Poets as Anthropologists

download Poets as Anthropologists

of 13

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Poets as Anthropologists

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    J. S- S.\ t1ta2,: aata t2tat)The Poetsas AnthropologisasThe Representation f HilV ForestTribes in"Classical" Tamil Literature

    IJlrich DemmerD.pr ot A"thrcpologt, Udiv6itr of Munich, Mui.h, GmryEnail:

    i(EY WORDSAncientTanil culture: d,auu lilra-turci lribal spe.rum; r.Dr*enrarionAaSTRACI 'Reprcs.nlation'hasbecom one of th.nEjor issues not only in anlhropolosy at larse but slsonl SouthAsjrn Studics. heprcsdi aniclc s.oncemcdwitn the cl.ssicsl T.nil Cmt n lit 6tu4 andpusucsrhe oucat ol hov Eibal .ulrurs are deDicted n rhcs.rexis. As the papr shos the pomsFther rhd beingmino6 of the sdid reality of th tine aE to considd-able extnt itdarv constructions. he article thusrc -vealsrh.l rh. cankam p@$, dspire hcir rcalistic tncro-ric Dresenled raths fictitiols ofdercdand fiamonicsocial/cuhuEl,ndscape. ccordin8ly h. pcm. oftncompoted in the setuiceof local tu16, czn be sen assindows ofrins a glitrpseon lhe pro@ss fpohicalle8itimiation wnh poeticalneans.

    INTRODUCTIONAt leastsince S. Iyengar's(1929)laboratestudies n Tamil history it is a well-klown factthar n earlyTamil lite|aturemanyaspcts fan-cient tribal societiesare depicted.Antkopolo-gists N{oris 1977;Gardner1969) nd ndologilb(Zvelebil.1975;SondEimer, 976)concernedwidrrhe South ndian tribal spectrum efened to theso-calledsanga' literature, when they allegedfor the ong continuityof.ribal cultures n SoutlIndia.Other ndologistsClothey, 1978;Had, II1978) nadeattempts o tsaceback cedain fea-tLes of South ndia rcligio for exarnple heconceptsaround Murukaf or th worship andmyths egardingVa!!i, to this earlypoeEy,partsof which ihy claimd to be reflections of anolilhic stratumoftribal culture.Lasdy,schoLaI: (cf.S. Singaravelu, 966) sied o rconstructan "anciedt Tamil Culture" frly deglectingihereby he cultuialand sibalcornplexity,whichhad beetralreadydeveloped n the rgion at thetiEle herangdz wascornposed.Yt it seeinshdispensable,at least rom anad[opological pointofview, to analtsehe exts

    in the ight ofthis cultural divIsit. Morover,the rdrgam poens as much asany other itera-ture n Indiaandelswherecf.R manujan, 989)are literaiy texts and as suchare crying for ananalysis hat recognizes hir constructed har-acter.Therefor, nsteadof treating rhepoemssimply as"windows" ofieriDg an objective andrealist view ofthe tribal eulbres at thar rime hepresentpaperwiu explore,how thepoetsof tierdagan litelatul re-present he tribal culturesand thir "worldriw." One approach n thefo/'Ircr sense, ealin9withpasforaftsm,asbeenprovidedby K. Zvelebil (1975).Thepresentpa-per will theieforeconcenFate n th cuituresofthe hill /forestmbeqas ty aredepictd n early' classical"Tamil itentur.Th Sources

    Th sourceson which rhe presntstudy isbasedare confmed o the oldest, he"classical"slratumofTamil liteiatur. Thesare hepoernsofthe so-calledsdgdn, arrangedn the wogreatanthologiesBJ_tuttokai,.. the "Eight Collec-tions," and the Pattupattu, .e. the "Ten Lays"(cf Zvelebil 1973).This potsy was ,omposedby bards,whotravelled about in groupstfuough the ancientTantil-Country ndperformedheir art at hecoutofldngsor, ike he arnous apilar,a.tedashighyesteenedcourt-poet!,devotiagtheir art exclu-sivly to fheir patrons.Though this stBtum oflitera$re is twically "Kunstdichtung,"for it'sheroes re dealized}?es(at least n the Akam-genrc), hepoetryhas a higi senseor reality. Itreflecb Dotsirnply the ive ofa nobilig or par-ticular class, houg! thebardspraisd heir pa-'trons in r high rna rer,but bearsvivid desErip-tions of all the different conmunities andgeo-graphiaal cgionsoflhe ancientTamil-Coltrrtry.

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    'toThis "realistic" chamcterof earlyTamil poetrymakes t a unique sourc or the sludy of thereprsentationfthearly ribal cultures nd hen

    TheearlvDoemswer inal v arangd n theiwoglealanthologies ome ime n themiddleoftheeishth enrurv, ut heiracNalcomposrboncanb;daredmuch artier. sZvelebil ibid: l2)shows, h mostplausible ime of coryositioncovers oughlytheperiodbetwecndddl oflhefirfl cennlry and the lat third or early fourthcenturyA. D.The bulk ofetbnologically rclevantmaterialon the hil and Jorest ibs is included n onlysomeof the lays of th PattuppAtFcofection,which consistsat a whole of ten ongerpoems.Wehave elativeampledesciiptions u theeaFtiirpomsKudncipelfu. orunaEtruppahindPerumpEFEuppaFi all 2-3lh A D.) and n theslighrly ater composedMalaipafukaFm odMaduaikanci{ -4th.A.D.).Firalv wehave eTirumuruk4luppatai, ihe lrtest of th n lavs.dealmsDdmarilywrth thworshjp ofMurukal'na t" be dareasorne*herbetweeo he fifttrandsevedhcentuy A. D (cf. Zvlebil, 1973)Additionalhints o theMe ofthe hdl and or-est Eibesare given in poernsof lhe E$uttokaianthology, ailly in Akanaluru i e. hc'(col-lectionoO oul hundEdshort poelns)n tle aksmseffe," in Puan-an-Egu,e. the fout hundredn;h Duram enre." n Ainkururitu, tlte '(collc-tron o0 fivi hurared shonOoems)"aDd n thelGriici thmeofKalittokaj, i.e the"collection ntheKali(nae) "ThRegionand t's Tribd Spcfium

    ThpartoflEdia forning lhe backgound orfte Tamil poetry n question s esse$iallycon_terminouswith rh hisbriogmphic area ermedbv B. Srein 1980) he rnacro'region"ofsouth"Iridia coarisiog all ofconterponry Ta:nI Nadu.Kerala,besoulbem ansof Kamalakand hev{estemringeofcoorg. This rnaso_rcgionw?s'bv EAdition,urtherdividedrn scveral eographi-calunrts. orow purposel is sufficiclt o fol-low B. J.Murton (19?9)who gives the ftrtherdivers'ficationfancienlTamilNadubv point'ine out theseumts as Kar-, Tondai, Kongu"Chola-and Pandya-Mandalamndto which webave o add heChera-Mandala&Eachoftbes

