7/29/2019 Toda and Sumerian

1/3

The Todas and Sumeria - A Hypothesis Rejected

Author(s): M. B. EmeneauSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Aug., 1953), pp. 453-454Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/664063 .

Accessed: 26/07/2013 23:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:25:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/664063?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/664063?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

7/29/2019 Toda and Sumerian

2/3

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONSTHE TODAS AND SUMERIA-A HYPOTHESIS REJECTED

In a recent paper Prince Peter of Greece (1951) postulates a new "origin" for theTodas-to be added to the many already put forward and rejected (Scythian, VedicAryan, Israelite, Macedonian-to mention only the more fantastic suggestions). Hefinds in Toda ritual utterances a number of god names which he suggests may possiblybe derived from Sumeria. He says specifically (p. 23): "it is not excluded that mer-chants from Sumeria were established in India for trade purposes, and the Todas maybe the only living descendants left of such expatriated buyers." Although historicalcontact of some sort between Sumerian culture and the remote ancestors of the Todasis something that cannot be either proved or disproved without vastly more evidencethan we are likely ever to have, it must be said that progress in Dravidian linguisticstudies will provide the only convincing answer to the question as posed in this paper.

During correspondence with Prince Peter on the material that he has presented, Ipointed out that it was already possible to find good Dravidian etymologies for a num-ber of the Toda words that he wished to use, and to apply to some others linguisticanalysis that dissipated the similarities seen with Sumerian names. Not all of my re-marks can be reproducedin a note such as this, but a few may be presented.One clear and easily stated point is that connection between the Sumerian goddessname Ninlil and the Toda ritual word for the earth is unlikely. This ritual word isidentical with the ordinaryToda word neln "ground, earth," a general South Dravidianword in origin-Tamil-Malayalam nilam, Kota nelm, Kannada-Kodagu (Coorg)-Tulunela.The Sumerian goddess Ishtar was found in the first of two ritual words referring toa village long since disappeared, to'tas of the clan ka's. These words (as I recordedthem on numerous occasions) are o'tas, o'rxwi'r. The words are compounds containingthe same prior member, followed in the first by tas "which is above" and in the secondby kwi'r "stream." The prior member has two allomorphso'- and o'r-, the alternationbetween the consonants depending probably on the following sounds as in a number ofother instances. The prior form is o'r-, which may conceivably be identical with theword o'r "way, entrance into thicket, hole" (which, incidentally, has a perfectly soundDravidian etymology). Analysis of proper names is often uncertain in the final identi-fication of compounded elements. Nevertheless, any surface similarity to the nameIshtar has evaporated.Prince Peter has recorded ritual words that I did not have opportunity or time toget down during my fieldwork, and not all the material that we have in common willadmit of final analysis and Dravidian etymologizing, since the long isolation of theTodas in the Nilgiris has produced the usual linguistic divergences from the parentstock. It is my opinion, however, that further intensive work, both in the field and incomparisons with the other Dravidian languages, will leave so small a residue of un-explained material as to make the possible Sumerian connection untenable.Intensive comparative work done since the correspondence referred to above, hascleared up the names involved in Prince Peter's first Sumerian connection. He equatedthe principal Toda deity 6"n,a god of the dead, with Sumerian An (in Semitized formAnu). One of the ritual names of *"nis int.w.

I had long known that the second element453

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:25:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 Toda and Sumerian

3/3

454 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [55,1953here is tiiw "god" (indirectly borrowed from Sanskrit deva- "god"), that the first ele-ment is seen also in Ino'r "the country of the dead" (which has second element no'r"place, country"), and that the first element in both is in "the dead," which is cognatewith Tamil pinam, pinan, Malayalam pinam, Kota penm, Old Kannada peina,Tulupuna, Telugu piniigu, pingu, Kuwi (Fitzgerald) pilingil, all meaning "corpse, deadbody." Recently the etymology of il'n has been found: Malayalam pena "ghost,spirit," Kota pe'n, pe'nm "possession of woman by dead ancestors," Old Kannadaperikuni, p~rikuli "demon," Gondi pen "a god," Kui penu "a god, a spirit," Kuwi(Fitzgerald). penii "god," (Schulze) penu "devil." In addition one must connect thefollowing words which have different suffixes: Tamil piy "devil, goblin, fiend," peycci,pecci "demoness, woman under possession of a demon," Malayalam p8 "demon,"feminine pecci, Kota pe'y "demon," Tulu payi "demon," and Old Kannada petu,Middle Kannada hWde"demon."The further implications of this family of etyma are fascinating, but still not quitecertain. Have we found here the proto-Dravidian morpheme for "god"? Certainly, thefact that two central Indian languages (Gondi and Kui-Kuwi) have this meaning looksin that direction. If so, the meaning has undergone pejorative change in the southernlanguages that preserve the morpheme (Tamil-Malayalam-Kota p y, Kannada, Tulu)under the pressure of borrowed Indo-Aryan words for "god" (chiefly Sanskrit deva-and its derivatives); Schulze's meaning "devil" for Kuwi may have been dictated byhis missionary interests. The southern meaning has an exception in the Nilgiri lan-guages Toda and Kota, that connect the words that have the -n- suffix with the realmof the dead: Toda ii'n "the god of the dead" and Kota pe'n, pe'nm "possession ofwoman by dead ancestors" (probably partial independent development); the Malaya-lam meaning "ghost" for pena cannot be checked further at present, but may be anindication of Malabar-Nilgiri connections.Both the Toda words in and 6*nhave lost initial p of proto-Dravidian, which is nota regulardevelopment in Toda, but is regularin modern Kannada, the language of theplains to the north of the Nilgiris, and in the Kannada dialect spoken by the Badagasin the Nilgiris. The Todas may have undergone influence of this sort at any time in theirlong history in the Nilgiris, and only further study (perhaps fieldwork on the Badagalanguage) will settle this point of relative chronology.To conclude, linguistic analysis, both descriptive and historical, makes or will inthe long run make the majorpart of Prince Peter's evidence unconvincing by providingthe Toda words with general Dravidian cognates. He has rightly put forward his sug-gestion of Sumerian connections very tentatively, but even so it cannot be accepted. Iregret that my long incubation of my Toda fieldnotes has contributed in part to thepossibility of making the suggestion, and can only hope that the near future will seethis situation remedied.

M. B. EMENEAUUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIABIBLIOGRAPHY

H. R. H. PRINCEPETEROFGREECE 951 Possible Sumerian Survivals in Toda Ritual. Bulletinof theMadrasGovernmentMuseum,New Series,GeneralSection,VI, 1, Madras.

This content downloaded from 67.115.155.19 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:25:42 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp