THE MIKIRS

MIKIR MAN.

Frontispiece

THE MIKIRS

FROM THE PAPERS OF THE LATE
EDWARD STACK
INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE SOMETIME DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND AGRICULTURE, AND SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ASSAM
EDITED, ARRANGED, AND SUPPLEMENTED
BY
SIR CHARLES LYALL

(Published under the orders of the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam)
ILLUSTRATED
LONDON
DAVID NUTT
57, 59, LONG ACRE
1908

PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.

To

M. R. L.-J.

In Memoriam

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

In 1882 Edward Stack, appointed the first Director of the newly-created Department of Land Records and Agriculture in Assam, entered upon his duties in that province, and applied himself with ardour to the study of its people. He had passed just ten years in the Indian Civil Service, which he joined in 1872 at the head of his year. These ten years had been fruitful in varied interest and activity: the strenuous life of a District and Settlement officer in the North-Western Provinces; secretariat employment in his own province and the Government of India; and, just before his translation to Assam, six months spent in travel in Persia.[1] Activity of mind and body, and keen interest in the people and speech of all the countries he lived in, were his strongest characteristics. During the cold season of 1882–83 he spent several months in moving up and down the Brahmaputra Valley, learning, observing, and noting. He acquired a working knowledge of Assamese with surprising rapidity; with this as his foundation and instrument, he attacked the multitude of tribal languages which he found impinging on the Aryan pale. To him more than to any one else, is due the honourable distinction of the Assam Province in the grammars, vocabularies, and phrase-books of nearly all the most important of its multitudinous varieties of Indo-Chinese speech, which have been drawn up by officers and others who have served there. In 1883 the Report on the Census of 1881 in Assam was published; and in this Report, mainly the work of the Chief Commissioner, Sir Charles Elliott, the chapter on Castes and Tribes was written by Edward Stack. Paragraphs 131–136 deal with the Mikirs, and much in these represents the result of his careful personal inquiries among them. His interest in this tribe gradually grew. In 1884 he was called to take up the work of Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, and while thus employed he occupied his leisure in studying Mikir. He became acquainted with a bright young Mikir lad, a convert of the American Baptist Mission at Nowgong, named Sārdokā, to which he was accustomed to add the names of his sponsor at baptism, Perrin Kay. With the help of Mr. Neighbor’s Vocabulary of English and Mikir, with illustrative sentences,[2] Stack and Sārdokā worked together at the language, correcting and largely supplementing the material contained in their text-book. From this they went on to folk-tales, which were written down, with a careful attention to systematic orthography, by Stack from Sārdokā’s dictation, each day’s work being provided with a series of notes elucidating every difficulty in it. Thus material gathered; and in the course of 1886 Stack had arranged, when relieved at the end of that year of the duties of Secretary by my return to Assam, to put together a complete account of the Mikirs and their language, fully illustrated (as his wont was) by ample variety of phrase and idiom, and a collection of stories in Mikir with commentary and vocabulary. But during the latter half of 1886 his health failed. Partly the moist climate of Assam, and partly, perhaps, unsuspected flaws of constitution, told upon his strong and active frame; and, after some months of gradually increasing weakness, he died at sea on the 12th January, 1887, aged 37, just before the vessel reached Adelaide, in South Australia, where he had planned to spend his furlough.

A few months after his death his papers were sent to me at Shillong, and for some time I hoped, with Sārdokā’s help, to be able to carry out his purpose. But the steadily increasing pressure of other duties prevented this. I left Shillong on a long tour in November, 1887, and soon after my return in the spring of 1888 I was transferred to the post of Commissioner in the Assam Valley, eventually leaving the province in the autumn of 1889 for engrossing work elsewhere, never to return, except for a brief space as Chief Commissioner in 1894. It had become evident from an examination of the materials that to do what Stack had set before him involved much more labour than I could give. It was necessary to learn the language from the beginning, to construct grammar and dictionary, and to retrace the steps which he had trodden in his progress; and this with an aptitude and power of acquisition far inferior to his. Accordingly, on my departure from Assam, the papers were made over to others, with whom they remained until, on the organization under Dr. G. A. Grierson of the Linguistic Survey of Northern India, they were again inquired for, and utilized, so far as the scope of that work admitted, in preparing an account of the Mikir language for insertion in the Survey.[3]

In 1904, when Sir Bampfylde Fuller had obtained the sanction of the Government of India to his scheme for the preparation of a series of descriptive monographs on the more important tribes and castes of Assam, he proposed to me to undertake an account of the Mikirs, based on Stack’s materials. There were several reasons why I hesitated to accept the task. It was many years since I had left the province, and official work and other studies claimed time and leisure. The materials were themselves in the rough—mere notes and jottings, sufficient for the man who carried the main part of his knowledge in his head, but by no means easy to interpret or set in order for one who had no such knowledge. They dated, too, from twenty years back, and in the interval great changes had occurred in the material development of the tract where the Mikirs live, which is now traversed by the Assam-Bengal Railway. I decided, nevertheless, to make the attempt, and, however imperfectly, to do something to perpetuate the work of a man to whom I was most intimately bound by affection, and whose great powers and attractive personality were the admiration and delight of all who knew him. The present volume is the result.

In addition to Stack’s notes, I received from Assam three sets of replies to ethnographical questions which had been circulated to persons acquainted with the tribe. These were from Mr. W. C. M. Dundas, Subdivisional Officer of North Cachar, and the Rev. P. E. Moore and Mr. Allen of the American Baptist Mission.[4] These replies, which were not very detailed, while quite independent in origin, agreed closely with Stack’s data, and showed that the lapse of years had not made the latter inapplicable to the present time. In the following pages any information drawn from these sources has been duly acknowledged.

It was explained in the Introduction to Major Gurdon’s Monograph on the Khasis (1907) that the order and arrangement of subjects to be treated in dealing with each tribe had been prescribed by authority; and Stack’s notes had to be brought within this framework. As will be seen, under certain heads not much information is forthcoming; and perhaps the more searching standard of inquiry applied by ethnologists in the present day might demand more exhaustive treatment of some points in this presentment of the Mikir people. This, however, must be left for our successors.

[Section I] has been expanded by adding numerical data from the last Census (1901), and measurements from Lieut.-Colonel L. A. Waddell’s Tribes of the Brahmaputra Valley (1900). [Section II] (Domestic Life) is entirely due to Stack. The same is the case with [Section III] (Laws and Customs), except the Appendix. [Section IV] (Religion) is wholly Stack’s; reading the careful and minute account which it contains of the funeral ceremonies, one is strongly impressed by the thoroughness which he brought to his investigations. [Section V] (Folk-lore) contains translations of three of the folk-tales written down in Mikir by Stack, of which the original text, with an interlinear rendering, is given in [Section VI]. These translations, in both Sections, have been made by me. Stack’s manuscript supplied the Mikir text, which has been faithfully copied, and a number of explanatory notes, but no connected rendering. I have therefore had to depend upon my study of the language in the linguistic materials collected by him, and those contained in Mr. Neighbor’s vocabulary and Sārdokā’s dictionary and phrase-book. I had hoped to have the assistance of Sārdokā himself in revising the translations. He served for many years in the Assam Secretariat after Stack’s death, and helped in the preparation of the specimens of Mikir for the Linguistic Survey in 1902; but in September, 1904, he was transferred as mauzadār, or Revenue collector and administrator, to the important mauza or territorial division in the Mikir Hills called Duār Bagurī, now divided between the districts of Nowgong and Sibsagar; and on the 8th March, 1905, he most unhappily died there of cholera. Other help was not forthcoming. I must, therefore, ask for the indulgence of those better acquainted than I with Mikir in regard to these renderings. Probably they contain many errors of detail; but at least they seem to hang together as a whole, and to be consistent with what I could ascertain elsewhere of the fashion of Mikir speech. The notes are chiefly from Stack. The sketch of the Grammar in [Section VI] is reproduced (in a somewhat abridged form) from that which I contributed to the Linguistic Survey. Stack himself had drawn up no grammar, though he had put together much illustrative material from which the mechanism of the language could be deduced. The main facts are clear and comparatively simple, though there are not a few idiomatic expressions in the texts of which it is difficult to give a satisfactory account.

For the last [Section], that dealing with the probable affinities of the Mikir race, I must take the full responsibility. It is the result of the collation and comparison of materials from many sources, and especially those contained in the three volumes of the Linguistic Survey treating of the Tibeto-Burman family of speech. The authorities on which I have relied are indicated in the text.

In the Bibliography I have entered only those works (so far as known to me) which contribute something to our knowledge of the Mikirs. I have not thought it necessary to specify mere casual allusions to the tribe, or to quote imperfect lists of words which have been superseded by more accurate material.

For the coloured illustrations I have to thank Miss Eirene Scott-O’Connor (now Mrs. Philip Rogers), and for the photographs Major Gurdon and Mr. W. C. M. Dundas; the reproductions are by Messrs. W. Griggs and Sons. The map (by Mr. J. G. Bartholomew) showing the localities inhabited by the Mikirs is taken from the new volumes of the Imperial Gazetteer of India. An explanation of the system adopted for rendering Mikir words will be found on p. 74.

C. J. LYALL.

April, 1908.


[1] The record of these travels, under the name Six Months in Persia (two vols.), was published in 1882; “A really clever and trustworthy, readable, book,” was the judgment on it of the late Sir Frederic Goldsmid—the best of all judges. [↑]

[2] See Bibliography, No. 7. [↑]

[3] See Bibliography, No. 15. [↑]

[4] I must apologize for the misdescription of these gentlemen at pp. 44 and 70, as of the American Presbyterian Mission. [↑]

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES

[Introductory Note] vii–xiii

Section I.

[GENERAL.]

  • Numbers and Distribution 1–2
  • Habitat 2–3
  • Physical characters 4
  • Traditions as to origin 4–5
  • Dress 5–6
  • Tattooing 6
  • Jewellery 6
  • Weapons 6

Section II.

[DOMESTIC LIFE.]

  • Occupations 7
  • Houses 7–9
  • Furniture 9–10
  • Manufactures 10
  • Agriculture and crops 10–11
  • Lads’ clubs (rīsō-mār) 11–12
  • Hunting and fishing 12
  • Food 12–13
  • Drink 13
  • Luxuries 14

Section III.

[LAWS AND CUSTOMS.]