    ULRICH EMMERunits,whichdid noldenolePolrttcalnilorieswe rnay erm ie Eaditional ub-regionsndal,oflhemsharednainecological banctenst'csPoliticaUy,he macro-regionwas oughlydFvided amongthe thteegreat kingdomsof $e(aoh-Pandla-andChera-dynasriesndseveralminor eudalory ngdoms,ike hecounmes tOri"Kari.Pekan r Pan thalwill bedeahwrrhbelow).lnpoetry.hemore l washeroic otry.this ooliticalsituation s sharplyeneckd.Bulthe Doeticalconvention,hs it is laid down inTokappiyanlemployed lir$er classificalionandsubdividedhe sLrb-regionslongecologFcal criieria n four and ater iveseparaleand-scaDeslherirrais.:

    Thus heDastureandwascalledmullai. hecoastalegions eytal. h enite ivenne lainsmarutam.hedry pattswerepAlaiand he hillj-and unsle-reaionsere enned urinc'. hepc-etlcil 'gral]rmar" ascribeda specific setof na-ture. ople nd }eit resPechveccupatronsoeach f$ese egions.diversttycenainlvone-spondingoughlywidt lbeecological ndcul-tural reajiiy of thepriod. So. accordurg o lbeDoe1s,he mullai was mainly inhabitedby;astonlists, called ilaiyar or aiyar,i the neltal;as the habitatof the paravar, .e. the fishingcornmunities,n the nantamFacb ived hhrm-ilg OlouSling) pople.ulavar,and }lep:ila wasth. tvDic0l abitatof dr maralar alsocalld'!iGi', bowmer),snd lre eyinar,said o bewai-riors and obbers.Finally iherewere hekulincl-regions, epresentinghe t?ical ecosystemofrhehi[- and orest ribes ihekuravaror ] ant\ar)b genenlwe cansaywitb B. Slein hal heeeomorDboloeicalhnrac!er f th m-acro-rcgiooiffectei trigtrty ne sdttementpanemsucb tharfertile lands, capableof supportingrelaiivclydenscDoDulatiods, erscaneredaod isolatedmods f prospentyandcivilizatiotr"surroundedby foresicladuplandsandpastoral sactswhichsupported nly small ribal poPulationsThegill rnd Forlt Tnbs

    To evaluatehc informationproviddby thesourcs t has to be stated hat the old Tamilliteratue nowheregivesa desc.iPtionofa sPe_cific e$tric gmupor apanicularhilyforestFtbeThe tennswhichthepoclsernployedwhen heyrcfEed o such ribcsalethc moregencralones

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    THE POETSAS ANTHROPOLOGISTSkuravaior kalavar. Etymologically hese ermsare derived from "kusam," i.e. hill, mount?in(DED 1548)a nd kdq" i.e. ungle, orcst DED,1194), o thal kulavarAaqavarimplydenote"hill-people"or'Jungl-people"espectively.Thus hn desigiation is related o thei habitat.In contast, another erm often said o referto foEst tribes or even to indigenous hunter-gatherersof South-India, namelyvattuvar (orvEtar) s lessdefrnite.Theword is derived rom"vd$ar&" .e.hunt, haseDED,4547).Its husrelated o an occupation,meaning hunting-people"sYet i refen 1oa[ i]lepeoplewhohuntedin ancientTamil Nadu and thesewer not onlykqavar,&54avarbul, more prominntly,kirgswiti their huding parties,warrior bands ikmaravar/4Gllarndprsumablyotherc.Accod-ingly, the erm "vcttuvai' is applied o kings(ctPuaar&52and205;NaE,12;Alarr!318),war-rio$ (ct Pqarn,324:Mk., 116),hesodMurukat(cf. Akam, 28; Pqam, 214) and, only in a fewinstancs,o a group of peoplesettling in theforest.But ven n those after nstancesciPuram,33 and 202) they aredepiciedashavingfofs, bingoveNhelmedby the kingsarmy elc.,and rowhere can this term to b tal(n as slar-onymous or kuavarr

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    countryofthe CholakingKarikal,lviDgeastandnorth-;astof the abovementionedKonku-Mandalam.Finally, two further Pomsof thePatruppatltu ollecnondeliDeatehe westemmountams..e. hewestemGbat egronsIomtheNilrsiri's in thenorthdown o thPalni-Hilsin th ;uth. as nhabitedbv kuavar /'ka!avar'Thseare hMadumikaici, an ode n praiseoftheareasunonnding hepresentMadurai n thancientPandva-Mandalam,nd the Tirumuru-karruDDaiai.ko refening o the orested rllvresio; ur hwestemGhats.l*e hePalni-Hills.Alt ihs extsmentionexplicitlythekulavar&aravar ndwearejustrfiedo sumup hal nallthe sub-reeionshereweteareasnhabited yhill/ forest ribes. n facf a fargreaterportion ofthe macro-rearoohan odavwasat least ntiltheendof the-gthnrurv redominantlvlothedwith a scrub-woodland nd usedby pastomlistsandshifths cultivatoff Mrrton, 1979:9)Thisconfirmstne overallpattem n thsveralsub-regionswer small clusten of sedentarv ad'vanced'peoplesived amidst elativalgepopu_lationsoipasture-,hill- and orestpeople'In oarticular t is said hatkalavar lived'tn-der th; Drotectionof the jungte" Gelu kattuu&iltm kalavar;Mal.. 79)or that he sorul(tuoftn avat tkaDavarpusal:t 29J)a'ehear'in the kurifrci tract Other passags tatetllalkurarar ive -upon highbi l ls" (kuravarummaruium lljatru paline:Val,275) orlhat l|-hhlevillage f rh uravan"ciruku!iqavan:Kuru.,95)s o be oundqherewarersrashfrom hepeak hJoughmountainalesButonehasto earn miodtlat hedifTe'en-tiationofthe severali4aiswas argelvemployedfor Doeticateasonsand thehabitatofkulavarlkanavaras notsnicttv onJindo hekudnciSo lre anavarreako saido bdwellrs f$elos foresland Muuaudlam5kkl .or o bedweu'ersof dsen ractspalainibmaklal:Poru 16comml.).Yer hesenterprelatronsccur olelyin the cornmentaris, hil therelationbetwenkudfici andkulavar^atravai in the acnralexts smainlained ll over

    f,conomyandErgologrIt hasbeen statedalreadv, hat thePoetsofancientTamil Nadudidnotdscrtoe particulartribenordidtbeydraw$eit picture fcultural

    ULRICHEMMERDhenomenaerydetailed.Nevertheless'hepo-;ms distinguishclearlyamong he differenleco-nomic activities, he mployd echniqusandanefacts.Theymentionmanyactivilies hatare'$ougl diminishing,still Factisedby sevBl e'centhilyforesttribes n themountainousegronsofSouftlndia.lGathe ng

