In my previous article, I had discussed the initial lowly plight of Nambuthiri brahmins in ancient Kerala. In this article, I explore their meteoric rise from the rock bottom of society to its apex in less than one millennium.
The obvious reason for the change in status of the Nambuthiri brahmins was their elevation to priestly positions in native temples. Traditionally only rich, landed aristocrats had been eligible for high priestly titles in Kerala’s temples. This practice is attested by inscriptions dating to 1300 CE and earlier, which refer to nambi ‘lord’ as chief priests of temples. It was a nambi who performed the tasks associated with the mel-shanti and thantri and in leading temple processions, whereas brahmins who were being fed at temples by charitable donations were referred to simply as brahmana. Had nambi referred to the community of brahmins, the term would have been used to refer to the priest and the mendicant equally, and that it was not so used suggests that the two parties were distinct and different. On the other hand, nambi occurs in contemporaneous temple inscriptions as titles of magnates (madambi, nambi, nambiyar, nambiyathiri), in names of prosperous donors to temples (Adigal Nambi, Shambunarayana Nambi, Ozhinjanambi Pavittiran Kali, Maluva Nambi, Narayanan Nambi), as title of a queen or lady (Kulashekhara Nambiratti), of a goddess (Nambirattiyar), of a god (Nambi Ganapathi, Azhagiya Nambi).
Indeed, nambi, which means ‘lord’ in Malayalam likely derived from Egyptian neb ‘lord,’ with b presenting as Malayalam mb. Thus, the status and title of priests in south Travancore temples around 1300 CE were not associated with the brahmin caste, but rather, with landholding status in the economy: only landed aristocratic magnates could perform the tasks of high priests. By making the Nambuthiri brahmins high priests in temples, and therefore granting them lands, the rulers simultaneously elevated them to the apex of Kerala’s aristocratic nobility.
The reason for this move, which proved culturally explosive in hindsight, with ripple effects spreading into the very fabric of Kerala’s society — in economic and governing systems, religious beliefs, language, and daily life, remains a mystery currently. Whatever the explanation, it is clear that their elevation to priestly positions came at the expense of native nadvazhi and other chieftains, who would otherwise have been entitled to these very priestly roles based not only on the practices prevalent in Kerala at that time, but also on the analogous culture of pharaonic Egypt, where military chieftains and bureaucrats who rose in the ranks also obtained high priestly titles. For example, all viziers during the reign of pharaoh Teti held high priestly titles in pyramid cults; nomarchs were the highest priests in the temples of their region; prominent bureaucrats held priestly positions alongside their civil administrative titles, just like the nambi of Kerala’s temples. Strings of priestly titles could be accrued over a successful civil or military career in the ordinary course of events. Such priestly titles naturally served to increase the title-holder’s eminence, often times evoking political ambitions, particularly during periods of political instability in pharaonic Egyptian history.
Thus, whether the move by the rulers of Kerala to elevate Nambuthiri brahmins to priestly positions was intentional — a calculated ploy to destroy the growing clout of their chieftains, or whether it was unintentional — a commonplace act that had disproportionate effects under the intensifying fire of Brahmanism sweeping the rest of India, it is well-nigh impossible to say without further evidence. I will present both possibilities, and until more evidence can be obtained to suggest one path or another, I will leave it up to you to reach your own conclusions.