  • Sections or Divisions 15
  • Exogamous groups 15–17
  • Personal names 17
  • Marriage 17–19
  • Female chastity 19
  • Polygamy 19–20
  • Divorce 20
  • Words for relationship by blood or marriage 20–21
  • Inheritance 21
  • Property in land 21–22
  • Mikir mauzas 22
  • Decision of disputes: village councils 22
  • War 22
  • Outsiders admitted to tribe 23
  • Appendix: List of exogamous groups as given by other authorities 23–27

Section IV.

[RELIGION.]

  • General character of popular belief in ghosts and spirits, and a future life 28–29
  • Amulets 30
  • The gods and their worship 30–34
  • Divination and magic 34–37
  • Oaths and imprecations 37
  • Funeral ceremonies 37–42
  • Festivities 43
  • Tabu 43

Section V.

[FOLK-LORE AND FOLK-TALES.]

Section VI.

[LANGUAGE.]

Section VII.

[AFFINITIES.]

  • The place of the Mikirs in the Tibeto-Burman Family 151–172

[Bibliography] 173–177

[Index] 179–183

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

THE MIKIRS

I.

GENERAL.

Numbers—Habitat—Physical appearance—Traditions as to origin—Affinities—Dress—Tattooing—Ornaments—Weapons.

The Mikirs are one of the most numerous and homogeneous of the many Tibeto-Burman races inhabiting the Province of Assam. In the tables of the Report on the Census of 1901 the number of Mikirs by race is given as 87,046, and that of speakers of the Mikir language as 82,283; but there are curious discrepancies in the details. In no district are the speakers of Mikir identical in number with those returned as Mikir by race; and it is remarkable that in several, more persons are returned as speaking the language than as belonging to the tribe. On the other hand, in the North Cachar Hills none of the 1446 Mikirs by race are shown as speaking Mikir, which is manifestly absurd. The following are the figures:—

District. Mikirs by race. Speaking Mikir.
Cachar Plains 717 728
Sylhet 156 166
Kamrup 10,587 8,026
Darrang 2,646 3,108
Nowgong 35,732 34,273
Sibsagar 22,909 22,803
North Cachar 1,446 nil.
Khasi and Jaintia Hills 12,840 13,142
Elsewhere 13 37
Total 87,046 82,283

In Kamrup, Nowgong, and Sibsagar it may reasonably be assumed that the Mikirs returned as speaking some other language (probably Assamese) also spoke the speech of their tribe, being bilingual like other non-Aryan races in Assam; and the 809 persons in Darrang, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, and elsewhere, returned as speaking Mikir, though not as Mikirs by race, must really have belonged to the tribe. Since 1891, when the number of Mikirs was returned as 94,829, there has been a considerable falling-off, due to the terrible ravages of the disease called Kālā-āzār[1] in the Nowgong and Kamrup districts.

The Mikirs inhabit in greatest strength the hills called after them, the isolated mountainous block which fills the triangle between the Brahmaputra on the north, the Dhansiri valley on the east, and the Kopili and Jamuna valleys on the west and south; this tract is now divided between the Nowgong and Sibsagar districts. They are also found in considerable numbers on the northern skirts of the Assam Range, in Nowgong, the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, and Kamrup, and were once numerous, as testified by the local place- and river-names, in North Cachar. They have settled in the plains, and taken to plough cultivation, in Nowgong and Kamrup, and have also established recent settlements of the same kind north of the Brahmaputra in Darrang. The great bulk, however, remain a hill tribe, occupying the forest-clad northern slopes of the central range of Assam, and practising the primitive method of cultivation by axe, fire, and hoe.

In the Mikir Hills there are summits which attain 4,000 feet, but the greater part of the block is of much lower elevation. The rock is chiefly gneiss and granite, with few traces of overlying formations; and the whole is clothed with forest growth, chiefly of bamboo, figs of different species, cinnamon, Artocarpus, nahor (Mesua ferrea), and a few other trees valuable for their timber. The soil is light, and soon exhausted by cropping; it is naturally most fertile in the valleys, where the deepest deposits are found. The Mikir Hills, in 1886 when Mr. Stack wrote, had been very little explored by Europeans, and their interior was almost unknown. To the north, from Koliabor to Kaziranga, they abut on the Brahmaputra, only a narrow strip of country, traversed by the southern Grand Trunk road, intervening between them and the river. This strip has few inhabitants and little cultivation, and is covered with high grass and cotton tree (semal) jungle, the haunt of wild buffalo and rhinoceros. To the east is the great Nāmbar forest, a dense area of high trees occupying the Dhansiri valley from Dimapur to within ten miles of Golaghat. To the south-west is the valley of the Jamuna, now traversed by the railway from Gauhati to Lumding, a region of tall grass and sparse tree jungle. The plain which is formed by the alluvial valley of the Kopili (or Kupli) river and its affluents, the Jamuna and the Diyaung (the latter coming from the North Cachar Hills), next intervenes; and to the west the land rises again in the northern skirts of the Jaintia and Khasi Hills. Here the country is of the same character as in the Mikir Hills, but better known. It consists of a series of plateaus or shelves rising from the level of the valley, composed of gneiss and granite, and covered with a red clay soil, the result of the decomposition of the metamorphic sandstones which overlay the igneous rock. The jungle here also is chiefly of bamboo, with a few patches of valuable forest, chiefly sāl (Shorea robusta), still surviving; but most of the larger timber has been destroyed by the secular practice of axe and fire cultivation.

It is in this hilly country, and in the plains at its base, that the Mikir people are found. The region is continuous, and is distributed, as the figures just given show, between the districts (from east to west) of Sibsagar, Nowgong, North Cachar, the Jaintia and Khasi Hills, and Kamrup. It is malarious and unhealthy for unacclimatized persons, with a very moist climate, and is wanting in the breezy amenities of the higher plateaus of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills; but (save during the recent prevalence of Kālā-āzār) the inhabitants appear to have acquired some degree of immunity against the noxious influences of the locality. Side by side with the Mikirs dwell, in the Mikir Hills, the Rengma Nagas (who are recent immigrants from the eastern side of the Dhansiri); in the Jamuna and Diyaung valleys, the Dīmāsā or Kachāris; in the Jaintia Hills, the Kukis and Syntengs; and in the Khasi Hills and along the Nowgong and Kamrup borders, the Lālungs and a few settlements of Khāsis.

The name Mikir is that given to the race by the Assamese: its origin is unknown. They call themselves Ārlèng, which means man in general.[2] In features the men resemble Assamese of the lower classes more than most of the Tibeto-Burman races. Their colour is light yellowish brown, and the girls are often fair. The men are as tall as the majority of the hill races of Assam, Colonel L. A. Waddell’s eighteen specimens averaging 1633 millimetres, or 5·354 feet, in height, the tallest being 5·583 feet, and the shortest 5·108. The average is noticeably higher than that of their neighbours the Khasis. The average head measurements in these specimens were—length, 181 millimetres; breadth, 141; cephalic index, 77·9. The nose is broad at the base, and often flat, giving a nasal index of 85·1, and an orbito-nasal of 107·7. The facial hair is scanty, and only a thin moustache is worn. The front of the head is sometimes, but not generally, shorn. The hair is gathered into a knot behind, which hangs over the nape of the neck. The body is muscular, and the men are capable of prolonged exertion. In frontier expeditions in Assam they have frequently served (like the Khasis) as porters, and carry heavy loads, the burden being borne upon the back and secured by a plaited bamboo (or cane) strap passing round the forehead (Mikir, sinàm).

GROUP OF MIKIRS (NORTH CACHAR).

(1)

p. 5

The traditions of the race point to the Eastern portion of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, bordering on the Kopili (or Kupli) river (where many still remain), as their original abode. They speak of this as Nihàng, in contradistinction to Nilīp, the Duār Bāguri or Nowgong region which they now inhabit. Being harassed by warfare between Khasi (or Synteng) chiefs, they resolved to move into Āhom territory, and sent emissaries to claim protection from the Āhom governor of Rahā (Nowgong District). These unfortunate persons, being unable to make themselves understood, were straightway buried alive in the embankment of a tank which the governor was excavating. The hostilities which ensued were concluded by an embassage to the king himself in Sibsagar, and the Mikirs have ever since been living peacefully in the territory assigned to them. They have dim traditions of a king of their own in the good old days, whom they call Sòt Rēchō, and are said by Mr. Stack to expect his return to earth. His seat is said to have been in Ròng-khàng (or Ròng-hàng), perhaps connected with Ni-hàng (Ròng, village). They had fights with the Dīmāsā or Hill Kachāris, and were led by Thòng Nòkbē and other captains, who established a fort at Diyaung-mukh (the junction of the Diyaung and Kopili rivers), the ruins of which are still to be seen. Along the northern skirts of the Mikir Hills there are remains of old brick buildings and sculptures, which are now ascribed to the Gods. Old men tell historical legends to the young ones, and there are also legendary songs, sung at festivals; but there is no class specially set apart for the preservation of such traditions, and the memory of the race is short. They are a mild and unwarlike people, and are said to have given up the use of arms when they placed themselves under the protection of the Āhom kings.

They claim kinship with no other tribe in Assam, and are, in fact, difficult to group with other branches of the great Tibeto-Burman stock to which they undoubtedly belong. The conclusions as to their affinities which it seems legitimate to draw from their institutions, culture, and language, will be found stated in [Section VII]. of this Monograph.

In dress the Mikir man imitates the Khasi, to whom he seems to have lived in subjection in former times. On his head he now wears a turban (pohu, poho), but formerly the Khasi cap (phu-tup), of black or red cloth, was more usually worn. On his loins he wears a dhoti (rikòng) of cotton cloth, and sometimes, if wealthy, of silk. His coat is a sleeveless striped jacket (choi), with a long fringe covering the buttocks and coming round in front (choi-āprē). In cold weather he wears a thick wrapper (called in Assamese boṛ kāpoṛ) of ēṛī silk (pē-inkī). The legs are uncovered, and shoes are not worn.

The women wear a petticoat (pīnī), secured round the waist by an ornamental girdle (vànkòk). The petticoat is of white and red striped ēṛī cloth. The upper part of the body is covered with the jī-sō, a wrapper passing under the arms and drawn tight over the breasts. The head is uncovered, and the hair is drawn back and tied in a knot behind. In the funeral dances, however, the head is covered with a black scarf (jī-sō ke-īk).

The men do not tattoo any part of the body. The women, on attaining puberty, usually tattoo a perpendicular line with indigo down the middle of the forehead, the nose, upper lip, and chin; no other part of the body is tattooed.