    Thoushthefus ca edkqavar&tlavarFac-tisedshiiine cuttivation for subsistence,ood-gatheriDg rmed an inigralpart of thrreconomyAccordiogopotry nemostrmpoFtant ternsllatwregathered er ubels.jack-fruit and hony.But certainly thepoetssimpli-fied n theirdescriptions heymostlvused heseneralerm or tuber ki!anku).wbichcande-;ote a[ the difierent kinds of vams(dioscorea)or evenroots of other species, ather thende-scribinsthe varietiesandthey simplv used heterm ;n' for honey,houghwe know hat htribesmusthavehada teen knowldge f thedifferentkinds ofhoDeyto be found in rhe for'ested illy reg'ons fSouth-lndiaBorh kuavar atrdkaDavar resaid o use hek anku or food.Kapilar tates.hal n dre ullsarc "deeDholes that kaDavardig for tubers"{ dqavarklanku akalneNnkul I A nk . 208: - 2)andar easl wo otherpoems larehal kumva'had ubss to eat.Thsewereprobablv hevarlous inds f dioscorea,lermedvalli or"vallikilai'ku" the wild varietiesof which areup todate hemost mponanl ubersgathered y manyhill tribesof South-India.'ADart rom rootsand tubersdifferent kind!offrulswere collectedbvhehill mbs n paFncularie ack iuit (!ala Anam l2)and.moresDecfid.hesweel eeds fjack- ruit linsuaL.Puram. 09.3taremenrioned urlhrlhetamarhd ftuit(pu!i,Mal., ?9)andwhilebamboo-nce(kalaioel.Mal. 180)aresard o be cootedbJwomen f thekqavar ku$makal.Ma!. |83) lnMaduraikanciwe hearofsevraloiherplants hatweremuhrauy aiherdCreenpepper painlar"Mk.,289), ingeronci.b'd). nrrmericmancal.ibid.)andmustard(aivavi,k .287)aresaid oerow.wherc hekalavar live and n Ainkunurukapilar speakofkuravarwhoPickup mango{ma) fruitsAinl.,21.})

    B themosimDortanl odmosteneemed

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    THEPOETSSANTHROPOLOGISTSirem }lar as gatheredwasertarnly oney. .x-plicitty it is saidthat ka4avai had hony (tan,Mal.. 52)orthar uravar ad drinkmixedwilhh o n e y rak k a r t ena l ,a l . I 7 l ) . S ome r i meskulavar/kelavarreeveo alled hosewhocol-lecrhoney tcnkolpavar,Narr..2q2. 2: rcnt6.kdllai.Mal.,I l7).lt ls nrrestingonole halfieancient oney-galheringribesusedobviouslythesameermsand echnrquessdo the ecnttribes ho areengagedn honey-gatheflng.oar easLne echniquef hone)galhering.h ctisst l Dracrisedv someSoufiIndian ribsikrhJEn;KurumbaA u-Kunul baor Inrla 5clearlydepicredn hepoems,.e. he al-heringfhone)in clifTsa]Id ocksproduced y therock be apisdolsata).r0hiswasaod s sdlldoneby usirgarope' or bamboo adder, which vas climbed toreach the honeycombs n the middle of steprccks.Thus Mal. 3 I 5 says hat honey,storedup(tokutta)by bes or gooduse on beautitul higlrocky slopesnluvarai)wasgathered y climb-ing tall fibdladders (m5lpu).A similar descrip"tion isgivn n Pqam 105,6malpulaineluvarai)and n Kum. 273, 5: "the old fibr-ladder hang-ing) on a rocky slop wher big honeycombsmay be seen" peruntEBa4patuvarayi !mutumalpui f . Zvelebi l 1979).The trm"prunte4"being mployed here suggesh haldle ancienthill tribes did differentiatebetweetthe differentkinds ofhoney, for this termrefrsto a specialkind, namely hhony n rccks andclifs that is difficult and dangrous o get. IncontemporarySouth-India nanyhoney-collecting tribesdistingrrishat least wo othervarietiesofhoney, namelyshrub-and see-honey ndwecan assume-hat thsewere also known to theEibes epictedn thepoems.rlHun ing

    In thepoemsboth kqavar and kalavar areassociated ith hunting andwe havewholepas-sags hat dpict n detail th animals hat werehunted as well as the techniquesand artefactsemployd herin.Yet, thepoetsdo notprovideus with an alt'embracingpicture. They focusedprimarily on the more suspicious,argeraninals(fir for poetry so to say), that were hunted bykuavarAE4avarand gnoredthe minor speciesof the fauna like snaksor squirels that werecertainly the objcts of hunting activities loo.

    Th mostoften cited animalsaid o be huntd sthe wild black boar(pand). t appearsn sveraipassages, here t is described n dramaticallyfashiond ontexts.This is obviously due o thefact hat hewild b*tck boarwasmuch eared orhis erocityandhisdestruction flhe fild-crops,plantedby the hill tribes('!th! panri s feared orit ruins he ipemillet fie14" [...]kclalvilai punamnilatlalinanci,Mal., 193). t washuntedwithbowand anow (.},ll), lit. "it died of th too manywoundsn his chest ....]caused y those.whostay on platformswith anows" (kalutil cananavoiu [...] ni{ampuak[mda neliketak kitanda,Mal., 243-246). ut t wasalso caught n pit-fals" (pulai orunmattiya, Mal. 194)by kuravaralldby tlose who "kil drchoagdlat ell in diggedpits" (akslnda-malivEypayamph.- ] k lal. Mk.,294-295),.. n this context h katavar.ThekEaavar realsosaid o take hmeatof theboarafter t hasbencrashed n apointedstake,aftrit had bendrivenby male ackals konay, tNaIr.,82,C I I ).DA tunher nterestingmethodofboar-hunting ractisedby kanavar s vividly d-scribed n PerumpalraEuppalaind it becomsobvious, hat hey haddeveloped labomte unt-ing techniques.According to th poem, t wassomtirnsifficult forgarne flh mullai-regioisto get water n the dry seasonlii. "in limes offailing rain," van nali polutil, 107)and animalslike deer(ma,n) nd boar(e!am, paqi) were nsearchor watrholes. hrefore he kalavar dugpits in considerable istancearoundwaterholesat he forestperipheryearly n themorning,hidethemselvesherinand held out, until gameap-proachedndcamearenoughtobeki dwithttle bow andafrow.13This method s called"thehunl of the first early half of the day" (arainatv$am 1 ). It is distinglished rom the"buntofthe later half of the day" (patina! vcllarn,conun., 17). Tlis typeofhuding waspractisedto catch smalleranimals ike hares muyal)andwascarriedout n co-ope.ativehunting-groups.In &is kind ofhunt tlrckanavararesaid o come"*ith drcir open-mouthed unting dogs, bealing rhe bushes,putling (knotting) neis in ththickets" [...] cutting off the route of th longeard ittle haresandencicling then!ra the cruelkanavareat their prey in lhe jungle, (pakatalpakuvey narnaliyotu aim putalerukki tokuvayvali totsr valai ntelti [...] netuncevikulumuyal