During the Chola wars and other military conflicts ca. 1000 CE, which lasted on and off for a hundred years or thereabouts, it is possible that Kerala’s nadvazhi and other military chieftains gained enormous power at the expense of their non-military rulers. This tension between Kerala’s rulers and their military chieftains is visible throughout Kerala’s medieval history, in the petty rifts between warring chieftains as described by Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta around 1340 CE, in the culture of ankam ‘gladiatorial fights,’ described by European travelers in the 1700’s, in the volatile nature of provincial boundaries throughout Kerala’s history, in the tales of Marthanda Varma (ca. 1706–1758 CE), who deposed his own chieftains to centralize power in the kingdom of Travancore. It would seem that, as a consequence of power struggles following various military conflicts with neighboring kings, some of Kerala rulers ensured their own survival by ennobling loyal outsiders to priestly positions in temples, thereby preventing powerful native nadvazhi from becoming more powerful through priestly titles. This was a familiar tactic by rulers in other regions of India as well, where military power of feudal lords had been mitigated through brahmin influence. For example, an analogous power-imbalance in adjoining Vijayanagara kingdom (ca. 1300–1600 CE) prompted the rulers to patronize Vedic brahmin schools and use their social influence to reduce the power of heavily militarized chieftains.
Another possibility is that the rulers of Kerala elevated Nambuthiri brahmins to priestly roles in genuine gratitude for their patriotic services during military conflicts, such as the Chola wars: a cultural act that concurred with the norms of Kerala’s native heritage derived from pharaonic Egypt. Although pharaonic Egyptians were antithetical to foreigners in general, believing them to be manifestation of chaos, archeological and epigraphic evidence indicate that individual foreigners were sometimes rewarded to high positions. For example, an eminent nobleman named Maiherperi was Nubian, but he was entombed among important nobles in the Valley of the Kings, suggesting he had been elevated to nobility. Another Nubian Seneb was a seal-bearer, an important bureaucratic position. Foreigners also played a significant part in Egypt’s militia as bodyguards or mercenaries and occasionally attained high positions in the Egyptian bureaucracy, such as Asiatics Aperel and Paser, who rose to become viziers. In general, foreigners were assigned to trades that suited their skills, and therefore, it is quite likely that the rulers of Kerala promoted Nambuthiri brahmins to priestly positions in view of their priestly skills, using the ancient Egyptian custom of rewarding outsiders for their support.
Whatever may be the reason for this elevation of Nambuthiri to temple priests at around the same time that Brahmanism was influencing the rest of India, Kerala underwent a profound religious transformation that peculiarly did not change the underlying economic and political culture of the land. Although modern-day scholars tend to view Kerala’s indigenous, pre-Brahmanical traditions as primitive in the face of an “elite” Sanskritized culture, similar to the dismissing of eastern cultures as “ethnic” and “tribal” in the face of “educated” westernization in the 1980’s, natives during the early period of Brahmanization probably did not see it as a foreign colonial power contemptuous of their native folkways, bent on replacing their cherished ways with its own supposedly more advanced culture. It might merely be that, in view of the rising influence of other religions in the land, the rulers took advantage of the Puranic lore of the brahmins to give their own waning religion a new dimension and resonance.
It seems evident that in Kerala, Brahmanical philosophy was overlaid on native Nayar orthopraxy rather than the other way around, so that for all practical purposes, the native devout faced no revolutionary change in their ways of worship within their temple walls. The Chera kingdom surrounding Kochi may have been the liminal battleground on the forefront of this cultural change, judging from the earliest Nambuthiri settlements near Panniyur Varahamurthy Temple near Palakkad, and adoption of Nambuthiri ways by the Kochi ruling family earlier and faster than surrounding kingdoms.
This cultural clash is evoked in an inscription at Thrikodithanam Mahavishnu Temple, ca. 992 CE, when it was in the Chera kingdom ruled by Bhaskara Ravi Varma. The inscription states that a reading of the Mahabharata was instituted by a grant of land to support the wages of the expounder. Mahabharata being a Hindu Puranic text, it is clear that the practice of reading it was influenced by Brahmanization. The surprising part is what follows: the inscription proscribes bribes for appointment of the shanti. At that time, nambi ‘lords’ were the shanti in contemporaneous temples to the south. Such landed aristocrats would not need the wages of the shanti so dearly as to bribe the temple board. Thus, the prohibition strongly suggests that the shanti being appointed according to the inscription were not landed aristocrats. Rather, they were desperate jobseekers, struggling to get a foothold in the temple at whatever cost. Indeed, the inscription goes on to emphasize that aristocratic board members may not hold the position of the shanti, implying that they had held the position in the past, and also serving to make temple visitors aware that the non-traditional move was intentional. This inscription may be evidence perhaps of an initial, tentative foray by the temple’s unwary board into the raging conflagration of Brahmanization that would follow.