A characteristic ornament is a large silver tube inserted into the lobe of the ear, which is much distended thereby; this is called kadèngchinrō, and weighs three or four rupees. The ordinary hanging earring (suspended from the outer part of the ear) of gold or silver is called no-rīk. Necklaces (lèk) are worn, of gold or silver and coral beads, as by the Khasis. Rings (ārnàn) and bracelets (roi), of gold and silver, are worn. The feathers of the bhīm-rāj are worn in the turban on festal occasions, as among the Khasis.

The national weapons are the long knife (nòk, nòk-jir), by the English commonly called by the Hindi name dāo, the spear (chir), and the bow (thai, bòp-thailī) made of bamboo, with a string of tough bamboo fibre. In these there is nothing peculiar.

MIKIR GIRL.

p. 6


[1] This is the official spelling. The real name is Kalā-jwar, pronounced Kŏlā-jŏr (or zŏr), which means “black fever.” [↑]

[2] It has been asserted that Ārlèng means properly only a Mikir man, not a man in general, who would be called monīt or munīt. This, however, is opposed to usage as exemplified in the folk-tales collected by Mr. Stack, and to well-established parallels found elsewhere. Thus, in Assam, Māndē (= man) is the national name of the Gāros; Chingphō (= man) is the tribal name of the race so called in the Upper Dehing valley; Boṛo (= man) is the proper designation of the Kachāri race. So, in Chutia Nāgpur, the Mundā people of Rānchi call themselves Hoṛo (= man). Similar cases are found all over the world. In Europe, for example, the name Deutsch for the Germanic race indicates that their ancestors spoke of themselves as “the people” (diot, diota), ignoring the other members of humankind. Munīt is a very recent loan-word from Assamese, and nowhere occurs in the tales. [↑]

II.

DOMESTIC LIFE.

Occupations—Houses—Furniture—Implements and utensils—Manufactures—Agriculture—Rīsō mār, or lads’ clubs—Crops—Hunting—Fishing—Food and Drink.

The Mikir people have always been agriculturists. Their villages, in the hills which are their proper habitat, are set up in clearings in the forest, and are shifted from place to place when the soil has been exhausted by cropping. Their houses are large and substantial, and are strongly put together. The Mikirs are not now (if they ever were[1]), as Colonel Dalton relates in his Ethnology of Bengal, in the habit of lodging several families, or even the whole village, in one house. The inhabitants of a house are all of one family, but may often be numerous, as married sons frequently live with their parents.

The Mikir house is built on posts, and the floor is raised several feet above the ground. The material of the super-structure is bamboo, slit and flattened out, and the whole is thatched with san-grass. A moderate elevation, with a flat top, is preferred for building; a slope will be taken if no better site can be found.

Plan of Mikir House.

The house is divided lengthwise by a partition called ārpòng, or nòksèk-ārpòng, into kàm, the guests’ or servants’ chamber, and kut, the living-room of the family. Kàm is on the right side as you enter, and the only door into the house leads into it. In kàm a platform or chang, called tibung, raised above the floor the diameter of a bamboo, runs along the outside wall; this may be divided off laterally into rooms for sleeping. In kut, separated off by a partition on the side of the outer wall, is a long, narrow chamber, one bamboo’s diameter lower than the floor, called vō-roi, in which the fowls and goats are kept at night; it has a separate door, called vō-roi-āmehàn. In kut, towards the back, is the fireplace (mēhīp). The space before it is dàm-thàk, where the family sleep, and the bamboo paddy-receptacle stands. Behind the fireplace is dàm-buk, a vacant space, where the grown-up daughter or old woman sleeps. Between the fire and the vō-roi is the rice-pot (sàng-ràngtik), holding the stock of husked rice. Between the fire and the partition (ārpòng) is the kut-āthèngthòr, a space for miscellaneous articles. Above the vō-roi a shelf is raised under the roof, called vō-hārlīp, for pots, etc. Opposite the fireplace is a door leading into kàm.

In kàm, if the house is large, there are two fireplaces. Before the fire the space is called kàm-āthèngthòt, or nòksèk. In the corner of the front wall and the partition (ārpòng) are put the water-chungas (làng-bòng); it is called làng-tēnun. The front door is called hòngthū, the back door pàn, or pàn-hòngthū.

The front veranda is called hòng-kup. The tibung runs out into it, and the part beyond the front wall of the house is called thèng-roi-rai, “the place for bringing (or storing) firewood” (thèng). Beyond the hòng-kup the platform extends unroofed (hòng-plàng). If the house be a large one, a hòng-phārlā, roofed over, for strangers to lodge in, is made on the right side of the hòng-plàng, but disconnected with the thèng-roi-rai; between it and the latter is the ladder to gain access to the platform (dòndòn), usually a tree-trunk with notches cut in it for the feet. The hòng-phārlā may extend also across the front of the house; it is roofed over, but open towards the house. Similarly, at the back of the house is the pàng-hòngkup, or back veranda, and the unroofed pàng beyond. No ladder gives access to this.

Under the house are the pigsties, phàk-roi, and in front is a yard or compound (tikup), usually fenced round.

The furniture of the house is of the simplest description. The floor, or a raised platform of bamboo, serves as a bed. A block of wood (inghoi; Ass. pīrā) is used as a stool to sit on. Baskets of bamboo and cane are employed as cupboards in which to store the household goods, the paddy, and the clothes. These baskets are of various shapes and sizes, and bear many different names. Joints of bamboo (Ass. chungā; Mikir, làng-bòng) are used for holding water, and also as boxes to contain valuables of all kinds.

The Mikirs have few manufactures. Weaving is done by the women of the family on rude wooden looms (pè-theràng), the cotton raised in their fields being previously spun on a wheel (mī-thòngràng). They also raise ēṛī silk (inkī), the cocoon of the Attacus ricini, fed on the castor-oil plant, and weave it into coarse fabrics, chiefly the bor-kāpor, or blanket, used in the cold weather. They dye their thread with indigo (sibū), a small patch of which is grown near every house. The indigo is not derived from Indigofera, but from a species of Strobilanthes, generally identified as S. flaccidifolius. Mr. Stack notes that there are two kinds, bū-thī and bū-jīr; the latter, he says, is trained up poles, and has a longer leaf. The leaves of the plant are bruised in a wooden mortar and mixed with water, and the blue colour develops, as in ordinary indigo, in a few days’ time by chemical change. Besides indigo, they use a red dye, the source of which is probably the same as the Khasi red dye (see Khasi Monograph, p. 60).

Blacksmiths (hēmai) have existed among them from remote times, and they can fashion their own dāos and various kinds of knives. They also make needles (for which old umbrella-ribs are in much request), and hooks for fishing.

They also make their own gold and silver ornaments (necklaces, bracelets, rings, ear-ornaments).

Pottery is made without the wheel, as among the Khasis (Monograph, p. 61). It is thick and durable, and well burnt. There are few potters among them, and the accomplishment is not common.

In all these branches of manufacture the tendency, with the increase of intercourse and the cessation of isolation, is to give up domestic workmanship and rely more upon outside markets.

MIKIR HOUSE: FAMILY GROUP.

(Jaintia Hills).

p. 10

The main crops are summer rice (maikum), sown with the first rains and reaped in November-December, and cotton (phēlō), also grown in the rains and gathered in the cold weather. The system of jhuming, by which land is prepared for cultivation by cutting down and burning the jungle, is in no respect different from the practice of all hill-tribes in the province. They do not plant out their rice, nor use the plough in cultivating it. There is no irrigation.

Besides these main crops, castor-oil is grown for feeding the ēṛī silkworm; maize (thèngthē), turmeric (thārmit), yams (hèn, Colocasia), red pepper (birik), aubergines (Hindi, baiṅgan; Mikir, hēpī), and ginger (hànsō) are also cultivated in small patches. Another crop is lac, grown on branches of the arhaṛ plant (see Khasi Monograph, p. 47).

When Mr. Stack wrote, the most important institution from the point of view of agriculture was the association or club of the dekas (Ass.), or young men (from twelve to sixteen, eighteen, or twenty years of age) of the village (Mikir, rī-sō-mār); but it is reported that this useful form of co-operation is now falling into desuetude. In former days the village youths (as in Naga-land) used to live together in a house by themselves, called in Mikir māro or teràng (in Assamese, deka-chang).[2] Now there is no mārō, and the rīsōmār live in the gaoṅbura’s house, in the hòng-phārlā, the place in which strangers are lodged. They send a boy to bring their food from their homes, and all eat together. Each man’s share is brought in a leaf-bundle (àn-bòr) to keep it warm. The gaoṅbura calls the people together, and proposes that, having so many lads in the village, they should start a lads’ club. If agreed to, the union of the rīsōmār is formed, and the lads take up their quarters in his house. The club is organized under regular officers appointed by themselves. The gaoṅbura has general authority over them, but their own chief is the klèng sārpō. Next comes the klèng-dun, then the sodār-kethē, then the sodār-sō or phàndiri, then the sànghō-kerai (“he who fetches the company”), then the bārlòn (“carrier of the measuring-rod”). Other officers are the chèng-brup-pī and chèng-brup-sō (drummers, chief and lieutenant), the phàn-krī (the lad who waits on the klèng sārpō), the motàn ār-ē and motàn ārvī (“the right and left outside strips of the field”), the làngbòng-pō (“carrier of the water-chunga”), ārphèk-pō (“carrier of the broom”), and the chinhàk-pō (“carrier of the basket of tools”). The rīsōmār all work in the fields together, each having his own strip (ā-mo) to till. The village fields are allotted each to one house, and the grown men confine their work to their own fields; but the rīsōmār go the round of all the fields in the village.

Work is enforced by penalties. They used to roast those who shirked their share; now they beat them for failure to work. If the klèng sārpō finds a lad refractory, he reports him to the gaoṅbura.

Villages like having deka clubs. They help greatly in cultivation, practice dancing and singing, and keep alive the village usages and tribal customs. They are in great request at funerals, which are the celebrations in which most spirit is shown.

Hunting, with spears and dogs, is practised. The objects of the chase are deer and wild pig; also the iguana (Ass. gui) and tortoise. The dog barks and follows up the track by scent. They also set traps (ārhàng) for tigers, with a spear placed so as to be discharged from a spring formed by a bent sapling; twice round the tiger’s pug gives the height of his chest, at which the spear is pointed; a rope of creeper stretched across the path releases the spring when the tiger passes that way and comes against it.

Fishing is done with rod and line, but chiefly by means of traps and baskets, as in Assam generally. The trap (ru) is a basket of bamboo, constructed so that the fish can get in but cannot get out, and is fixed in an opening in a fence (ā-ru-pāt) placed in a stone dam built across a stream.

The staple food is rice, which is husked in the usual way, by being pounded with a long pestle in a wooden mortar, and cooked by the women of the family. The flesh of cows is not eaten; there is said to be a dislike even to keep them, but this prejudice is now dying out. Milk is not drunk. Fowls, goats, and pigs are kept for food, but eaten chiefly at sacrifices; eggs are eaten. A delicacy is the chrysalis of the ērī silkworm (Attacus ricini); it is eaten roasted and curried. Children (but not grown folk) cook and eat crabs and rats. In cooking meat, spits (òk-ākròn) are used; the meat is either cut up and skewered, or a large lump is placed whole on the embers; it is thoroughly cooked. Fish is cut into slices and put in the sun to dry, or smoked. Meat also is cut into strips and dried on frames in the sun.

The vegetables are those commonly used by the Assamese. Sugar-cane (nòk) is not much grown. A favourite seasoning is mint (lōpòng-brik).

Men and women eat together, within the house. The right hand is used in eating. Leaf-plates are most used, but platters of pot-metal are also found. No knife is used in eating: the meat is cut up beforehand.

The first meal is cooked and eaten at 7 or 8 a.m., and consists of rice. The evening meal is cooked after the day’s field-work is over, unless there be a cook in the house. At each meal a pinch of the food is put aside for the God (ārnàm).

The national drink is rice-beer (hòr, hòrpō), which is made by each household for itself. The rice is cooked, and well broken up on a mat. It is then mixed with a ferment called thàp (Bengali, bākhar), made of powdered rice with certain kinds of leaves pounded into it, and the whole dried for use as required. After this has been thoroughly mixed with the boiled rice, the latter is heaped up and covered with plantain leaves, and put aside in the house. In three or four days, in the hot weather, fermentation sets in; in the cold weather a longer time is required. It is then put into an earthern jar or kalsī (Beng.) and water added, after which it is emptied into a conical basket, whence it is allowed to strain through a bamboo joint into a pot below. To make hòr (Ass. modh), rice is taken from the basket and warmed with water, which is strained off, and is the modh or hòrpō; the rice is thrown to the pigs. The better and stronger beer is that which was drained off the original conical basket, and is called hòr-ālàng.

Āràk (Hind.) is the spirit distilled from the fermented rice mixed with water. The still is a rude one of earthern pots connected by a bamboo. A stronger stuff is made by distilling hòr-ālàng.

Hòr will keep good for two months if left untouched. It is a common family drink. Gourds are used for keeping it in and carrying it about for use.

Drunkenness is not common in the villages, and the ceremonies and festivities at which beer is drunk are not noisy. The or general council, however, when large quantities are consumed, is sometimes noisy.

Opium is used to a large extent by the Mikirs as by other Assamese (Mr. Allen states that nearly all male adults indulge in it). Tobacco is smoked, and also chewed with betel. The bowl of the tobacco-pipe is made of burnt clay or of bamboo root. Betel-nut (kōvē; Khasi, kwai) is largely consumed in the usual way, with lime and pān-leaf (bīthī); and (as among the Khasis) time and distance are computed by the interval required to chew a nut. (The phrase is ingtàt ē-òm-tā ēr, “the time it takes to chew the nut and pān-leaf red”: ingtàt, roll for chewing; ē-, one; òm, chew; ēr, red.)


[1] One is tempted to conjecture that this statement is an error based on a confusion between the Miris and the Mikirs in Colonel Dalton’s notebooks. The custom referred to obtains among the Miris. [↑]

[2] In the Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1874, p. 17, there is an illustration and description of a Mikir “bachelors’ house,” or teràng, by Mr. C. Brownlow, a tea-planter in Cachar. The group of Mikirs among whom it was found lived at the head of the Kopili river, looking down on the Cachar valley. [↑]

III.

LAWS AND CUSTOMS.

Internal structure—Sections or divisions—Exogamous groups—Marriage laws—Common names—Marriage ceremony—Female chastity—Polygamy—Divorce—Words for relationship by blood and marriage—Inheritance—Property in land—Decision of disputes—Village council—Relations with neighbouring races—Appendix: Lists of exogamous groups given by other authorities compared with those given by Mr. Stack.

The Mikir people proper—that is, those who continue to live in the hills—are divided into three sections, called Chintòng, Rònghàng, and Āmrī. In the days of the migration eastward from the Kopili region, Āmrī stayed behind, or loitered, and Chintòng and Rònghàng waited for him as they moved from stage to stage. At last, on arriving at the Dhansiri river, Chintòng and Rònghàng resolved to be only two sections in future. The laggard Āmrī afterwards arrived, but was not received back into full fellowship. He has no honour at the general festivals, and in the distribution of rice-beer at feasts he gets no gourd for himself, but has to drink from those of the other two. These are the conditions as they exist in the Mikir Hills and Nowgong (Duār Bāgurī); in Ni-hàng, however (the region of the Kopili), Āmrī is on an equality with the others. The Mikir Hills are chiefly inhabited by the Chintòng section, North Cachar and the hilly parts of Nowgong by the Rònghàng, and the Khasi and Jaintia Hills by Āmrī; but individuals of all three are found dwelling among the others.

These names, however, do not indicate true tribal divisions, supposed to be derived from a common ancestor and united in blood, and are probably in reality local- or place-names. Āmrī, in particular, seems to be a Khasi river-name, and Rònghàng is the legendary site of Sòt Rēchō’s capital. The real tribal exogamous divisions run through all three, and are called kur (a Khasi word: Assamese, phoid). Each of the three sections of the race has within it the same kurs, and the individuals belonging to these kurs, whether in Chintòng, Rònghàng, or Āmrī, observe the same rules of exogamy.

The number and names of the kurs, or exogamous groups, are differently given by different authorities. The differences appear to be partly explained by the fact that one authority has taken for a principal group-name what another has entered as a sub-group under another larger section. In an appendix will be found the grouping according to several different authorities. Here the data given by Mr. Stack, who appears to have relied chiefly on information obtained in Duār Bāgurī, are reproduced.

He found that the people recognized four kurs, called respectively Ingtī, Teràng,[1] Lèkthē, and Timung, under which the smaller groups (also called kur) are ranged thus—

  • I. Ingtī.
    • (1) Tārō.
    • (2) Kātār.
    • (3) Hènsèk.
    • (4) Inglèng.
  • II. Teràng.
    • (1) Bē.
    • (2) Krō.
    • (3) Ingjār.
  • III. Lèkthe.
    • (1) Hànsē.
    • (2) Tutsō.
    • (3) Bòngrun.
    • (4) Kràmsā.
  • IV. Timung.
    • (1) Tòkbī.
    • (2) Sèngnār.
    • (3) Ròngphār.
(1) Tārō. (2) Kātār. (3) Hènsèk. (4) Inglèng.
(1) Bē. (2) Krō. (3) Ingjār.
(1) Hànsē. (2) Tutsō. (3) Bòngrun. (4) Kràmsā.
(1) Tòkbī. (2) Sèngnār. (3) Ròngphār.

As already mentioned, these kurs are exogamous: an individual belonging to kur Ingtī must go outside that kur for his wife; and similarly Teràng, Lèkthē, and Timung cannot marry wives drawn from within the kur. The sub-groups are, of course, as parts of the larger groups, also exogamous; and it is easy to perceive how one informant may count as a principal group-division what another may regard as a sub-division. All the kurs are now socially on an equality, and have no scruples as to eating together or intermarriage; their traditional rank is, however, as given above. Ingtī is said to have been in former times the priestly clan (Ass. gōhāiṅ); Teràng also claims this dignity, but is thought to be of lower rank; but in both cases the office has fallen entirely into desuetude. Lèkthē is said to have been the military clan, while Timung represented the rest of the people.

The Mikirs who settled in the plains of Nowgong and took to plough cultivation are called Dumrālī by the Mikirs and Tholuā by the Assamese. They are said to have acted as interpreters to the mission which visited the Āhom king at Sibsāgar. They also have the same kurs as the other three sections of hill Mikirs.

The children are counted to their father’s kur, and cannot marry within it. They may, however, marry their first cousins on the mother’s side, and indeed this appears to have been formerly the most usual match. This absence of matriarchal institutions strongly marks off the Mikirs from the Khasis, from whom they have in other respects borrowed much.

The following are common personal names among the Mikirs:—

MEN. WOMEN.
Sārdokā. Karèng.
Mòn. Kachē.
Dīlī. Kabàn.
Thērē. Kamàng.
Kàngthēr. Ka-èt.
Tāmoi. Ka-jīr.
Temèn. Katū.
Burā. Karē.
Pātōr. Kasàng.
Lòng. Kadòm.
Mèn. Dīmī.
Bī. Inglē.
Sōterā.

It is said that no meaning is attached to these names; that is, they are not given because of any meaning which they may possess. (It is evident that many of them have a meaning: e.g. is a goat, Lòng a stone, Pātōr is a village official among the Khasis, Burā is Assamese for “an old man,” Tāmoi is probably the Assamese for the betel-nut (tāmol.) Sōterā may be corrupted from sangtarā, orange.) The prefix Ka- in women’s names is manifestly taken from Khasi usage. There are no surnames, but the name of the kur is used to distinguish one individual from another, as Mòn Lèkthē, Mòn Timung.