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    74D6ftkara alai ta!unkaDkalratar kataruLutunnurnPrt l I l- llo). o$er anirnalsunted*ere rfte guani uturnpu "tal lT?landlhepor-cup,neei paq. mulaw.Mal l?6) droughhewty driswasaccompl'shds notciear'ln sumboar, eer ndharewerehemot rm-oorunl sDcieshar$re hunledby ku-avar/i.en^'ar. I}e ooems eirhermenrionhehunloft'sir or elephint oor b'rd-bapping r fishinsliittr t"nu.i to ttt" tut"t t*o occupations hisdoes ot-maooo muchThepoels jd not ivroo ntimalely i$ tbehiltforesiEibsbulalherwanderedkough their enitoriesand or po-etrv hdescriptionfmoredramalrcveDlsnnibal itwasobviousv sLrfficenr'Addiriooallvall of$e recenthitl tribes n Southlndia are osome rlentengagd bnd-Fappir'ndish-ing.sodrarwecln assurnehatbevdid so n thepast oo.Shilinq Cultiva.ion

    Apan from gatheringand huding the hilldbeJ of ancirt SouthIndia cultivatdseveralcroosbv slash ndbumculritation.Thepoels*er'e itt a"areof rheparocularirresflhis$?eof cultivaltonor fiev not only descnbedl rnvarrous oems utput t ur dtstiftt contran olhewel nccultivation. rachsed mepraLesAsa'nbotl kulavarandkalavararcassoci-areaiifi shsh-andburncultivarionwbrcb s afurtherconfirmationof lhe fact that they werenot thought to connotedifferent tribes So thDeculiadties fthatmodeofcultivanonaremen-ioned in Puram159,were a broadfield in up-landspulam)ssaidobeplanred ithhi l lnce(aira!am)andbumloverby kalavar katravarkariourammavaRiya kalkana olht arvalamvrni . . l 15.17). u$nlokai tel lss. hat '$osewho aie rheereen tubblesf millet E!ar)haveto cut they;r-treesnd bum lhem irst into (asubstance)ike charcoal ya koDla maran-cutnvavird anmpumarulmudalpainda! enii!ai'(urunr ' I98, t- t : cf alsoMk 286-289 ndKulmr,214, 1-2) Themore mportant ropswereh ll rice tdraVaivanam)ndar eastwovanene\of millel; ural esp ila/ilalr' paflcum tal'cum'cf.Ml. .287,Kurunr ' .214ell )andcarnar(paf l -cumolacurn)TheDoemsalsoreflectheactualworkiog pof the harveslso we hear harwomenof lhe


    kanalar spread ut he milleton an extendedrork(todry (v yalalasent|lar arappr. uluntl l5. 2 I andweknow romfte contextofKal itokai40. hatwomenofttrehill tib (kolicciyar)poundtlle milet &ural) ili mortan(ural)andwithpstles(ulaklGi. t 3-4)15. peculiareatueofcuhva-tionul the uU egionwas, lat theripeningc opshad o be quarded ndprotectedromdesmrc-tion. ndeedanlmalsike elephanr ndblackboarwere odare egardedigh v destructiveor hecDltivahon.bereforehe ulL{o.estibesbuixplatforns, sometinres igh up in the tressur_roundifla the fields and kept guard there'eouiooeJwrrlbow ndanowor " ith a kindofsl ins-cal led'kavan.twasespecial lvemplovto siire away le elepbaots.or with it stonescouldbe flmgedovera fair distanceAccord-inglysaysMal., hal"kuj3var.ascen!mg orryDladorrnsitanam, aranr) Inehrgn ano. care;wav theleDbantswhichstav) n fiickers.bvf l rneinestoneswith force rom sl ingshors1tavi41i tkuravaruyarnila ,tanam d ka pulailaakal malar$mpil tuvalria yalar pakal nrlatdalarktumkava!urorlkatukal.Mal .203-106)"PoliticrlsndSocio-structuralspects

    Dueto theDoeticnatu{eof thetexts here snot mucbevid;nce to reconstuct the politicalsinlationor thesocialstructureoflhe hilyfores!Fibes.Yet, som emarkscouldbemade Vitlresard o thepoliticalconstellation canas'su-metratmostottle kuravar/kalavarerenotisolaledribalconununities.rdependenlf thebroaderTamil cuhlle. Manypoets' irst amongthemKapilar,mphasizehal hehilltriber rvedin areasuledovetbv minork ng. l*e Pdri'KEriPa!oa!et.al .These ingswere erlarnly ot assome cholarse s. Ivengar' 929: I) haveassurned.ribalchiefsof thekura at kalanvar'Moreprobablyheywerenobtes fthe vlalar{cultivator) lass,or in man}poemsheybea'lhe esDectr!ei t le vEl ' eg vElPat i . elA)vElEvvr r . l . l l Kai lasapalhy.9o8:2l fTandDED.4562) nd iiswa5 otleof"upnor elalar'who heldhishpositions sregional hrelsandarmv onunande6n heChola countryAcco'd-ine o M. Subrahmanian1960:80-281)hesenoiles ownedlandanddirecred griLUtu a oFeradons, 'andt seemsossible at the) er-teodedheirsovereignryver hehill regionsn

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    THE POETSAS ANTHROPOLOCISTSsomeareas.So t is knownftom Puram l0 thatvcl Pari. hepaEonof Kapilar, uledovr100villages n ihemountain-range_hat heseminorkingswerenot rtual"chiefs fdrekuravar^anavaris furthersuggsredy the fact that rheircourtswere. n comparisonwith rhecuftural evel ofthikuFvarftaDava.,urreadvanced.o heywereequipped rthchariobandhorsespuram. 00and 126) ndat easi ome f tllm(e.g.Kari orOri) mamlained remporaryrmyandwaFel-ephants. hey wagedbanles gainst rler nu-nor kingdoms ibid.) eitheron llen owr]bhatforasalliesofoneor theorherof$e rlxeesreaterklngdom!ofrheChola-.Cem-andpantiya-dy.

    Howevef, here s nothingdefinite o sayabour ie relar'onshiper$ en ie smalterkjng-dorns nd hehilt torest ribesn theirdomainsBut we can speculatehar, though they prob-ably had developed rading relationswirh thplainspeopler witl agenrs frheminorkings,thywere ble oma ntain considerableepreeofindpendenrendneutrality. rre nnge oftirnecoveredby thepoemsclearlyantidatshe hftegreatpiodsof integrationo bedistinguishedrn Sourh-India,h first of which did not beinbefore he loth cnturt A. D. (cf.Murton, 1979:5).Only after he l0tl. century he nflux ofcutti-vators nto the mountainous egions ncreased,and with thes changsparts of the kulavar/kEtavarbecame lowly integratedn the broaderTamilcultural rarnework ndultinrately,nsomeregions, ! the systemofright- and ft-handd;

