Is 32,000 years of Meitei civilization a sign of tribalism?
- Part 1 -

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei *

In 30,000 BCE (Before Common Era), or same as 30,000 BC (Before Christ) which is used in Christian world, when Sydney of Australia was occupied by Aboriginal Australians, which is also evidenced from radio carbon dating, and when Japan had the first ground stone tools, Manipur had its first evidence of Pleistocene man. The Manipuri Pleistocene humans were not Neanderthals, of Neander valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, but early Homo sapiens or modern humans. The two important early modern Homo sapiens sites which were close to Manipur were Annamite Mountains (Laos), with the fossils of modern humans dated 63,000 years ago, and Liujiang (China) with its date of fossils as 139,000-111,000 years ago.

The study to discover whether Manipur Pleistocene humans came from Annamite Mountains of Laos or Liujiang of China could be of immense contribution to the making of modern humans as Liujiang man, who is a late Pleistocene Homo sapiens sapiens like Manipur Pleistocene man, is concluded to be as one of the earliest modern humans in East Asia by a scientific team led by a geologist Guanjun Shea of Nanjing (China) Normal University, or the study could also find the trace of Manipur Pleistocene humans to Annamite Mountains – a mountain range of eastern Indochina – that extends to Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia.

There is no scientific record, till date, to show that any other form of Homos, or prior to the first recorded Pleistocene man, was found in Manipur. There could also be a possibility that Manipur Pleistocene modern humans came from Manipur Homo erectus who further got evolved from archaic Manipur humans. This possibility is of the nature which is supported and accepted in the case of Liujiang man by Regional Continuity Model (or Multi Regional Evolution Model) - a model that proposes that modern humans evolved more or less simultaneously in all major regions of the Old World from local archaic humans - unlike Replacement Model, which discusses that the origin of modern humans came from the archaic humans in Africa and later got migrated to the rest of the world. But, the question is – where is the scientific evidence of Manipur Homo erectus or archaic Manipur human? Having no such evidence also can not conclude, as of now, that the possibility of such archaic Manipur human will be absent forever, unless there is a rigorous scientific attempt to explore.

If Meiteis, who are the original inhabitant of Manipur, had a written history since 33 AD, then there is also a question – how has the writing of the royal history begun suddenly in 33 AD? Whether or not the writing by Meiteis existed before 33 AD, and if so, then whether the Meitei civilization began much before 33 AD? – are the queries of deep interest in today's world of scientific research. If Meitei civilization began in 33 AD, then how and from where such great civilization originated? Whether such ancient civilization, which has a continuity, if it had, since the pre – 33 AD, is a point to reflect on.

It is in this regard that the proposition that Meitei civilization existed much before 33 AD becomes valid if Meiteis are the descendants of the Manipur Pleistocene man, who was born 32,000 years ago. Meiteis had to exist even much before 3000 BCE in Manipur. Since the Manipur Pleistocene man is recorded as the first modern human of Manipur in Manipur, therefore the genetics and lineage of that Manipur Pleistocene modern human must be in Meiteis, of today, because Meiteis are the present living evidence of being the original inhabitant of Manipur since the first modern human settlement in Manipur.

Till now, scientifically, there is an evidence that Manipur Pleistocene man is the first original inhabitant of Manipur. If Meiteis are not the descendants of the first Manipuri – the first Manipur Pleistocene modern human, then from whom modern humans Meiteis have descended and whether Meiteis can claim as the first modern humans inhabiting in Manipur by accepting that Meiteis are not the descendants of the first settler of Manipur – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human. In order to state that Meiteis are the original inhabitant of Manipur, they can not claim that they are not the descendant of the first original inhabitant of Manipur – the first Manipuri in the form of the Manipur Pleistocene modern human.

If Meiteis claim that they are not the descendant of the first Manipuri – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human, then Meiteis can not conclude that they are the original inhabitant of Manipur because they accept that they are not the descendant of the first inhabitant of Manipur – the Manipur Plesitocene modern human. By accepting that a modern human is not the descendant of the first inhabitant of a geographical location bound by its space and time, the modern human is admitting that he or she is not entitled to claim as also the first original inhabitant of the very same geographical location.

By accepting that the modern human is the descendant of the first inhabitant of the geographical location, the modern human is entitled to claim that he or she is, inherently, the original inhabitant of the very same geographical location. The descendants must show their lineage and genetics continuously flowing down from their common ancestor, and their common ancestor can not be diverse and considered to have existed in different times of human evolution because any diversity destroys the status of having a common ancestor.

The attempt to dismantle a common ancestor could lead to a series of complexities in understanding and locating one's origin of civilization, and thereby any civilization without its proper origin could be heavily criticized. The beginning of such criticism could also be the beginning to spell confusion and ask further question – has such civilization, whose origin is not clear, ever existed or not? The birth of such uneasy question could be a serious attempt to ridicule and belittle the descendants who have been the preserver, protector, admirer and follower of that very civilization. Such an attempt could be a dawn of further making the young descendants drawn in the whirlpool of dilemma when the young descendants ask for their original ancestor who gave birth to such a great civilization. A scientific approach to ensure that such a dawn becomes a dusk soon so that a new morning sunrise will make the civilization enlightens more is the inner proactive call of today's young descendants of the great civilization.

The further question is – if Meiteis are the descendants of the first original inhabitant of Manipur, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human, then who are the ancestor of the other tribes of Manipur? Can the same common modern human, the first original inhabitant of Manipur – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human, be also the common ancestor of the other tribes of Manipur? If yes, then it shows that Meiteis and other tribes, who are also the descendants of the first original inhabitant of Manipur, are the descendants from the same common ancestor? Having the same common ancestor must also mean that Meiteis and other tribes are children of the same ancestor, thereby meaning that what Meiteis should be entitled to, the same should also be similarly entitled to among the other tribes, and vice – versa.