Extensive epigraphic evidence confirms that Vedic brahmins were taught native ways, in particular, temple worship rituals, through didactic transfer via temple schools called salai. The brahmins were accultured to Kerala’s native ways as shown by change in their practices from Vedic rituals to temple rituals without changing their core religious beliefs. Over many years, due to various factors, including their rising cultural influence in neighboring regions, they colored temple rituals with their beliefs, reinterpreting them according to Hindu Puranas. Unlike the repressive anacharam of earlier times when the Nambuthiri did not have social power, this later process of cultural hybridization was likely driven equally by natives as by brahmins, allowing the former to appropriate Brahminic ideas without abandoning their own ritual practices in a democratic give-and-take by both communities, leading to the culture we see today.
Bibliography:
Abraham, Santhosh. 2017. “The Keyi Mappila Muslim Merchants of Tellicherry and the Making of Coastal Cosmopolitanism on the Malabar Coast.” Asian Review of World Histories, vol. 5, no. 2: 145–62.
Aiyar, Subrahmanya. 1923. Travancore Archeological Series, vols. 3, 4. Trivandrum: Government Press.
Ayyar, Ramanatha A. S. 1924. Travancrore Archeological Series, vol. 5. Trivandrum: Government Press.
Ayyar, Ramanatha A. S. 1929. Travancrore Archeological Series, vol. 6. Trivandrum: Government Press.
Ayyar, Ramanatha A. S. 1930. Travancrore Archeological Series, vol. 7. Trivandrum: Government Press.
Barnabas, A. P. 1961. “Sanskritisation.” The Economic Weekly, April 15, 1961, 613–18.
Bonnet, Corinne. 2013. “The Religious Life in Hellenistic Phoenicia: ‘Middle Ground’ and New Agencies.” In The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Jörg Rüpke, 41–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonnet, Corinne. 2019. “The Hellenistic Period and Hellenization in Phoenicia.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. Edited by Brian Doak and Carolina López-Ruiz, 99–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bornstein, Marc. 2017. “The Specificity Principle in Acculturation Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 12, no. 1: 3–45.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2014. “Rethinking India’s Past.” In Culture, People and Power: India and Globalized World. Edited by Amitabh Mattoo and Heeraman Tiwari, 94–101. Delhi: Shipra Publication.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2015. “The historiography of Brahmanism.” In History and Religion: Narrating a Religious Past. Edited by Bernd-Christian Otto, Susanne Rau and Jörg Rüpke, 27–44. Boston: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.
Burnell, A. C. 1874. Elements of South-Indian Palaeography. Mangalore: Basel Mission Press.
Capponi, Livia. 2010. “The Roman Period.” In Companion to Ancient Egypt. Edited by Alan Lloyd, 1: 180–98. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Faulkner, Raymond. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Repr. 1991. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Francis, Peter Jr. 2000. “The Stone Bead Industry of Southern India.” BEADS: Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers, vol. 12: 49–62.
Gautam, P.K. 2013. “The Cholas: Some Enduring Issues of Statecraft, Military Matters and International Relations.” Journal of Defense Studies, vol. 7, no. 4: 47–62.
Gee, John. 2015. “Did the Old Kingdom Collapse? A New View of the First Intermediate Period.” In Towards a New History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom: Perspectives on the Pyramid Age. Edited by Peter Der Manuelian and Thomas Schneider, 60–75. Leiden: Brill.
History of Cochin Royal Family. n.d. “Spirituality.” Accessed on September 16, 2020. http://cochinroyalhistory.org/pages.php?menu_id=4.
