, which is probably connected with the Tibetan prefix r- (see ante, p. 129, note), appears to occur in the Kuki-Chin languages, but does not seem to have any representative in the Boṛo family. The examples in the Kuki-Chin volume of the Linguistic Survey are found in Rangkhol (p. 6, er-ming, “name”), Aimol (p. 215, ra-mai, “tail,” Mikir ārmē), Kōm (p. 245, ra-mhing, “name”; ra-nai, “earth, ground” [nai perhaps = Mikir lē in lòng-lē]), Kyaw or Chaw (p. 254), and Hirōi (p. 282). All these forms of speech belong to the Old Kuki group, which has already yielded several other analogies with Mikir.

The prefix ke- (ki-, kā-), which plays so important a part in Mikir (see pp. 77, 83, 84) in the formation of adjectives, participles, and verbal nouns, and answers to the Boṛo ga- and the Angāmi ke-, has for the most part disappeared from the Kuki dialects, perhaps because it conflicts with the prefixed pronominal stem of the first person, ka-. It survives, however, in the three Old Kuki languages, Kōm, Anāl, and Hirōi. In Tangkhul, of the Naga-Kuki group, it is used exactly as in Mikir, to form adjectives and verbal nouns, e.g.:—

Mikir. Tangkhul.

to come ke-vàng ka-vā (to go)

to eat ke-chō ka-shāi

to remain ke-bòm ka-pam (to sit)

to beat ke-chòk ka-shō

to die ke-thī ka-thī

The particles used in Mikir as suffixes to indicate tenses of the verb, with the exception of that for the completed past, tàng, which appears to be identical with the Thado and Lushei tā, do not seem to have any close analogues in the Kuki-Chin or Naga-Kuki groups; they are also quite different from those used in the Boṛo group. Causative verbs, however, are in many Kuki-Chin languages constructed with the verb pē or pèk, “to give,” as in Mikir; and the suffix of the conjunctive participle in Mikir, -sī, is perhaps the same as -chū in Khoirāo. In Boṛo the prefix fi-, answering to the Mikir pi-, was formerly used to form causatives, as appears from verbal roots in current use; the construction now most common uses -nu, which has the same meaning (“to give”) as a suffix.

The negative verb in Mikir is formed by suffixing the particle -ē to the positive root, when the latter begins with a vowel. Similarly, in Boṛo a negative verb is formed by adding the particle -ā. In the Kuki-Chin languages different suffixes are employed (lo, lai, loi, māk, ri), and in a few dialects prefixes. Here Mikir resembles Boṛo rather than the Kuki group. But the remarkable feature of Mikir in reduplicating initial consonants before the suffixed negative (see ante, p. 85) has no analogy in either family, unless the isolated example in Kolren (an Old Kuki dialect) quoted in the Linguistic Survey, vol. III., part iii., p. 19, supplies one. It is to be observed, however, that in the construction there cited (na-pē-pèk-māo-yai, “did not give”), the verb pèk has suffixed to it the negative particle māo, and that the reduplication alone appears to have no negative force. Other examples seem necessary before the rule of reduplication can be considered to be established. Possibly loi and lai in Kuki correspond to the separate Mikir negative kā-lī (see ante, p. 86).

Lastly, it should be noticed that Tipura, an outlying member of the Boṛo group, often exhibits a sound system more closely corresponding to that of the Kuki-Chin languages (which are its neighbours) than Boṛo, Dīmāsā, or Garo.

The resemblances in vocabulary between Mikir and the Western Naga dialects are extensive, as will be seen from the list (due to Mr. A. W. Davis) at p. 201, vol. III., part ii., of the Linguistic Survey. These need not be repeated here. The following is a list of Boṛo (Darrang), Dīmāsā, Garo, and Tipura words which seem to correspond with Mikir. It will be seen, however, by reference to the columns headed Kuki-Chin and Naga (including Naga-Kuki), that in the case of nearly all these words the other two families, as well as Mikir, have the same roots. They therefore belong to the common stock of the Tibeto-Burman languages of Assam, and do not by themselves prove any close connection of Mikir with Boṛo.

Nouns.

