Untoucables in Classical Tamil Society? (Re: New discovery in Tamil Nadu)

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

In  an earlier post Hart had included Tamil washermen among those called  ‘
izicin2ar’ in the Classical Tamil texts. I forgot to mention in my last  
post that contrary to what Hart has said there is not a single instance where  
washermen are called ‘izicin2ar’ in those texts. Instead, a washerwoman is  
called pulaitti in these texts. The difference is significant since the 
meaning  of ‘izicin2ar’ had something to do with drumming and nothing to do 
with being  low or despicable. 

Coming  to Hart’s question regarding Akam 281.5, pOz refers to a split 
piece of peacock  feather. I see no leather there. That 'pOz' is used in 
connection with peacock  feather (“pIlip pOz”) is clear from paripATal 21.7. It is 
also possible to  interpret ‘pOz’ as referring to the split wood one might 
think the bow is made  of. In either case it is the peacock feather 
material that is wound around the  bow. 
Another  important philological point about Puram 82. Hart has failed to 
consider the  semantics of the verb ‘niNakkum’ (< DEDR 3668 ‘niNa-‘ 'to tie 
up, fasten,  braid') used in connection with making the cot. The sleeping 
surface of the  cot (‘kaTTil’) is made by fastening or braiding or 
interlacing long strips  of material. There is no need for a separate thread and 
needle for  stitching the material as in tailoring. The post-Classical Tamil work 
peruGkatai  1.34.144 calls the base surface of a royal throne (also called ‘
kaTTil’)  made of interlaced string as 'niNavai'. In fact, the modern 
editor UVS refers to  puRam 82 in his note for the line. UVS also points to 
peruGkatai 1.42.28 which  mentions "mUGkil paimpOz niNavai" where the interlacing 
(for what object we do  not know) is done using green bamboo 'pOz'.  The 
function of 'Uci' must  have been to push forward the braiding/interlacing 
material and not to  stitch using needle and thread. It is possible the ‘Uci’ 
might not  have had a hole and might have had some means like a hook to grab 
the lacing  material.  
As  for the relevance of considering the status of castes in the 
post-Classical  Tamil period, Hart frequently points to the contemporary castes to add 
support  to his statements. For example, consider his note for Puram 82 
which I  cited earlier ("This shows that in Sangam times, ***as now***, leather 
workers  were one of the lower castes." Emphasis mine.). Also in the same 
work (p.xxi),  in the section “Society: The Low Castes” he says, "The three 
most prominent of  these castes were the drummers, called kiNaiyan2s 
(***probably modern  paRaiyan2s***)..." (Emphasis mine) The problem is that he 
ignores historical and  contemporary data contradicting his theory. For 
instance, how  do the Tamil washermen considered to be untouchable by Hart in  
Classical Tamil period become non-untouchable in Tamil Nadu throughout  history? 
There is no epigraphic or anthropological evidence of such  washermen being 
considered untouchable. There have been no recorded  movements for upward 
mobility of washermen like that of Nadars in the 20th  century. As for 
paRaiyar, Hart is very willing to cite their status in modern  times but ignores 
their higher status before the 12th century.   
One  does not need any ingenuity for an explanation of the classical Tamil  
society. One would hope that any explanation considers that the data are 
primary  and theory should be made to fit the data, all the data and not 
ignore  'inconvenient' data or grammatical facts. There should also be internal  
consistency in statements. Hart's positions that immigrant brahmins took up  
occupations held in high esteem by the Tamil society, Tamil society 
considered  funerary priests as untouchables, and Vedic brahmins became funerary  
priests who cut dead bodies and bury them do not make sense. 
I  have mostly presented information which was not included in my paper. 
For  a more detailed analysis of the question of untouchability in  Classical 
Tamil period, please see my paper in which I have cited a link to  Hart's 
paper in PDF too :-) 

Regards, 
Palaniappan


**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323013x1201367230/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JulystepsfooterNO62)