The age for marriage is from fourteen to twenty-five for the man, ten to fifteen for the girl; eighteen or nineteen and fifteen are the most usual ages. Child marriage is unknown. If a young man fancies a girl (from meeting her at dances and the like), he sends one or both parents to her father’s house, and if the girl’s parents agree, the lad’s father leaves a betrothal ring or bracelet with the girl (this is called ke-roi-dun); sometimes a gourd of rice beer is taken and accepted, and in that case, if she subsequently marries another, the village council fine her family 25 to 35 rupees; otherwise only the betrothal ring or bracelet is returned. The length of the engagement is uncertain, but the actual marriage does not take place till after puberty. When the marriage day is fixed, both families prepare beer and spirits; if the bridegroom is rich, he provides drink for the whole country-side (hòr-hàk hòr-tibuk). The bridegroom’s party, giving a gourd of beer to each village they pass through, arrive at the bride’s house in the evening. There they sit awhile, and then offer one gourd of beer and one glass bottle of spirits to the bride’s father on the hòng. A colloquy ensues: the bride’s father asks the bridegroom’s why they have come, and why these offerings. He answers, “Your sister (i.e. the wife of the speaker) is becoming old and cannot work, so we have brought our son to marry your daughter.” (The custom formerly was that a boy must marry his first cousin on the mother’s side, and if he did not, the maternal uncle could beat the lad as much as he liked; but now they can do as they please.) The reply follows: “My daughter is unworthy, she does not know weaving and other household work.” “Never mind, we will teach her ourselves.” The bride’s father then asks his wife to enquire of the girl if she will take the lad; without her consent the beer and spirits cannot be accepted. If the wife reports consent, the beer and spirits are drunk by the two fathers. Sometimes they sit the whole night before the girl’s consent is obtained. If any knowing old men are there, they sing in two parties: “We cannot send our daughter to your house!” “We cannot leave our boy to stay with you!” When the question of consent is settled, all eat together. Then the bride prepares the bed inside the house for the bridegroom, in the kàm; in the tibung (see plan[2]) if there is room: if not, in the thèngthòr; but if the lad is ashamed, he sends one of his garments to take his place in the bed.

What follows depends upon the wealth and standing of the parties. If the wedding is ākejoi—that is, if no payment is to be made for the bride—the girl goes with her husband next day to her new home. Her parents accompany her, and are entertained with food and drink, returning the following day. If the wedding is ākemèn (literally, ripe, pakkā), the lad stays in his father-in-law’s house. He rests one day, and then works for his father-in-law for a year, or two years, or even it may be for life, according to agreement. There is no money payment in any case. If the girl is an heiress or only daughter, the marriage is usually ākemèn; but in the great majority of cases it is ākejoi. The neighbours of both villages assemble at the marriage, and when the bride goes to her husband’s house, the neighbours of the village accompany her and are hospitably entertained.

Before marriage it was reported, when Mr. Stack made his enquiries, that there was little intercourse between the sexes. Seduction rarely occurred, but when it did, the parents of the girl had to give her to the lad in marriage. It was not punished. Old men, however, could remember (1885) when the teràng or “bachelors’ house” used to be the abode not only of the lads, but also of the maids, and illegitimate births were common. The girls used even to work in the fields with the boys; there was not even a matron to look after them!

After marriage adultery is said to be rare. The case is judged by the , or village council, who inflict a fine. The guilty pair are tied up and exposed to the scorn of the neighbours until the fine is paid by the man. Adultery was never capitally punished. After the fine is paid, the husband has to take his wife back, unless there are no children, when he might refuse to do so. The fine is not given to the offended husband, but distributed among the elders who compose the .

The authorities differ on the question whether more than one wife is allowed. When Mr. Stack wrote, in 1883, the chapter on “Castes and Tribes” in the Report on the Assam Census of 1881, he stated that “polygamy is permitted if a man can afford it.” His subsequent notes of 1885–86, however, record that monogamy is the rule, and no one is allowed to marry two wives. Mr. W. C. M. Dundas, Subdivisional Officer of North Cachar, writing in 1903, says that an Ārlèng may marry only one wife. On the other hand, the Rev. P. E. Moore, who has a long experience of the Mikirs, writing in 1902, says, “Polygamy is not common. A man sometimes takes a second wife. In one instance which came to my notice recently the two wives were married on the same day. The man is usually fined Rs. 12.8 for this irregularity. The father of a boy who is now in my service had six wives, and was not punished at all.”[3] Perhaps it may be concluded that monogamy is the general rule, and that cases of polygamy have occurred in consequence of the effect of the example of the Assamese, and the weakening of tribal sanctions.

The young couple live in the bridegroom’s father’s house. The old people often get separate rooms allotted to them as they advance in life, and are supported in idleness.

Widow marriage is allowed. Divorce is rare, but permissible if there is no offspring, or if the girl goes home after marriage and refuses to return to her husband. In that case the husband takes a gourd of beer to her parents and declares himself free. Both parties, after the divorce, can marry again.

[Note by Editor.

The following list of Mikir words for family relationship has some points of interest:—

Grandfather, phu.Grandmother, phi.
Father, .Mother, pēi,.
Husband, pèng-àn.Wife, pēsō.
(Wedded pair,Pèng-àn-sō, Pēngnàn-sō.)
Wife’s father, hupō, ònghai.Wife’s mother, nīpī, nihai.
Husband’s father, lòk-hai.
Father’s brother, punu.Father’s sister, pīnu.
Mother’s brother, òng, nihu.Father’s brother’s wife,ni.
Child, commongender, without reference to parents, .
Boy, osō.Girl, osōpī.
Son, sōpō.Daughter, sōpī.
Grandson, supō.Granddaughter, supī.
Brother, in general, kòr, kòrtē.Sister, in general, kòr, kòrtē.
Brother, when speaker is a female,chèklē.
Elder brotherwords used by both sexesīkElder sister, when speaker is afemale.
Younger brothermuingjīrpī, whenspeaker is a male.
Younger sister, mu.
Brother-in-law: wife’s brother,òng-sō.Brother’s wife, for malespeaker, tēpī; for female speaker, nèng.
Sister’s husband, , ingjīr-ārlo; kòrpō.Wife’s sister, kòrpī.
Son-in-law, osā.
Nephew, generally, philipō.Niece, philipī.
Elder brother’s son, īk-āsō.
Brother’s son, kòr-āsō.
Sister’s son,osā.

The remarkable point about these names is that most of them are the same for both sexes, and that the sexes are distinguished only by words indicating gender where this is required. is the index for the male, that for the female.

Again, the same word appears to be used in different senses: e.g. òng is maternal uncle, but òng-sō ( is the syllable indicating a diminutive) is the wife’s brother, the “little uncle;” osā is both nephew (sister’s son) and son-in-law (pointing to the custom of intermarriage of first cousins on the mother’s side). is sister, but tēpī ( indicates greatness) is brother’s wife. Similarly, kòr is sister (or brother), kòrpī is wife’s sister, kòrpō sister’s husband.

It will be observed that brothers and sisters, and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, use different forms of address when speaking of their relationship inter se.

The whole subject seems to demand further investigation, in the light of comparison with the system of family grouping in other allied tribes, and the history and etymology, so far as it is possible to ascertain them, of the words indicating relationship.]

The sons inherit; if there are none, the brothers; after them the deceased’s nearest agnate of his own kur. The wife and daughters get nothing. But if the deceased has no sons or brothers, the widow can retain the property by marrying into her husband’s kur. In any case she retains her personal property, ornaments, clothes, etc. If the widow will not surrender the property, the case has to come before the .

The eldest son gets somewhat more than the others on the father’s death. Generally, however, the property is divided beforehand by the father, who often prefers one son to another. The family usually continues to dwell together, the grown-up sons supporting the widowed mother. Adoption is unknown.

Villages have no fixed or recognized boundaries, but are moved from place to place according to the needs of cultivation. Only house-tax is paid, except by Mikirs cultivating land with the plough in the submontane tracts, who are treated in all respects like other Assamese raiyats. In the hills the culturable land, at the first settlement of a village in a new locality, is divided among the householders by the , or village council, presided over by the gaoṅbura, the head of each household choosing his own land for cultivation, and any dispute being referred to the . Should the dispute not be settled in this manner, the majority prevails, and the dissident households, if they do not acquiesce, may remove elsewhere and set up for themselves as a new community with a gaoṅbura of their own.

The following are the Mikir mauzas, or territorial divisions including a number of villages, in the Nowgong district:—

Duār Bāguri, Duār Bāmuni, Duār Sālŏnā, Ròngkhàng, Duār Āmlā Parbat, Duār Dikhŏru, Duār Kothiatali, Jamunā-pār, Làngphēr, Lumding Mikir. The last two are new mauzas, the opening-out of which is due to the Assam-Bengal Railway, which traverses the tract. Each mauza has a Mikir mauzadār or bikhoyā.

The decision of disputes is the business of the village , or council,[4] presided over by the gaoṅbura (Mikir, sār-thē). The is composed of all the male householders. The gaoṅbura is chosen for his personal character by the householders. On election, he repairs, with beer and spirits, to the head gaoṅbura or mauzadar, bringing with him two or three other gaoṅburas. A pig is killed, the company eat and drink together, and the gaoṅbura is declared duly elected. The is summoned by the gaoṅbura. It decides all village disputes, and inflicts small fines. It also determines whether the village shall be shifted, and where it shall be removed to. A mē-pī (“great council”) consists of gaoṅburas only, presided over by a mauzadar or head gaoṅbura. Graver matters, such as charges of adultery, witchcraft aimed at life (mājā kechònghoi), tigers in the mauza, questions affecting the mauza at large, the arrangements for the Ròngkēr or annual village festival, and such like, are referred to the mē-pī.

The Mikirs have never been a warlike race, nor are there any traditions of inter-village feuds. Head-hunting has not been practised, but the tribe have often been the victim of raids for this purpose by their neighbours, the Angami Nagas. There are said to have formerly been vendettas between families.

GROUP OF MIKIRS (NORTH CACHAR).

(2)

p. 23

During the Burmese wars in the early part of the last century, the tribe deserted its settlements in the submontane tract, and fled into the higher hills. Many Assamese are reported to have taken refuge with them during this time, and to have become Mikirs. [Mr. Dundas also mentions that in North Cachar outsiders are admitted into the tribe and are enrolled as members of one of the kurs, after purification by one of the Bē-kuru kur (Mr. Stack’s and Krō, sub-kurs of Teràng). In the group opposite, taken from a photograph supplied by Mr. Dundas, the short man is evidently a Khasi, while the man to his left appears to be an Assamese.]

The Mikirs call their Kachārī neighbours Pāròk, the Mikir pronunciation of Bŏrŏ (in the allied dialect of Tipperah boròk means “man”); the Assamese are Āhòm, the Bengalis Bòngnai (Bòngnai-ādin, “British rule”), the Nagas Nākā. The Khasis generally are called Chomàng, the border race of Khasis, adjoining the Kopili or Kupli river, being Chomàng-Kēchē. Kēchē is, no doubt, equivalent to Khāsī, the vowel-change being the same as in Rēchō for Rājā.

APPENDIX.