    Conceminghe ntemalorganisation ndnor,mativemlesofbehaviour herexrsarc evenmorelimited.We neider hearoftribal-chiefs(theds-ignationslordof hills,""lordof slopes,",lordof forests," .e. kuua nahn, seralnEtan, A4akanata! etc. are entireiy poetical n contex, clansnormoieties.r3Inviewof this t is signifianthatmany o,emsemphasize inship whn theyspeakof thehilvforestribs-Thus he ermusedor theserde-rnnbofkqavar,&A[avar s cirukuti. This rerm sof interest or it can denotea "litde hanlef' asweUas'lribal comm|mig," "family" or "linag"(DED, 1379;andTED).Obviously hepoers lnployed his cdn intentionallyo accountor char-acteristbsofthe hibal cultue. essentiallv ased

    75on kinshjp.ndeedle textsaccentuarehrsas-pect.TirumurukaqupparaielbdratkEaav dweli"oDhills n barrtsmattsir} krdred (t-ulralnrncitrkutihlaiwrar Tftm., 196), hjtenMal. rbmentionedn rle conrext fkura!ar I'fe iat rhcpoelwillbe nvrred"ineteryamilyby chitdrent lere whocla'm elarion-shrpmakamuraltatuppa aoairorunr al.,185). te sire ,ac_rualcomposirjonfrhe tsibal-hamtersoweve,t notclearm hpoerns. nfortunarelyhesamehas o be staredwiri regard o rhe D.avrdia|lkinsbjp ystem irh rs eaturesf..DrescriDrivecross.cou5innarriagend tre espeitrveinshiprerminologres. hasalJeady een eatised !scholarsconcemedwith the reflectionsof thi;kitrship ystem ancienr arru- irrarurecf.HanII I , I974 odTrauEnann,g?4)r lat r rconram:I i t t le referenceo cross-cousrn arr iase.I Traubndnn.960:5r.This s notsurpnsrngoralrnosl veryihingoncemed irh ntra-socreralaspectselongso dreAham-genre,.e tove-poery-and il.s en'ngspically Ie oursideheframework farrangedmardage (rbid.). fwfocus n hekqavarAalavar lone.lhe roblernbecomesevenoreerident ecau.eniyoneorthepoebco! e-rhemes,amelyhehllinc;theme,has he cultureof rhehilt forest ribesas ts"stage." This th.rnc is, by poetic convention,sEictly onfmedo cerrain rereor}?eituatjonsandch"rdcters, rirn rily to rbeheroin, er tover,his riend, hegirl'sparents ndhergirl friend.Funhermore,hekudfici,themederivsts a$rac-tion from the fact, thar t describes,asituationwhich did not accordwith the no.m" (Hart III.op.cit.), .e.a relationshipetween girl andayoungkqavar/kalavar not havinga kinshipre-lation in accordancewirh the ruls (ci Kuru..40).r' The situations sornetimesurthrdrarna-tizdfor they knowthat drcgirl's father(or herbrothers)will notagreewi$ their taternarriage.Thdreareother nterestingeahlsofthehrlinci-them,but for our pu4'ose ir is suffice to sumthat someform of armngedmaniage was thenorm.However,nopositjve ulesarmentiondRIigion

    As it is with the socialstructureor theooliti-cal organisation fthe hilt forest ribes. he ma-terial revealdby thepoemsauowsonly for a

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists



    superficial,ratherdscriptiveand olln stereo-t}?e picture of threligious lif of thekulavar/ktuave.At least two factorswhich are rsponsiblfor this shouldbmentionedFirst ofall, thepo'etswere cou( poets, rimarily composingoorarseher Datsooualittes nd }leirdonuinsis such.hevwerenot oo deeplynlerestedodepict the actual conceptionsof the hill-tribsbuiwereeaeel o show hemas somehow appvforcsl-dwelirs" hat contributed o theglory oftheir patron's often rathff srnal kingdorns Atth s;m time, the poets dealisedand in fact"tamilized" lhe tribal cultures, fnot in practisesoat leasl npoefy. These actorsmake t some-times mpossibleodistinguishbetween hdis-tinct institutionsand deologicalconcepts fthekulavar/k54avar nd hebroaderTamil culture.Mutukan,Ceryln,Kagrut

    Despite he fact that many scholarshink ofMurukaa sbinga dityespeciallyssociatedlvirh he hill tribes,:owe havabaltyno vidnce hat he wasprinarily worshipped vkulavar/kallavar.ndeed,no poemspeak ofMurukart as being woffhipped by them Otircrscholars egard Cerydn as the deity primarilyworshippedby the ancienthill tribes,but thisseerns quallydoubttul.ThoughCeyyons men-tioned n Tokappiyam (Ahaftilai iyal, 5) 3s hedeity belongingo thekujiffci-tract, so hat here'fore his rlation o thehibs ofthis regionseemsprobable, hepomsdonotprovesucha conjec-htre In connctionwith rituals ofthe kqavar/kdavar for exanple, onlyTirumurukitluppabimntionsa deily "Cqfan,lhe reddishclothed"(Ceyyan ivanta taiyan,206)ho s said o ap'p.ar amonghekaravarwhile heyaredancingin he r l l regronsee elow). ur oevaiuate}nplssage.one has o remind, hatTinrmuru s thelatest,mosisyncreticiseddeof thePattupattucolleclion.t is essentiallydevotionaloeryandshows s guide o lordMurukan" so h itle)the ocalmanifestationsf thegod all overTamilNadu.As suchh s of course lso, ut notex-clusively,prevalent n thhill rgionsand here-fore depictedas appearingamong h ka4aval(ct Zvelebil1973: hpt.viii).lndeed his s heonlypoemwhereCelyan isput in relalion o thehrl l t f lbesandwe ma) asiume.hal nei ther

    Murukat nor Cyy6ncan be said to be"autochtone"deitiesof thse ultures.With regard o religious aspectsof thekulavar/katrvarhe poets,rather hanmenhon_ing specifcdeities,appliedhebroadrandmoreunspecific erm "katavul." Thoughlhe erymofoevoftheword'katavulsst i l lamatterfdiscussron,emay ollow rre os tion fc L Han(1978: ?) lho holds, JEt a alul cenainlymans"tha! to which sacrificeor dbtpenainsThis would be well in accordancewith thmeaningof kala\'rrl as t appearsn thospas-sagesgarding qavarAaqavar.There he ermisemploydodenote ilhera t balfamily-dity(kulamodal)or a deity of the ancestral-lin(rnanpu kalavul).So we har, hat "the formless dity of thancestral-lines honowedby kuBvar, giving anecklaceof sandal"(aru maiapin kalavul ponikulavar antacanti4aramurqAham., I 3,I -4)orthatkuravar-"gi s,holdjngsomebloornsofabun-dantvenkai,pmisethegratkatavul tribal-d-iry" (malamakal araivcnkaimalarsilai or.rtuma a !,urai atawlkulamutaval rtti.ALnk.259.I -2). in bothpoemsno turthet detailsaregivenOtherpoemsmentionkataml in th contextofEin bringingpraycn, or exanplePuram,143,where a deity is said o beFaised for Iain. Thdetailsgivn are that cerlainPrayerswer ex-pressed s: May take hemountain ain" (malaivankolka,Puran\ 1)or"May lhe water aishigh(m.ri allu rnalaimckku uyarka, bid , 2). In th'sway "the kuravarpeoplePraised he deity"(katavll pad kulavar makka!, bid , 3), says hpoet.Thsameexpressions employedn NaII ,165. There the poet dpictsa kalavar who ishunting in th hills, and exclarnateshal there".he mou ain stoodwith amiction, may it r-civesome ain" (aoankotu illatu malaivakolka.Naq.165.) and asrlyweshouldmentiotAink, 251wherehepoelsays hat becauseo"lhe toudnorse f the kuravan hecloudsmel.rntoa mrriad inledrops frarn'(ku[Inkuravan:LrppiDel'liqrpal litu!ipol',om aF. b'd.. -2)I thin-kr is significant.lhaln all these onlextsnopriest r mediator5said o celebraleritual. Insteadt is simplypeople,obviously nenandwornen(resp.irls),whoareshoM npraiseofthedeity.That is almostall we know about katavul

