Traditional Myths and Linguistic Analysis: Singwaya Revisited

Abstract

In a previous article in this journal I warned about the dangers of facile generalization and misinterpretation of traditional origin myths leading to the elaboration of historians' myths which bear little resemblance to the traditional, linguistic, cultural, or documentary data. I then proceeded to analyze the Singwaya (Shungwaya) myth pertaining to the origins of the peoples of the Kenya coast to show how earlier interpretations cannot be sustained by the evidence, before demonstrating that the myth is nevertheless valid for the Mijikenda, Pokomo, Swahili, Taita, and Segeju, where such evidence supports its basic veracity.As chance would have it, while the above article was in press I delivered a related paper on the same panel as Thomas Hinnebusch who, on the basis of extensive linguistic fieldwork and analysis of the same area, had found a number of fallacies in the published linguistic data on which I had relied. While confirming the exclusion of the highlanders (Thagicũ-speakers) from the same language group as the coastal peoples and hence presumably from common origins with the others at Singwaya, Hinnebusch also excludes both the Taita and Segeju from that group while adding the Swahili to it, thus calling into doubt the integrity of the Singwaya group as I had reconstructed it. Hinnebusch's data and his analysis of it, then, obviously require a reexamination of the role of the Taita, Segeju, and Swahili peoples in the migration from Singwaya while, at the same time, casting doubt anew on the validity of origin myths or legends. But the linguistic data also extends our view enormously.