1. The kurs or exogamous groups of the Mikir race are thus given in the Assam Census Report for 1891 (vol. iii. pp. cii.–ciii):—

Main Subdivisions.

I. Ingti. II. Terang. III. Teràn. IV. Tumung. V. Inghi or Hengse.

  • I. Subdivisions of Ingti—
    • 1. Inglē.
    • 2. Ingti-Henchek.
    • 3. Ingti-Kiling.
    • 4. Kāthār.
    • 5. Tārak or Tāro.
  • II. Subdivisions of Terang—
    • 1. Be-bonghàng (read Be-Ronghàng).
    • 2. Be-Jingthong.
    • 3. Injai.
    • 4. Kro.
    • 5. Kro-bonghàng (read Kro-Ronghàng).
    • 6. Kro-Jingthong.
    • 7. Kro-ghoria.
    • 8. Lilipo-kro.
    • 9. Rongbijiya.
    • 10. Tarang.
    • 11. Teràng.
  • III. Subdivisions of Teràn—
    • 1. Ai.
    • 2. Kangkàt.
    • 3. Lànglē.
    • 4. Milik.
    • 5. Tarap.
    • 1. Benār-pātōr.
    • 2. Chenār.
    • 3. Derā.
    • 4. Keleng.
    • 5. Rongphār.
    • 6. Rongtar[5]-Jungthong.
    • 7. Takki.
    • 8. Tumung-pātōr.
  • IV. Subdivisions of Tumung—
    • 1. Bonrung.
    • 2. Hànchē.
    • 3. Ke-āp.
    • 4. Lekethē.
    • 5. Ronghang-ghoria.
    • 6. Rongpi.
    • 7. Rongchehon.
    • 8. Tuso.
    • 9. Tutab.
  • V. Subdivisions of Inghi—
1. Inglē. 2. Ingti-Henchek. 3. Ingti-Kiling. 4. Kāthār. 5. Tārak or Tāro.
1. Be-bonghàng (read Be-Ronghàng). 2. Be-Jingthong. 3. Injai. 4. Kro. 5. Kro-bonghàng (read Kro-Ronghàng). 6. Kro-Jingthong. 7. Kro-ghoria. 8. Lilipo-kro. 9. Rongbijiya. 10. Tarang. 11. Teràng.
1. Ai. 2. Kangkàt. 3. Lànglē. 4. Milik. 5. Tarap.
1. Benār-pātōr. 2. Chenār. 3. Derā. 4. Keleng. 5. Rongphār. 6. Rongtar[5]-Jungthong. 7. Takki. 8. Tumung-pātōr.
1. Bonrung. 2. Hànchē. 3. Ke-āp. 4. Lekethē. 5. Ronghang-ghoria. 6. Rongpi. 7. Rongchehon. 8. Tuso. 9. Tutab.

An attempt is made in the report to translate some of these names, but it appears very doubtful whether the meanings assigned are correct. So far as they go, the explanations show that some of the names (to which an Assamese form has in some cases been given, as in those ending in ghoria) are designations of offices (e.g. Pātōr, Rongchehon = village watchman), while others are local or place-names.

Under I. Ingti, (1) Inglē is evidently Mr. Stack’s Inglèng; (4) Kāthār is his Kātār, (2) [Ingti]-Henchek is his Hènsèk, and (5) Tāro his Tāro.

Under II. Terang, (1 and 2) Be is Mr. Stack’s Bē, (4, 5, 6, 7) Kro is his Krō, and (3) Injai is probably his Ingjār; the others seem to be either local names (8, Lilipo-kro = Western Krō, Nilīp = west; 9, Rongbijiya = inhabitants of some particular village), or duplicates of the group-name Terang (Nos. 10 and 11).

Mr. Stack had no group named Teràn.

Group IV., Tumung, corresponds to Mr. Stack’s Timung; of the subdivisions, 2, Chenar is probably his Sèngnār, 5, Rongphār agrees with his list, and 7, Takki is probably his Tòkbi. Nos. 1 and 8 are explained as office-holders, No. 3 is a place-name, No. 4 is a river (Kiling), and No. 6 seems to be a duplicate of No. 5.

Group V., Inghi, corresponds to Mr. Stack’s Lèkthē, which occurs as the name of subdivision 4 in the census list; 1, Bonrung, is Mr. Stack’s Bòngrun; 2, Hànchē, is his Hànsē; 8, Tuso, is his Tutsō. His Kràmsā is not found in the census list, but occurs, as will be seen below, in other lists.

2. Mr. Dundas, Subdivisional Officer of North Cachar, writing in March 1903, gives the following groups:—

Main Exogamous Groups.

1. Inghī. II. Timūng. III. Tērŏn. IV. Kāthār. V. Bē. VI. Injāi.

I. Inghī has the following subdivisions:—

1.Rongpi,further subdivided into(a) Rongchāichū,(b) Rongchēhòn, (c) Chinthòng,(d) Lindòk.
2.Ronghàng
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Hèmpī, (b)Hèmsō.
3.Inghī
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Hèmpī, (b)Hèmsō.
4.Hànsē
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Durong, (b)Nongkīrlā, (c) Chinthòng, (d)Kiling.
5.Lèkthē
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Keāp, (b) Tereng.
6.Bòngrung
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Kràmsā, (b)Rongchehòn, (c) Hèmsō.
7.Tutsō
,
further
,,
subdivided
,,
into
,,
(a) Mōthō, (b)Rongphu, (c) Ronghing, (d) Rongchitim, (e)Rongchaichu, (f) Rongchehòn.

(Nos. 4, 6, and 7 agree with Mr. Stack’s list under Lèkthē, and Mr. Stack’s Kràmsā appears as a further subdivision of Bòngrung. As regards the others, the names beginning with Rong may be local village names; Chinthong and Ronghang are the names of great sections of the Mikir population, not of exogamous groups; Hèmpi and Hèmsō mean merely “great house” and “little house.”)

II. Timung (Mr. Stack has the same spelling) comprises—

1.Timung Lindòk,subdivision(a) Ròngchāichu.
2.Ròngphār
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Hèmpī, (b)Hèmsō.
3.Chinthong
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Seng-ār, (b)Hèmpī, (c) Hèmsō.
4.Phàngchu
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Juiti, (b) Rongphàng,(c) Hèmpi, (d) Hèmsō.
5.Phūrā
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Dilī.
6.Tòkbī
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Tòksīkī.
7.Kiling
8.Mējī
9.Pātōr
10.Lòngteroi
11.Yāchī
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Hèmpī, (b)Hèmsō.
12.Dērā
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Hèmpī, (b)Hèmsō.
13.Ròngpi

(Here Nos. 2 and 6 correspond with Mr. Stack’s subdivisions, and No. 3 (a), Seng-ār, is his Sengnār; several of the remainder appear to be local names.)

III. Tēròn comprises—

1.Làngnē,subdivision(a) Ròngchāichu.
2.Kòngkàr
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Dengyā.
3.Mējī
4.Milik
,
subdivision
,,
(a) Seràng.
5.Mēlē
6.Kiling

(Mr. Stack has none of these names; but Làngnē evidently corresponds to Lànglē in the census list, and Kòngkār to Kangkāt, while Milik is in both.)

IV. Kāthār comprises—

1. Ingti-Kāthār
2. Rīsō
3. Hènsèk
4. Ingti-Kiling
5. Ingling, subdivisions (a) Hèmpī, (b) Hèmsō.
6. Ingti-Chinthòng
7. Tārō

(These names, except Rīsō, which means “young man,” all occur in Mr. Stack’s group Ingti. Nos. 4 and 6 are evidently local subdivisions.)

V. Bē comprises—

1.Rònghàng
2.Kiling
3.Lindòk
4.Seng-òt
5.Teràng,subdivisions(a) Dili, (b) Rongchaichu.
6.Kuru
,
subdivisions
,,
(a) Rongchaichu, (b)Nihàng, (c) Nilīp.

(This group corresponds to Mr. Stack’s Teràng; Kuru is his Krō. Subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 are apparently local names.)

VI. Injai comprises—

1. Injai
2. Ing-ār.

(Mr. Stack gives Ing-ār as a subdivision of Teràng; the census list also classes Injai under the same main group. Mr. Dundas notes that the Injai may not take a wife from the Bē (i.e. Teràng) group, from which it may be concluded that they are really a subdivision of that name, or Teràng.)

3. So far the three lists are in general agreement; but the Rev. Mr. Moore, writing in August 1902, gives what at first sight is an entirely different arrangement. He separates the Mikir people into the following five groups:—

I. E-jàng. II. Tung-ē. III. Kròn-ē. IV. Lo-ē. V. Ni-ē.

  • I. E-jàng he subdivides into—
    • 1. Ròngpi.
    • 2. Rònghàng.
    • 3. Tutso.
    • 4. Hànsē.
    • 5. Bòngrung.
    • 6. Kràmsā.
    • 7. Keāp.
    • 8. Lèkthē.
    • 9. Ròngchēhòn.
  • II. Tung-ē comprises—
    • 1. Timung.
    • 2. Tòkbi.
    • 3. Timung-Kiling.
    • 4. Timung-Ròngphār.
    • 5. Timung-Sēnār.
    • 6. Timung-Phàngchu.
    • 7. Timung-Juiti.
    • 8. Tòktiphi.
    • 1. Tēròn.
    • 2. Tēròn-Kòngkàt.
    • 3. Tēròn-Làngnē.
  • III. Kròn-ē includes—
    • 1. Bē.
    • 2. Krō.
    • 3. Tēràng.
    • 4. Ingjāi.
    • 5. Ingnār.
  • IV. Lo-ē is divided into—
    • 1. Ingti.
    • 2. Inglèng.
    • 3. Tārō.
  • V. Ni-ē comprises—
1. Ròngpi. 2. Rònghàng. 3. Tutso. 4. Hànsē. 5. Bòngrung. 6. Kràmsā. 7. Keāp. 8. Lèkthē. 9. Ròngchēhòn.
1. Timung. 2. Tòkbi. 3. Timung-Kiling. 4. Timung-Ròngphār. 5. Timung-Sēnār. 6. Timung-Phàngchu. 7. Timung-Juiti. 8. Tòktiphi.
1. Tēròn. 2. Tēròn-Kòngkàt. 3. Tēròn-Làngnē.
1. Bē. 2. Krō. 3. Tēràng. 4. Ingjāi. 5. Ingnār.
1. Ingti. 2. Inglèng. 3. Tārō.