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    THEPOETSSANTHROPOLOCISTSamong e hrl l f lbes and r should e starecclariy hat we haveno reasor o equate hisrermw; Vurukanor Ceyyon, s r s almonevrywhereone.Ofcourse,t candenote oth,as much as it can denote any other deity, bulregarding he hily forcst ribessuchan equationis not juslined. ln the early poems,neitherMurukan nor Cerydn are explicidy mentionedard only in cornmentariess the god (katarul)interpreted o be Murukaq (or C)ryonor evenVelan).Finally we have o discuss he placeof oneofthe two wivesofcontemporaryMurukat, thepopulardeityValli orValliyamma.She s he onlydeity, which is broughl n explicit relation o thehill tribesand o ihem only. Wecamot dealhercwith the fascimting conceptsof this goddess,as thy areEvealed in th: "greaf and "litile"tradiiioisof Soutl-India(cf.KantapuEnan!Cto.24,Cilapatikaram,to.24,et.al.).:rW shouldstate,howeve., hat her features nd he act thatshe s apparntlyaprominentdeity, worshippedby at easlsomeof th recenthilyforesl tribes ofSouth ndia, suggest er to be, houghprobablynotan ndigenoushill aibe deity, soprobablyadeitybased n an ndigenous ibal concept.Ex-amining both, the more recent traditions likeSilapaikaramor Kanlapuratamand h modemm'thology built arouodValli andMurukan0ikeTanikaippuratam)K. Zvelebilcomes o thecol|-clusion, hat Valli mighthavebeen heprimi-tive, tribal goddess f fertilily andprocration"(Zvelebil,1917 231 org29). ndedt sernsmb-able hat Vatli is regardedagoddess f fertilityand ove n contemporarySouth ndian religiousnotions.However, his doesnot necessarilymean, hat she s "ex-origin" a kibal deity ' Onthe contrary t canbe demonstratedhat thecon-cept of VaUias a goddesss historicallygrosnand hasbeenshaped o a lalge extendby non-tribal inlluencesand mediators.n factwehaveto state hat n lhe oldststratumofTamil poetrylhe termValli dosnowhereappearn a religious

    In t}le majority of instanceshe ermVa!!i re-fels to a creeper,namely he upperpart of thekilanku root, the dioscora,which wasgatheredand probably also cultivated by the kulavar/kalavar andwhich consdnrted n mportant temofstaple ood(cf K. Zvelebil 1977:232). n odEr

    '77instanceshe term also refrs o the creeperbutis used n the contxt of love potry.Thus thepictureofa creeper, oiled arounda tree, s takenasa simile for agirl embracingher lover or fiewaistof thegirl is said o be "slenderike thevallicreepel'vallinunnitai, ham., 86,2) .So fai, we have well documented otanicalandpoeticalcontexts. n contrast, eferercs oValli asa deiry,aswfind them n the aterrli-gious-andolk tsaditions reexceedingly are. nfat only onepoemofthe earlieststrata,namelyNarr.,82, cfers o Valli asa goddssndeventhreshe s not an independent ejty but onlymentioned n her being the belovd ofMurukat.,r Thepoem ollows theconventionalthemeoflove-poetry n thekur_inci'region heretle hero addresses gnl of the hill tribes, ex-claiming:"You,girl ofthe mountain ribe whosegait s bautitul, ill youcome o me ike Valliwhohadgladlyagredo go tojoin Mumkan"(niy enluya vari t iy0 nannataikkol iccimurulrupunamtaiya$a valli polani& bid., 1,3).So it is clear hatever this poem eflects hem),th built aroundValli,Murukan anddoesnotregard alli asan ndependentoddess-s vesawaLeady,Murukan s very unlikely lo be a hilltribe deir, and hisseens ikewise o be the caswith regard o Valli. We haveDo easono thinlthat thehill tribesdid worshipagoddess,who isexclusively dfmed hrough her rclationship oMuukan, agodofthe "broader" amilculture.Nevertheless le framins ofvalli in lrier trad;tions was certainly basedon indigenous ribalnotions,concemedmutuallywith fertility, pro-creationand bir relatd ituals.'?a owever,herachral ribalconceptionas oremaindiffirseuntilwe klrow more abouther perception ll recenttribal cultu-ies f South-India.

    In connction ith religious . "ritualistic"activities of kuravar/kalavar, the potsof an-cient Tamil Nadu depict wo t)pes of dance(kuravai).one wasobviouslyperformdn sucha way that th commonkuavarpeople (kulavarm*kal) were dancing osether n the litde hillvillages cirukuti). Surn{arizing thevariousde-scriptionsgiven n thepoe.nswegeta vivid pic-ture ofthe dance. t wasperfomed in thecourt-yardof the village by men andwonen (kulavar

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    nmll(a! t ...1mulil kurdvaiayarun!Puran, 129),toddy wasdrunk (vanku cral, ibd.), thewonenwere adornedwith venka;flowrs and thtondoka-akumwas baten venkaiciiti totiakaparaicciretlnolu,Allam.,18: 2-3).Mostprobably his "kuravai"wasa ritual kindofdance for we haveapassagen Kqincipa$u,where hepoetclaims hatthe women rnakalir)who aredancing n the dancingplace agkalam)gotpossessedatanh) or aflicted Kp.,175),randwe saw above hat among he hill t bes adeity kaF!u!) waswonhippedwith veikai-flow-