English. Mikir. Boṛo family. Kuki-Chin. Naga.

nose nōkàn Garo, nukum, nākung Meithei nātōl (n) Tangkhul nātūng

Tipura, bukung Thado nakui Angāmi ā-niki

Lushei nhār E. Naga nākong, nātong

eye mèk Boṛo mēgan Meithei mit Ang. mhi, mhü

Dīmāsā mu Thado Tangk. mik

Garo mik-rēn Lushei Marām mek

Shö (Chin) mik E. Naga mik, mek

mouth ing-hō Boṛo khū-ga Lushei kā Ang. thā, mē-thā

Dīmāsā khau Khāmī khā Rengma màng-khòng

Garo hō-tom, ku-sik Shö khō

tooth sō Boṛo hā-thau Andro sho Ang. ho, hu

Dīmāsā id. Sengmai shoa Sema a-hu

Thado hā

Lushei

Shö haw

ear nō Garo nā-chil, nā-kāl Meithei nā Ang. nü

Lai Lhota en-nō

Shö a-nhō Maring ka-nā

face me-hàng Boṛo makhàng Meithei māe

Garo mikkang Lushei hmai

Tipura mukhàng

belly pòk Dīmāsā ho Meithei puk Ang. vā

Garo ok, pī-puk Andro pūk Sema ā-pfo

Tipura bahak Shö puk Lhota o-pòk

Lai paw

Thado wai

father pō Boṛo fā Meithei pā Ang. pō

Dīmāsā Lushei Sema pā

Garo pā, bā Thado Ao ta-bā

Tipura bā Sengmai pō Lhota o-pō

Khami

Shö

son sō-pō Boṛo f’sā Meithei chāpā Lhota o-tsöe

Dīmāsā pasā, sā Thado Maring chā

Garo sā, pī-sā Khami chōpo Hatigoria chāpā

Tipura basā Shö chō

daughter sō-pī Dīmāsā pu-su Meithei cha-(anu)-pī

Khami numpui-chō

cat mèng, mèng-kālū Garo mèng-gō Thado meng-chā

Tipura ā-mīng Ranghkhol meng

Shö min

iron ingchin Boṛo shurr Andro sēn, sēl Ang. the-zhī

Dīmāsā shēr Lushei thīr Yachumi inchi

Garo sil, sar Thado thī Thukumi īsē

Tipura sir Shö

Khami sing

Adjectives.

English. Mikir. Boṛo family. Kuki-Chin. Naga.

big kethē Boṛo gadet Ang. kedī

small kibī, bi-hèk Boṛo gahai Meithei ā-pīsek

bitter kehō Boṛo gakhā Lushei khā

Meithei khā-ba

Thado a-khā

cold ke-chung Boṛo gazang Lushei shik

beautiful mēsèn, mē Boṛo mozang Lushei moi

Verbs.

go dàm Boṛo thàng Ang. tā

Dīmāsā Sopvoma tā-o

Tipura Maring tā-so

come vàng Boṛo fai Ang. vor

Dīmāsā Kwoireng pā-lo

Tipura Marām

eat chō Boṛo zā Meithei chā-ba Ang. chi

Dīmāsā jī Khami chā Kwoireng tyū-lo

Garo chā, sā (Burmese chā, tsā) Tangkhul ka-shāi

Tipura chā

beat chòk Dīmāsā shu Tangkhul ka-sho

die thi Boṛo thoi Meithei sī-ba Ang. sā

Dīmāsā tī, thei Thado thī Sema ti

Garo tī, sī, tai Lushei tī Sopvoma thiyē

Tipura thai Khami dēi Marām tei-lo

Tangkhul ka-thī

run kàt Boṛo khāt Meithei chatpa (?) (to go) Tangkhul ka-chat

Dīmāsā khai Andro kat-e

Garo kat

say pu Boṛo bung Ang. pu

do, work klèm Boṛo khlàm

think māthā Boṛo mithi

be necessary nàng Boṛo nàng Lushei ngai

Garo nàng

The above list exhibits all the coincidences which could be found on a search through the vocabulary appended to Mr. Endle’s Kachāri grammar, and it will be seen that the agreement is not extensive.

Nouns.

Verbs.

A few words from Lushei may be added, for which Southern Chin does not appear to possess corresponding terms:—

These close and numerous correspondences between Mikir and the Kuki-Chin family appear to warrant the conclusion that the former is intimately connected with the latter. The institutions of the southern tribes, as already pointed out, confirm this conclusion; and it may be asserted with some confidence that no such extensive affinity can be proved between Mikir and the Boṛo family. As regards the Western Nagas, while the institutions largely correspond, the coincidences in language, though more numerous than those with Boṛo, are much fewer than those with Kuki-Chin. The Southern Nagas, and especially the Tangkhuls, who form the group intermediate between Naga and Kuki, have a considerably closer affinity with Mikir. Possibly if the inquiry were pushed further into Burmese than is within the power of the present writer, more correspondences with Mikir might be discovered in that language.