Comparing the subdivisions with those given by Mr. Stack, we perceive that five of the nine shown under Mr. Moore’s I. E-jàng (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8) are identical with Mr. Stack’s Lèkthē and its subdivisions; the remaining four (Ròngpi, Rònghàng, Ròngchehòn, and Keāp) are all found in the census list of 1891 under Inghi, another name for Lèkthē. Evidently, therefore, E-jàng is the equivalent of Mr. Stack’s Lèkthē and the census Inghi.

Under II. Tung-ē all Mr. Stack’s names classed under Timung appear; of the remainder, some are found in Mr. Dundas’s list, either of subdivisions or smaller sections, under Timung; Tòktiphi is probably Mr. Dundas’s Tòksīkī; and Timung-Kiling is the census “Keleng” (a river-name). It is clear, therefore, that Tung-ē is the same as the Timung (Tumung) of the other lists.

III. Kròn-ē is evidently the small group Teròn or Teràn of Mr. Dundas and the census list, not found in Mr. Stack’s enumeration.

IV. Lo-ē is also clearly the Teràng of the three other lists, which account for all the names given under it.

V. Ni-ē is the equivalent of Mr. Stack’s Ingti, called by the same name in the census list, and Kāthār in Mr. Dundas’s list (the omission of the name Kāthār, or Kātār, from Mr. Moore’s list is somewhat noticeable).

It thus appears that all the four lists in reality agree in a remarkable manner, quite independent as they are in their origin, and that all observers concur in stating that the Mikir people are divided into five (or four) great exogamous groups, whether situated in the Mikir Hills, in North Cachar, or in the Khasi Hills and the hilly country to the south of Nowgong.


[1] Other authorities mention a fifth, Teròn, which Mr. Stack may have overlooked because of the similarity of its name to Teràng. [↑]

[2] P. [8]. [↑]

[3] In the story of Harata Kunwar, post, p. 57, a second or co-wife is mentioned (Mikir, pātèng, pāju). [↑]

[4] This is an Assamese word, mel. The Mikirs cannot pronounce a final l, and always omit it or change it to i or y in words adopted from Assamese; e.g. hāl, plough, becomes hāy; pitol, brass, pitoi; tāmol, betel-nut, tāmoi. [↑]

[5] Qu. Rongphār? [↑]

IV.

RELIGION.

General character of popular belief in ghosts and spirits, and a future life—No idols, temples or shrines—Amulets—The Gods and their worship—Divination and magic—Oaths and imprecations—Funeral ceremonies—Festivities—Taboo.

Beliefs about the Dead.

The Mikirs have borrowed from the Hindu Assamese the ideas and the names of Boikuntho (Vaikunṭha, Vishnu’s Paradise) and Nòròk (Naraka, Hell); but these conceptions do not play much part in their views of a life to come. Better known, and more often mentioned, is Jòm Rēchō (Jam, Yama Rājā), the Lord of Spirits, with whom the dead remain below ground. His abode—the abode of the dead—is Jòm-āròng,[1] and the elaborate ceremonies of the funeral are the means by which the spirit of the dead gains admittance to Jòm’s city. Unless they are duly performed he remains outside.

They speak of having seen the shade (image, ārjàn) of a dead man (nē lā ārjàn thèklòk, “I saw his shade”); a sickly man catches such glimpses in the house, on the road, etc. Phārlō, spirit, is used both of living persons and dead. Tovē nē-phārlō nē lā-ābàng thèk-lòng, “Last night in my spirit I saw him”; where phārlō is the spirit of the sleeping man. When such glimpses are experienced, betel and food are set aside in the house, and after a time thrown away.

On a death occurring, the old women of the village wash and lay out the body. Then one composes a chant, setting forth the parentage and life of the dead: “You will now meet your grand-parents, father, deceased brother, etc., and will stay with them and eat with them.” Then a separate meal of rice and a boiled egg is placed beside the body, and the dead man is invited to eat. This is done twice a day, the meal being cooked separately from the food of the family. After being offered and placed beside the corpse for a time, the food is thrown away. This goes on day by day until the funeral service is held (see below). After that there are no regular offerings, but occasionally a man or woman puts aside from his or her own share of food a portion for the dead, as, for instance, when another funeral reminds them of those who have died before.

There does not appear to be any fear of the dead coming back to trouble the living. Some people, however, it is said, are afraid to pass the burying-place of the dead after dark.

They say that a man called Thī-rèng Vàng-rèng (literally, “Dead-alive come-alive”) in former times used to travel between this world and Jòm Rēchō’s abode; he taught them their funeral ceremonies. At last he did not come back. Everything is different in Jòm-āròng. Thīrèng Vàngrèng saw the people there go out to fish, and gather instead pieces of stick. They asked him why he did not gather them too; he answered that they were not fish, but sticks. They waved over them a lighted brand, and he saw them as fish. So, too, there a crab becomes a tiger, or seems to be a tiger. Men do not stay in Jòm Rēchō’s city for ever, but are born again as children, and this goes on indefinitely (here we seem to have a borrowing from Hinduism). “The Mikirs give the names of their dead relations to children born afterwards, and say that the dead have come back; but they believe that the spirit is with Jòm all the same.”[2]

A man with unusually keen and alarming eyes is said to be possessed by a demon (hī-ī). The phrase is āhī-ī kedo ārlèng, and, of the eyes, āmèk āhī-ī kedo. But the superstition of the evil eye, as prevalent elsewhere, seems to be unknown, and such a man is not avoided; rather, the hī-ī is supposed to give him cleverness. The same phrase is used in familiar abuse to a child: Āhī-ī kedo osō, “You devil-possessed brat!”

Religion—Divinities.

The Mikirs have no idols, temples, or shrines. Some people, however, have fetishes or amulets, called bòr. These are pieces of stone or metal, by keeping which they become rich. Sometimes, however, a man unwittingly keeps a bòr that brings him ill-luck and loss. A man is said to have got a bòr, bòr kelòng; Bòr do-kòklē, plàng-plē-jī mā? “If you have got a bòr, will you not become rich?” Bòrs are not common; one gets them by chance in river, field, or jungle. Or a man dreams that he can get a bòr in such a place, and finds it there. But these amulets are not objects of worship or propitiation.

The Gods—Ārnàm-ātum—are innumerable, and are worshipped in different ways, at different times, and in different places. The names of some of the most important are given below.

Ārnàm Kethē, in spite of his name, which means “The Great God,” has no definite authority over the other Gods. He is a house-god, and is sacrificed to once in three years, if no occasion (in consequence of trouble) arises meanwhile. His appropriate offering is a pig. The family obtain Ārnàm Kethē by asking him to stay with them, and by castrating a young pig, to be sacrificed three years later. All families have not got Ārnàm Kethē to stay with them, nor does he always come when invited. If a man is sick, and the uchē (diviner) declares that Ārnàm Kethē wishes to join the household, the ceremony is performed, but no offerings are made at the time. After three years—or earlier, if there is any sickness in the family—the pig is killed, and a general feast, with rice, beer, and spirits, given to the village. A booth of leaves is built in the three days before; the first day is devoted to cutting the posts for the booth, and is called phòng-ròng ketèng; the second, to garlanding leaves round the posts, called phòng-ròng ketòm; and on the third day leaves are laid out for the rice, rice-flour (pithāguri, Ass.) is sprinkled about the ground, and plantains and other trees are planted around the booth. All these preparations are done in the early morning before eating. Then follows the ceremony—Ārnàm Kethē kāraklī. First, there is the invocation: “To-day has come, and now we will give you your three-years’ offering; accept it kindly!” Fowls are killed, and then the pig (all animals killed in sacrifice are beheaded with one stroke of a heavy knife delivered from above). The liver, heart, and lights of both are cooked for the god. Then the hoof, ear, and tail of the pig are offered, then pieces of cooked meat. Afterwards the sacrificers eat tekār kethī or tekār-sō, then tekār-pī. Both are pieces of flesh, the first smaller, the latter larger, eaten with rice-beer. Then all the company set to and eat rice and flesh together. Sometimes three or four pigs and forty different kinds of vegetables are consumed at the sacrificial feast. The women get sixfold or ninefold the shares of the men, and carry them home bound up in leaves (àn-bòr and òk-bòr).

Pèng is also a household god. His offering is a goat, sacrificed yearly, in the tikup or space before the house. Some neighbours are invited to the sacrificial feast. Pèng lives in the house, Ārnàm Kethē in heaven. Pèng is also sacrificed to in sickness. Very few houses have not Pèng. Maize, rice, and a gourd of rice-beer are placed for him above the veranda of the house, and the firstfruits of the harvest are offered to him. “But these two gods only come to eat, and families avoid taking them if they can.”

Hèmphū (“head of the house,” “householder”) owns all the Mikir people. Everybody can sacrifice to him at any time, and pray for deliverance from sickness. Mukràng is similar to Hèmphū but slightly lower in dignity. These two gods, the preservers of men, are approached by the sacrifice of a fowl or goat. Hèmphū must be invoked first in every sacrifice, being the peculiar owner of men.

Rèk-ànglòng (“the mountain of the community”) or Inglòng-pī (“great mountain”) is a house-god, but is worshipped in the field, and only men eat the sacrifice, which is a fowl or a goat once a year. He is the god of the hill they live on, the Deus loci, with whom they have to be at peace; but not every family in the village need have him.

Ārnàm pārō (“the hundred god”) is the name of a god who takes a hundred shares of rice, pithāguri, betel-nut, and the red spathe of the plantain tree cut up. He is worshipped with a white goat or a white fowl as the sacrifice. He and Rèk-ànglòng figure particularly in the Ròngkēr, or great annual village festival, celebrated in June at the beginning of the year’s cultivation. (Ārnàm-pārō seems to be a collective name, to include all gods whom it may concern. Kāmākhyā, the Hindu goddess of Nīlāchal above Gauhāti, is mentioned as one of the deities included in Ārnàm-pārō.)

The gods named above are all invoked and propitiated to grant prosperity and avert misfortune, both generally and specially. There are, besides, numerous gods who take their names from the special diseases over which they preside or which they are asked to avert; such are—

Chomàng-āsē (“Khasi fever”), a Khasi god, who lives in the house and is propitiated with a goat; he is comparatively rare. This god appears to be identical with Kēchē-āsē, which is the rheumatism. (Chomàng is the name for the interior Khasis, Kēchē for those immediately in contact with the Mikirs.)

Ājō-āsē (“the night fever”) is the deity of cholera (mā-vur or pòk-āvur). The sacrifice to him is two fowls and many eggs, and is offered at night, on the path outside the village. The whole village subscribes to furnish the offering, and with the eatables are combined a load of cotton, a basket of chillies, an offering of yams, and the image of a gun (because cholera is thought to be a British disease); also sesamum (nèmpō), many bundles consisting of six sticks of a soft wood called chèknàm (perhaps the cotton tree, bombax) tied together, many bundles of the false cane (ingsu), and double wedges of chèknàm wood. The god is invoked: “Don’t come this way, go that way!” The eatables are eaten, and the other articles thrown away. The houses are then beaten with rods of chèknàm and ingsu.

Sō-mēmē (“evil pain”) is the god to whom barren women have recourse.

Recurring sicknesses and troubles are ascribed to Thèng-thòn or Òk-làngno, a devil (hī-ī); he is propitiated with a goat and a pig, or two or three fowls. A man gasping in sickness is being strangled by Thèng-thòn. If, notwithstanding invocations of the gods, sickness grows worse, a sacrifice is offered to Thèng-thòn without summoning the diviner or sàng-kelàng-ābàng.

Mr. Stack gives the following as the names of the chief diseases (besides those already mentioned), the averting of which forms the main object of worship: goitre, phun-kàng (“swollen throat”); phthisis, sī-ī (also cough); stone, ingthàk; diarrhœa, pòk-kàngsī; rheumatism, kēchē-āsē (“Khasi fever”); neuralgia, bàb āsē; small-pox, pī-āmīr (“the Mother’s flowers”); black leprosy, sī-ĭ; white leprosy, āròk; elephantiasis, kèng-tòng (kèng, leg; ingtòng, funnel-shaped basket); dysentery, pòk kāpāvī (“bleeding of belly”).

The house-gods come down in the family; no others would be sacrificed to if the family were uniformly prosperous.

All natural objects of a striking or imposing character have their divinity. The sun (ārnī) and moon (chiklo) are regarded as divine, but are not specially propitiated. But localities of an impressive kind, such as mountains,[3] waterfalls, deep pools in rivers, great boulders, have each their ārnàm, who is concerned in the affairs of men and has to be placated by sacrifice. The expression ārnàm do, used of a place, means, generally, to be haunted by something felt as mighty or terrible. All waterfalls (làngsun), in particular, have their ārnàms. In Bāguri mauza there are two great waterfalls in the Diyaung river which are specially venerated as divine; one of these, the Làng-kàngtòng (“Rolling-down water”), can be heard half a day’s journey off. Similarly, there are places where a river goes underground (làng-lut); these also have their ārnàm.[4] Such local divinities of the jungle are propitiated chiefly to avert mischief from tigers, which are a terrible plague in many parts of the Mikir hills.

There is no worship of trees or animals.

Làm-āphū, “the head or master of words,” is a deity probably of recent origin. He is the god sacrificed to by a man who has a case in court; the sacrifice is one young cock, which should be offered at night, secretly, by the sacrificer alone, in a secret place.

It should be mentioned that, following an ill-sounding idiom of the Assamese, the Mikirs use “Ārnàm” as a common (propitiatory) form of address to human beings (Assamese, dēutā). Pō-ārnàm-pō (“god-father”) to a man, and pē-ārnàm-pī (“god-mother”) to a woman, are the phrases. In one of the stories given in the [next Section], the king is addressed as Hèmphū Ārnàm, “Lord God.”

Divination and Magic.

Sickness, if long continued or severe, is frequently attributed to witchcraft (mājā). A man suffering from long sickness is said to be mājā kelòng—“witchcraft has got hold of him.” To discover the author of the spell, or the god or demon who has brought the trouble and must be propitiated, the services of a diviner are necessary. Uchē, feminine uchē-pī (Hindi, ōjhà), is the general name for the cunning in such things. Of these there are two grades—the humbler, whose craft is acquired merely by instruction and practice, and the higher, who works under the inspiration or afflatus of divine powers. The former is the sàng-kelàng ābàng, “the man who looks at rice,” in Assamese, mangalsuā; the latter, invariably a woman, is the lodèt or lodèt-pī. In serious sickness or distress the latter is called in; on ordinary and less important occasions, the former.

The sàng-kelàng ābàng picks out of the pot the unbroken grains of rice (sàng), and places them, by fives and tens, in pentacle or other fashion. He then counts by couples. If in the groups the odd numbers predominate, the omen is good. If there are no odd grains over, it is very bad. Then all are swept together again, and arranged in three or four heaps. Each heap is counted out, a god being named, and if after the counting, again by couples, three single grains remain, the god named is the one to be propitiated. If three grains do not remain, the process is tried over again. Cowries (chobai) are sometimes used instead of rice in the same way. Also, with cowries a handful is taken and spread out, and the number with the slits upwards counted; if they are the majority, the omen is good.[5]

Another mode of divination used by the mangalsuā is to arrange in a circle, equidistant from a point marked on a board (inghoi), as many little heaps of clay as there are gods suspected in the case, each heap being called by the name of its god. An egg is then sharply thrown into the middle of the board at the marked point. When it breaks and the yolk is scattered, that clay heap which receives the largest splash of yolk, or towards which the largest and longest splash points, indicates the god responsible for the affliction.[6]

Another mode is to use the nòk-jīr, which is a long-handled iron dāo with a cross-piece at the handle and two inclined projecting pieces higher up, before the blade, thus:—

This is held upright in the hand. It shakes of itself when the charm is recited and the nòk-jīr invoked to become inspired: Nàng uchḗ vàng-phlòt! “Let your spirit (uchḗ) come!” The holder asks whether the sick person will recover, and goes over the names of the possibly responsible gods, and the nòkjīr shakes at the right answer and name. The charm (the Assamese word montro is used) recites the making of the nòkjīr, and ends—“if you tell lies, you will be broken up and made into needles” (—the lowest use to which iron can be put, to sew women’s petticoats!).[7]

The Lodèt is an ordinary woman (not belonging to any particular family or kur), who feels the divine afflatus, and, when it is upon her, yawns continually and calls out the names and the will of the gods. Another lodètpī is summoned in to question her, and ascertain if her possession is really divine; a sàng-kelàng ābàng may also be consulted. If the report is favourable, a purificatory offering of a fowl is made to Hèmphū and Mukràng, the preservers of men, and the woman is accepted as a lodètpī.

She sits by the bewitched person (mājā-kelòng), and the neighbours come in after supper. The lodètpī bathes her hands and feet and face in water in which the tulsi plant (Ocymum sanctum, holy basil) has been steeped, and begins to shake and yawn. A gourd of rice-beer is brought, of which she drinks some, and begins to call out the names of gods, and they descend upon her. She is now inspired, and when questioned indicates, by indirect and riddling answers, the enemy who has bewitched the sufferer, or the gods who must be sacrificed to. When this is ascertained she goes away. The accusation of practising witchcraft is carried before the or village assembly. The sacrifice to placate the gods proceeds next day, and is usually costly.

To bewitch a person, it is necessary to have some of his hair, or a piece of his clothes; these are buried with one egg, some bones, and some charcoal. A good lodètpī can produce these things by the power of her inspiration. A white cloth is tied up into the shape of a bag. She conjures the things into it, and on opening the bag next morning they are found inside. When they are thus recovered, the spirit (kārjòng) of the sufferer returns with them, and he gets well.

Charms (pherèm) are much used for medicinal purposes, either alone or in combination with other remedies. For an ordinary stomach-ache (pòk-kesō), a little mud rubbed on the abdomen, with a muttered charm, is the specific. For rheumatism (kēchē-āsē), a castor-oil leaf is struck on the place, and a charm muttered; if this fails, a sacrifice must be offered to the god Kēchē-āsē. The worker of these remedial measures is called kàngtòk ābàng, and the verb is ingtòk. Charms are not, as a rule, carried on the person.

The expression vur kāchethāt, “to kill for oneself (a fowl) for disease,” means to prevent evil by sacrifice after a dream which had previously been followed by mischance.

If a child does not thrive, it is imputed to the sin, or devil (āhī-ī) of the maternal uncle (òng), or, if there is no maternal uncle, of one of the child’s mother’s kur. The family apply to the person held to be responsible, and he gives a brass ring to be hung round the child’s neck, and a rice-ball (àn ādum).

There is no entertaining of friends on recovery from sickness. The sick person is tended by his wife and relations.

Tekerē, Thekerē, means a man who knows a spell or montro, especially one which protects him against tigers (tèkē).

Oaths and Ordeals.

Oaths and imprecations take the place of ordeals. Earth is put on the head, and the man says—“May I be like this dust!” A tiger’s tooth is scraped, and the scrapings drunk in water: “May the tiger eat me!” Similarly, an elephant’s tusk is scraped, and the scrapings drunk: “May the elephant trample me to death!” (Ingnār nē pedòng-nàng!) The copper ring worn by the uchē is dipped in water, and the water drunk, the man saying, “May the tiger catch me!” Another form of oath is Tàmhitni kàngjir āsòntòt nē pàngjir-nàng, “May I be melted like molten copper (or pot-metal)!” Such oaths are used to confirm promises, and also to attest evidence and proclaim innocence of a charge.

Funeral Ceremonies.

The funeral is the most elaborate, costly, and important of all the ceremonies performed by the Mikirs. Such ceremonies are considered obligatory in all cases except that of a child who has been born dead, or who has died before the after-birth has left the mother; such a child is buried without any ceremony. Victims of small-pox or cholera are buried shortly after death, but the funeral service is performed for them later on, the bones being sometimes dug up and duly cremated. When a person is killed by a tiger, if the body or clothes are found, they are buried at a distance from the village, because the tiger is supposed to visit the burial-place. Such persons cannot gain admittance to Jòm-āròng unless there are elaborate funeral ceremonies performed for them. Being killed by a tiger is generally imputed to the victim’s sin. His spirit is believed to dwell in the most dreary of the places where dead men’s spirits go; there is no notion (such as is found among some races in India) that it animates the tiger who killed him. Except in these cases the dead are disposed of by cremation, the burnt bones being afterwards buried.

The elaborateness of the funeral depends on the means of the family. The description which follows applies to a case where the household is well-to-do. In any case the body is kept in the house for one day after death; if a regular service is held, it may lie as long as from a week to twelve days.