Huwyler, Jacqueline. “(Re)Shaping Identities: Culture-Contact Theories Applied to the Late Bronze Age ‘Egyptian’ Pantheon and People.” In Invisible Archaeologies: Hidden aspects of daily life in ancient Egypt and Nubia. Edited by Loretta Kilroe, 64–84. Oxford: Archeopress Publishing, Ltd.
Iyer, Anantha. 1909–12. The Tribes and Castes of Cochin, 2 vols. Repr. 1981. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
Jordan, Kurt. 2009. “Colonies, Colonialism and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Postcolumbian Intercultural Relations.” In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology. Edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, 31–49. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kiser, Edgar and Michael Hechter. 1991. “The Role of General Theory in Comparative-Historical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 97, no. 1: 1–30.
Köpp-Junk, Heidi. 2016. “Pharaonic Prelude — Being on the Move in Ancient Egypt from Predynastic Times to the End of the New Kingdom.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, vol. 12: 21–40.
Kumar, Ajit. 2018. “Buddhism in Kerala and its Socio-Cultural Ramification.” History Today: Journal of History and Historical Archeology, vol. 19: 178–84.
Kundera, Milan. 1999. The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. New York: Perennial Classics.
Liszka, Kate. 2013. “Foreigners: Pharaonic Egypt.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine Huebner, 2710–2713. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
McCasland, Vernon. 1939. “The Asklepios Cult in Palestine.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 58, no. 3: 221–27.
Menon, Achyuta. 1911. The Cochin State Manual. Ernakulam: Cochin Government Press.
Menon, Padmanabha. 1924–37. A History of Kerala written in the form of Notes on Visscher’s Letters from Malabar, 4 vols. Rev. ed. 2013. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Moraes, George. 1990. The Kadamba Kula: A History of Ancient and Medieval Karnataka. Delhi: Asia Educational Services.
Rajakrishnan, S.R. and Ajit Kumar. 2016. “Organisation and Conduct of Parthivapuram Sala as Gleaned form the Huzur Office Copper Plates.” In Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, vol. 4: 454–58.
Rao, Nagendra. 1999. “Reconstructing the Social History of South Kanara: Study of the Sahyàdri Khanda.” Indica, vol. 36, no. 2: 81–88.
Rao, T.A. Gopinatha. 1910. Travancore Archaeological Series, vol. 1. Madras: Methodist Publishing House.
Rao, T.A. Gopinatha. 1920. Travancore Archaeological Series, vol. 2. Madras: Methodist Publishing House.
Riggs, Christina, and John Baines. 2012. “Ethnicity.” UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32r9x0jr.
Roller, Lynn. 1991. “The Great Mother at Gordion: the Hellenization of an Anatolian Cult.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies, vol. 111: 128–43.
Shafer, Byron. 1997. “Temples, Priests and Rituals: An Overview.” In Temples of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Byron Shafer, 1–30. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Shanmugam, S.V. 1976. “Formation and Development of Malayalam.” Indian Literature, vol. 19, no. 3: 5–30.
Spalinger, Anthony. 2010. “Military Institutions and Warfare: Pharaonic.” In Companion to Ancient Egypt. Edited by Alan Lloyd, 1:425–45. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stoker, Valerie. 2016. Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyāsatīrtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court. Oakland: University of California Press.
Strudwick, Nigel. 1985. The Administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom: The Highest Titles and Their Holders. London: KPI Ltd.
Suresh, K.M. 2003. “The Temple Dependents of Early Medieval Kerala — A Case Study of Srivallabha Temple in Central Travancore.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 64: 501–08.
The News Minut. 2017. “This Onam, VHP and other Hindu groups oppose Mahabali statue near Vamana temple.” September 1, 2017. https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/onam-vhp-and-other-hindu-groups-oppose-mahabali-statue-near-vamana-temple-67738.
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, Version 15, Oct. 31, 2014. Edited by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Last Accessed November 7, 2021. https://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/.