In the case of vice – versa, what is or are entitled to the other tribes, the similar must be entitled to among the Meiteis, and if this is the case, then the status of tribal which is entitled to the other tribes must also be given to the Meiteis. The larger question is, if Meiteis claim that they are not tribal before like the other tribes of today in Manipur, then it also connotes that Meiteis and the other tribes are not the descendants of the same common ancestor – the first Manipuri namely, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human. If this is the case, then, the further question is – if Meiteis claim that they were not tribal in the past, then it also means that they do not share the genetics and lineage of the other tribes who claim their tribal status in the past, because the sharing of the same lineage can only take place if they all have a common ancestor who is the first original inhabitant of Manipur.

If Meiteis and the other tribes do not have the common ancestor – the Pleistocene modern human, then from where the other tribes have come? Whether the other tribes had another ancestor or not – is also a point to reflect on. If the other tribes had their ancestor who was not the same as that of the ancestor of the Meiteis, then who is that ancestor of the other tribes? Can that ancestor of the other tribes be also the same ancestor - the first original Manipuri, Pleistocene modern human - of the Meiteis?

If it is not, then there has to be another different ancestor of the other tribes, or it could also be many ancestors of the other tribes, but the question is also - who is the first original inhabitant of Manipur; whether the ancestor of the Meiteis or the ancestor or ancestors of the other tribes? There could also be a possibility to posit that the other tribes had the same common ancestor who is none other than the first original inhabitant of Manipur, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human. But, the moment when such proposition begins, the problem is whether the other tribes could show the continuity of lineage of the Manipur Pleistocene modern human in terms of their civilization or written history, etc.

It is in this regard that to claim that the lineage is valid, the presence and presentation of continual recorded history and civilization would play a critical role. Therefore, the other tribes, without a continual civilization since 30,000 BCE, to claim that they are the true descendants of the first original inhabitant, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human, will be extremely difficult to be resolved by modern natural sciences of today's modern physics, chemistry and biology.

But, the other tribes too could very much be a part of Meitei civilization with its continual written records and history backed by scientific verification, and therefore, the Meiteis and the other tribes could, perhaps, be understood as the children of the same ancestor. If the proposition of 'the children of the same ancestor' is accepted, then today's Meiteis can also not fully claim that Meitei civilization is a continual process and human evolution contributed by the Meiteis only because the other tribes, who are also the children of the same ancestor, did contribute to the making of the great Meitei civilization.

Having stated this, it also does not mean that the other tribes were not significantly recognized of their contribution to the making of Meitei civilization, but rather the entire combined civilization, which is known as 'Meitei civilization' today, could be the result of the civilization of the entire children of the same common ancestor. But, then, the question is – if it is the result of the combined effort, then why is it named as 'Meitei civilization' after 'Meiteis' only?

The nomenclature or naming or ,indeed, giving a name to that very civilization has to be studied further. Who first coined the name 'Meitei civilization'? But, the larger issue is, besides the name, even if 'Meitei civilization' is not named as such and it is named as 'X civilization' or 'Y civilization', the larger contribution to that very civilization will be, undoubtedly, Meiteis who have been continuously protecting the civilization, and therefore, it is in this sense, that calling that civilization as 'Meitei civilization' would be more appropriate. Stating this notion of appropriateness, in ancient texts of Meitei civilization, the contribution of the other tribes too is also evidenced, and therefore, the idea of only Meiteis for Meitei civilization is great but more than greater than it could be the entire children of the common ancestor for Meitei civilization, which is nothing but their shared common ancient civilization which is given a name 'Meitei civilization'.

It is the western invention of a term 'tribe' that has become a politically and socially motivated tool to constitutionally label some children of the same ancestor as 'tribe' while the other child as 'non- tribe'. If this understanding is accepted, then there shall be no confusion over who can claim the rightful heir to the first original inhabitant of Manipur, the Manipur Pleistocene modern human. Otherwise, there could be a discourse to discuss the possibility and eligibility of who will be called as the second, the third or the fourth original inhabitant of Manipur; whether the time gap between the first original inhabitant and the second original inhabitant of Manipur can be in terms of thousands or hundreds of years.

Can there be two different original inhabitants of the same place? Should not the first original inhabitant be only considered as the 'only original inhabitant' of the geographical space? Will the status of 'the first original inhabitant' be threatened if there is an attempt to bring in a newly created status called 'the another original inhabitant'? There is a school of thought which believes that all modern humans were, once upon a time, tribes, and therefore, all modern men and women originated from the tribal societies.

But, such acceptance will be hard for the Queen of England or the Pope of the Vatican City or the Archbishop of Canterbury to digest, in today's context. Hence, all are not tribes because all can not be tribes, and its reason, perhaps, could be all were not tribes. Yet, this notion of 'tribe' and its constitutionality, in today's world of constitutional rights, have become a point of fissure, more than fusing the tribal and the non – tribal, between the tribes and the non – tribe.

Can such fissure result to a volcanic eruption oozing out the past distinctions between the tribes and the non – tribe? Or, can such fissure be concealed forever if such past distinctions are reconciled and harmonized with the acceptability of the notion that all are the children of the same common ancestor? The entire children of the same common ancestor must be given almost similar access to what any child of the entire children gets or is entitled to.

If that is so, then the entire children must be either called tribal or non – tribal, because the distinction of the same children into two categories as tribal vs non – tribal means that the children are not of the same common ancestor. Then, the notion of the children belonging to different ancestors could create a complex question of – who are the original descendants of the original first inhabitant of Manipur – the Manipur Pleistocene modern human?

To be continued....