    A second le of dance s called vriyatal(danceof possession r wild dance).This termwas employd o circumscribe he dadceof apriestwho carrieda spearhence is name clag)and actdasa diviner andprobablyasa kird ofhealei.At least n poetry he is regarded o beable, o rveal he causes fsickness, .e. in po-ery love-sicknss.x6This vclaD according o the cornmentarieshe is a "patimattan," .e. onewhoutters oraclesin the stateof possession)s said to 'lerformthedance fpossssionn excesshat heplacewin$rob" (vElas d ayarviyaa alam alukhlll!Abam. 82. 16-17) n the andofthe kqavanwhois showing the occupationpeculiar o his tribe(orfamily) hechse (vt-ianpdkiyaLl.lravan a{akulavittaa, bd.p. 5-6).Unfortunatlywe do not know very muchabout he actualperfomance of his dancenordo thepoens mention hat a god s involved nthe activiies of th valag.W know ftom otherpoms, hat he usednuts (kalaaku) n thepro-cess fdivination (cf Na!!., 282) but onecannotsay tont thegivenvidene ow they wreem-ployed n therin]al. In sum hmaterialprovidedby thepoetswith regard o rituals ofthe kulava/kElavar doesnot allow for far rcachingconclu-sions.WecaDnot vensay hat the nstitrtion ofthe vedyatalwaspeculiar o the hilvforest ribes,bcausewe havemanyotherpoemswho clearlyprov that th vela! wasthoughtof practisingamongothercoinmunities sp. dbes of TamilNaduaswe[ (e.s. n Madurai Mk 610 .; amonsshepherds,.. taiyar, Kqu. 362, 2-4; and n theCholacapiral,Pat-ti., 55 r). Ondle odErhand tis quite ikly that the divinrs among he othercommunitieswere ndeed rom the hill tribesas

    ULRICH DEMMERthey re oilar in contenponry Tamil Nadu.a


    2 .3

    5 .

    8 .

    Ci B. Srcin bid.;K, Zv.l.bil. I97l: Ch.pt. Vl rndvllj x. S. Thaninaylgam, 966.lot rcstif,Bly aording b sotu scholan hepalai-rsion and ,ts ssociat d lcaturcs where only laleraddcd for po.lic.l rcasons.For thc depiction f lhesc rib.s in lhe ancinl it-@orc ct K zvlehil, S?1,EndG. D. Sonlhimr,1 9 7 6 .The tymlogy of loEvar is nor all cl.ar, because tcoltd als b. drivcd rroe kuru , i.. thon, dfec-tive," so rhar uFvsr mty also denol h 'thortFople,' Ci DED, 1537.This is in accordance ith rhe slrtemnl inTokeppiyam, Podl 22, lhst lh namesof lhe tribesof the rcgions r of two kinds: tnose denved ftonnouns e.9.Lmaw' ud rhos

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    THE POETSAS ANTHROPOLOCISTSako, lhai in this periodsom hill tribesmigh halebeen ecruil.d as wanio$ for local kinss (pp.l88-9). However early ileEtur. doesnor menrion hedivisionswho caft into being with the developinSproc.ssofculruBl intcgation nor before h 9lh.

    18. Thc norionofS. SingaBveh 1966:155) har herewefe phhtries of kuFvar and talav.r is nol ba*don lcx$al .vidc.ce and ratherspeculariv.I 9. Thal spous.s should b. Elsliv.s is clearly .xpEssdin Kuru. 40. where hc hcro excl.im:.My mothera.d yours,wh.l vrc they lo each oth.r ?My larhcr and youB. what kin ?how did wc coft !o kno* each olher ?And ye i lik faliing uin on red fildsour loving hansh.v mixed ogtfier.20. E.g. F. Clothey, 1978: chpl.2i S. Iyengar, 1929:chpb.5and l7i S Singaravelu, 966: 103-104.2l. Forpreliminary ludies n th. lopic,cf K. Zvcl.bit,l9?7i D D Shulnan,1980:275-289ndF. Clothcy,I978r15.22. we bow .8. hatsnGcupicsan nponantpl4c inone c.earon frylh of rhe rub (c t zvl.bil, 1982:220-221).But no 3rudyhasyr b.n undeflatcn oex.nine fitr Ehtis witn lhc Irula cnltuE or olhc.23. K. Zr.lcbil (!977: 213) stdres h.efor, hrr thestoryofv.lli/ MDtuta. musl haveben LnoM rothe pcls who conFo*d pom or inrerFlalcd suchphdses n lht alEady exisiinSperu.24. In Titum!. 196, elavararcsoid odancc nekuEvliwilh thir rclaliver(kilai).25. For lhe term 'anantu," cl C. L. Han tII, l97l(intoprctine n as trcred powi') and ils rccntcritique by v. S. Rljam 1986.h is nore*onhy, tnalth dance.place n lh *urzv.r vill age connyarditselr w.s tegardedby rhe poets to b 'anan*u'(PuFm, 247) so rnat indced rhe tem nighr dnolei. lhal contexta sacred owe..r Bul ev.n ifso,rhar does mEly mean that thc poeh .garded rhnto be $ while the concptionsoa 6. tu!r!ar&.!avar

    26. Il seem possible 0 e, thd the em nauvEl longsp.r), tlken by !n. connen!.tos (e e. ii Kt.,I 75) as a synonym for Mudka4, originally Efercdro rhc prjest !la!) 6f th hill tribs.Evn odaythe priesrofrhc Mslai- Vton n the Kersh-ghakp.rforG nis rit$ by handlinga.staff and a snalldrum. Then reli8iouscusiom3, s far as thcy arcknos lhrcughelhnognphic ot s (Cl, 1971, bovecncd,p. 59) rsemblehc descnpdons lovided n.n.ient liteEtur very much.27. H. ir.l$ depacredn Tiru 190 d dsncing.mns

    28, Sc. c.g. th obkPations of M.-L. Rinicne 1979:7-8) wE sh. sr.tes, that the tudvar act as danceBrnd musicianst villag. f.slivsls and h.ir wo@n(kurani) @ dsoca.red wnh rh functions of s6lh-sying. Th.y in panjcular aE b.licvcd lo tnow thcdetuns which n.m lh. p.opl. (ibid.: 245)Abbrevtrtton

    .19DED - DEvidian Elytulosic.l Diclionary 1961),TBu@w .nd M. B. ErEneau,OxfordTED - Tahil - Englhl Diclionary 187?),M winslow(Rcpnnrcdircd 1977by K. L. Janen),WrcsbadenPoru - Porunala4uppaEiPerp - Pcrunpal:EuppaEiTitun - TitunlrukdEupp.gi

    Rf,TBS{CEST.nil Terts (i r Trhil),{l,rt{tro. t9s8. Ccn.ai: R. RajanCanka Tilarian (Etruttokti and P.llup.tu). 1967C.nnai:ParjNilaiyanA]Id,rrtp. 1958.Cnru : R. Rajah.Pouupatru 1961C.nnsi:Vt - Mu. Kopal.krisnarayar.T.nll T.!t' Or!rslrted)Ch.lli^n, LV. 1946.Pautpat !, Tanjalu,i Tanil rJni-Hzrr,A.L.ttr. 1979. Poett o[the Tanil Antholosies.Princclon:Pri.c.ion UniversilyPress.Mudaliy.r,N.R. 1959. t,6rlde, Antholog otA,ci.nlTdnil Litdatu.e (3 eols-),Madtus:South Indh S,iv.Sidd$ant worLs Publishing ocity.Tihtkuv.nnr, S. 196l ltolrzlppitnn (\ri$ cnical sttd-

    i.s), Madu6i:Ku6l Nen Publishi.eHouse.SonasundrEh Piflai, J.M. 1959.Two Thousand eorsof Ttnil Lfter(ture- l'tadtas: soutlr lndia SajvaSiddlha.laworks Publishing ocieryRamanuj .m, . K. \967. he L ter io r Landt .apeBloominslon,Londo.: I.dian. Univc6ity Pr$.

