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

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

I am glad TP  mentioned Hart's theory of aNaGku. Please read V. S. Rajam's “
aNaGku: A  Notion Semantically Reduced to Signify Female Sacred Power.” 
Journal of the  American Oriental Society 106, 2 (1986) 257-272. The article 
has a lot of data  on aNaGku in Classical Tamil and also notes, "As per Cankam 
poetry, neither “the  bards” nor other “low caste people” had any 
association with aNaGku; one cannot  claim that they possessed aNaGku in order to 
control it elsewhere. Their  involvement in battle or funeral rites does not 
adequately substantiate their  proclaimed association with aNaGku."  
Let us see what Hart  says regarding contact with the sacred and social 
status. in his ”The Poems of  Ancient Tamil, Their Milieu and Their Sanskrit 
Counterparts,”, 1975, p. 124, he  says, “If the ancient Tamils considered 
many persons low because their  occupations brought them into contact with 
dangerous sacred power, it is natural  to wonder whether the vElan2, the priest 
of murukan2, who is in more intimate  contact with such power than anyone 
else, was also considered to be low. It is  true that the vElan2 is never 
called low or base in the poems, but in modern  Kerala members of one of the 
subcastes of paRaiyan2s are called vElan2s. One of  their jobs is to tell the 
future, like the vElan2s of ancient Tamil literature,  from whom they are no 
doubt descended. Furthermore, it has been seen that in  puR. 259 a pulaitti, 
or base woman, is possessed by murukan2 and shakes, much  like the vElan2, 
and that, in puR. 335, the kaTampan2, who was probably a priest  of 
murukan2, is classed among the low castes. In light of this evidence, it is  likely 
that the vElan2 was in fact considered a low  person.” 
There is nothing in  puR. 335 saying kaTampan2 was of low caste. Moreover, 
one can see that  what Hart calls evidence is simply speculation built on 
speculation and  based on the contemporary status of a social group. What is 
in fact true is that  vElan2 is never called low or base in the poems. 
That  Hart’s theory of the sacred and his explanation regarding the basis 
for  untouchability among Tamils are without  foundation can be shown by the 
case of the Tamil potters. Tamil potters have  been serving as priests from 
the Classical Tamil period (See naRRiNai 293) till  today. They have never 
been considered untouchables. In fact, they have enjoyed  high status. Even 
according to Hart, Classical Tamil poets were high status  persons. A potter 
woman, veNNik kuyattiyAr, was a Classical Tamil poet.   
During medieval times,  we see many inscriptions where potters function as 
high status official  scribes/accountants, even in brahmin villages and 
famous temples such as the one  in tiruvArUr. For instance,in the Leiden Plates 
of Rajaraja I (Epigraphia  Indica, vol. 22, 213-265), we find on p. 253 
"..aRavOlai ceytu kuTuttOm  kshatriyazikhAmaNi vaLanATTup paTTaNak kURRattu 
brahmadeyam uvarkkuTi sabhaiyOm  sbhaiyAr colla ezutin2En2 ivvUrk karaNattAn2 
vETkOvan2  mAnAkan2 nArAyananEn2". For  another example, an inscription of the 
13th regnal year of the Pandyan king  JaTavarman Zrivallabha of early 12th 
century (No. 233, South Indian Inscription  volume 14) has "...ippaTikku 
nATTukkaNa[kku] tirukkOTTIyUr vETkOvan2 valaGkai  nArAyaNa mUvEntavELAn2 ezuttu 
ivai maTTi UruTaiyAn2 vETkOvan2 [ni]RupacEkara  mUvEntavELAn2 ezuttu....". 
Their titles mUvEntavELAn2 indicate their high  official status.  
For the potters'  present day priestly role, please see’ “Possession and 
Pottery: Serving the  Divine in a South Indian Community,” by Stephen Inglis 
in Gods of Flesh, Gods  of Stone: The Embodiment of Divinity in India, ed. 
by Joanne Punzo Waghorne  and Norman Cutler, 1985, Columbia University Press, 
88-101. Inglis notes, “The  vELAr potters of Madurai District in Tamilnadu 
are a community with an active  tradition of possession rituals and are 
acknowledged possession “specialists” in  their region.” These potters are by  
no means considered untouchables which they should have been if Hart’s 
theories  had any validity. 
Let me ask this. I am  giving below descriptions from two literary texts 
regarding persons from two  groups, X and Y. What can one say about the 
relative social status of X and  Y? 
1.  nan2mai niRainta nayavaru X 
2.  na2maiyAl mikka Y 
Regards 
Palaniappan
 
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 11:59:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
tmahadevan at HOWARD.EDU writes:

George  Hart: "[T]he caste system grew from the bottom up"

This would pose a  problem with the caste system of North India, as we know 
it,  but Hart's  point that  the system had something to do  with 
"dangerous" worlds  would seem to be beyond question, and that, consequently,  the 
group who  were engaged in it, whether it is the ritual world of Vedism or the 
spirit  world of the ananku in the Tamil world, was outside the "ordered 
world".   As is well known, the ritually active Brahman is a sort of an 
"untouchable"  among other Brahmans for the same reasons as certain castes were 
considered  "low" in the Sangam period.  Both transact with "dangerous" 
worlds.   Yet, as we know, the two groups are "untouchable" in radically different 
 ways.  Thus the North Indian caste system seems to grow from top  down.
T.P.Mahadevan 


 
**************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)