    Arokiasw.mi, M. 1956.TAeKoasu Couttry Madas:Universityof Madrls.Beck, B. 1974"The Kin Nucleus n Tamil Folklore,"{pp. r-27) n T. Trautmanned). Kinrhip and Hk-tory in SouthAtin. MicniE n Pap.B on SoulhandSouthe6rAsi!. 7. Ann Arbor:CntE or South ndSourh E st Asid Studis.Beck,B. \919 (.d.). Putpetrivet on a ReEionalCul-

    Chrneie., A k. t91o. fl1. Cult olskndn KnahteranAn Ent lndin Calcutr, Purr,LC ornc!, F w.1974. fte Mtnt Fnca ofMtru*nn. rneH.suc/ParisN.wYork Mouron.David, H, S. 1964. Tn EarlislSlagcof T.mil ReIigion;' Tadil Cultur.t Xl. 195-401l:affi, U. 1996.ywdtr4s.hdf und Sozialidt bei .lenJeru Ku.u,bo, vN Arb.ite,, eon Teilen uhd wn(Un)Cleicheit in eine. sndi.dxcher Sannler ututJraerg.relr.rdl. Wi.sbad.ni Sl.in.r.-. I 9?, "Voices in the Foresi. The Field of Clth.Fing.ftng th. Jc.u KulumbaiCarhercr/Hunk6 r

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists


    80Soulh ndia, " in PaulHoctin9s(.d.),glue Moun-tnin! Revisited.Ctltuml Stulies d the NilAii Eilh.Delhi/London/New or*: OxfordUniveBityPress.

    Diehl, C. G. 1964. Tn. Coddss f Foresls n T.oilLirerarurc, Tanil Cultua, Xl. 30A-316.Dikshitar,V. R. 1918. TheSilappotlikaran. [,zdas:Sourh ndi. SeivaSiddthanra dks Publishing o-Frykenbers,R. E. r96t. Zd,./ Cortrcl n.!l Socidl Sttuc-|ure ii lNtian Eistoty. Madison: Univ.Gily of Wn-Oardner, M. 1969. Paliyan cill Slructurc, pp. 3l -l4?) in D. DEnrs (ed.), .d,So.Aier. Otlaet:NaionalMuseum f Canadz ull.tin No.228(Con-tribrrions ro anthropology).Hart,G. L lll, 1971. woman and the Srfied in An-ci.nt 'l^milnad, Jou,n.l ol ltidr Stu.liet, 22 \2):231-250. 1974. soft Aspets ofKinship n Ancienr rmilLirerltuE," (pp.29-61)n T. Trautma.n ed.), tr ,

    ship ond Histort in 'out, t1sd. Micbigan Pap.reon Southdd Soulh.st sir,7. Ann Arbor:CenlEror Soulhand SouthEat AsionStudi6_. 1913. 1'heP@6 oJ .l,cierr ,'rirl Brkeley, Lon-don: UnivEity of C.lifomir Press.Iyenga.. P T. S. 1929- Histort- ofhe rahil!. M^ as:ComEswamy Naidu.Kailasaporhy, . 1968. Tahil Hetuic Po.try. Oxlotd:Ksnakasabnai, t9s6. erd ed.)The Tanils EishteenHrh.lre.l Yea.sAao. Madras:Soulh India SaivaSiddrhanhworks PlblishingSociery.KapprD. B. 1983. Honigsamnehund ragenbei denAlu-Kurunbas,,{rrn.opos, 78: 715-7J8.Koppad,K. B. 1961.Jcnu Klruba and Kadu (B.tr.)Kurub!, Cnsus fhdia 1961, ol l, MonosmphSenes, a v-B (iv); edn.d by A. M. Kutup andB.K. Roy Blrman. Nw Delhi: Minislry of HomeLeshn iL . . S . and Sontheimer ,6 .D. I975 (eds . ) .P6lotalils dnd Nonads in Solr/i,.irtu. Wiesbad.n:Mistu, R. 1968.Mallu*{runbds ofKappal4. C^L!rr6.Anlhrop.logicalSuflcy of lndia.MoDb, S. C. I 977. Itre S./ig, of Bileni Ra"sont Hilk.Calcutla:Ahdropologicll Suryeyof Indie.Morris, B. 19t7. Tappers, TratpeB and th HillPaadarum, A,thtopos 12. 225-241-Murton, B. I9?9. The Evolulion ofthe SenlemcntStrucrurn NorlhmKongu o 1800A. D.," In B.B.ck (ed.),Pqspectiveso" . R"giondl Cultute.Dlhi:Vikas.pp. l-34.Nandi, S. 1911. Li:[e mtl Ctburc oJ the Matd U|o.lan.

    ULRICH DEMMERCalcuft; Anthrcpolosic.lsurveyof India.PEtasam,M. S. 196l. "vetluvaj ofKenl.;'Ce.sus oJlndb 1961,Vnl. l, vol. L, Monosmph erics,Panv-B-(iv),cdncdby A. M. Kurup nd B. K. Roy BuFmrn. Nw Delhi:Minnry of Hone Affais.Rtj.m, V. S. 1986. Ananku: A Notion SmanticallyReduced o Signify Femle S.cEd Power! J,,rr4lof the Andican Orie"trl Societ!,6 (2): 2s1-213.R?manujan, K. 1989.WheF Mnrors are windows:Towards Af, Anlnology Of Rflections. Hktotr of4 . i ta !ors ,28: 8?-216R.inichc, M. L. 1919-Let di.ut et let hon es. LaH.gu/Pans/N.w ork: Moulon.s.lva.ayagn, S. 1969. Tn. R.gionalCo.cepr n 6-o8..phy and lc Cl!$ifi.tion of-L.nd an hAn,cint Tlmil Counky, (pp 21a.22\) Prc.eedinEolthe 2^t LremationntCo,leten.eon fmtil Studr'"r. A.amalainagr: An.mlhi Unive6nyShulnan,D. D. 1980. nrt l?npte Mtths Pr,nceton:PrinctonUriversity Pr.ss.Siharraveh,S. 1966..t ..kl,ile of the fanik- Kt l^Lumpu. Univ.Bity ofMalaya.Depl.oflndianStud,

    Sonrheimr, C. D. 1976. AnobA, Mhaskobd u. lrrodara. Wisbaden: ciner.Srein, B. f980. Peoro,t Sr.re a"d So.iett i. Me.liewl.!,!rr .rn ?. Oxford, Delhi: Oxford Univesny Press.Subrahnanian, N. t966. Snnxan Porty. London,Bornbay: si! Publishing o$e.ThaniNay.gan, x. 1966. a,ds.tpe ani PoetD. Lon-don,Bonbay:Asia Publishing ous.T6utrunf,, T. (cd.). 1974.

  • 7/27/2019 Poets as Anthropologists