In my previous article on Pazhassi, I showed that founding rituals of temples in Kerala (and probably in the rest of south India) were likely derived from pharaonic Egypt. In this article, through an exploration of the role of secondary temple priests of ancient Kerala called ambalavasi and their counterparts in ancient Egyptian temples, I show further that all temple rituals of Kerala’s temples were likely derived from pharaonic Egypt.
Once upon a time, temples in Kerala had a priestly hierarchy consisting of two tiers: an upper tier of primary priests performing religious worship within the temple sanctum, and a lower tier of secondary priests, called ambalavasi ‘temple residents,’ working in other ritualistic capacities around the temple. At the very apex of the hierarchy was the thantri, belonging to aristocratic nobility, who had hereditary right on all ritual matters in the temple. The thantri did not involve himself in the everyday affairs of the temple; another priest called shanti was appointed to perform daily ritual worship. Only the thantri and shanti, the primary priests of the two-tier hierarchy, were permitted to worship the idol of the deity inside the sanctum. Unlike the thantri, the shanti was not hereditarily (or permanently) attached to the temple.
The ritual of daily ceremonial worship in Kerala temples typically began at around four in the morning, when the shanti bathed in the temple pond, and then unlocked the sanctum for dawn worship. He removed faded flowers and oil from the previous day’s ceremonies, anointed the idol with holy water and clothed it anew, adorning it with fresh flower garlands and ornaments, followed by an offering of food. In general, daily worship used flowers, water, ointment in the form of sandalwood paste, incense, and oil. Iron utensils were not permitted; only gold, silver, or copper and bronze were allowed. Although the rituals in temples of Tamil Nadu followed a similar scheme, the brahmin temple priests in Tamil Nadu were not organized in a two-tiered hierarchy like those in Kerala, where the shanti worked alongside subordinate hereditary ambalavasi in managing daily affairs of the temple.
The ambalavasi, the secondary priests of the two-tier hierarchy, traditionally performed various ritual duties within the temples; for example, the ambalavasi variyar handled ritual instruments and made garlands of flowers; the ambalavasi mutthat carried a divine image of the deity during processions. In larger temples, the mutthat also distributed ritual offerings among other ambalavasi. The ambalavasi chakiar performed kudiyattam, a ritual dance-drama within the temple. The ambalavasi marar played drums for temple rituals, particularly during temple festivals. Carpenters, washermen, smiths, and other workmen were also attached to temples, such as the panchagavyam thalippan who sprinkled holy water in the temple premises. The ambalavasi ilayat had no temple duties, but was a funerary priest, called to perform funerary rites.
Below is a photo of a shiveli ritual, involving circumambulation of the shrine by priests carrying an idol of the deity. Had this scene been captured a hundred years ago when temples followed old traditions strictly, the person labeled “A” would be the shanti; “B” carrying the idol would be an ambalavasi muthat; “C” carrying a lamp and preceding the procession would be an ambalavasi variyar; before him would go musicians “D” — ambalavasi marar beating drums. In the old days of Kerala’s redistibutive economy, these ambalavasi priests would have been paid through land leases and rations.
This subordinate priestly tier was a characteristic feature unique to the temples of Kerala in all of India. Even in Tamil Nadu, any one of several priests authorized to perform any ritual inside the temple was free to offer prayers on behalf of a devotee. In temples of north India, the devotee was permitted to touch the idol and perform rituals to his liking. Not so in Kerala, where only the chief priest could perform rituals inside the sanctum; and even the ambalavasi, despite their close association with temple work, were not allowed into the sanctum.
The currently accepted explanation for this tiered priestly hierarchy in Kerala is a dubious theory that the subordinate tier of priests represented ‘fallen’ brahmins or offspring of brahmin men and non-brahmin native women. Even if it were so, the theory does not explain the rationale for employing such ‘fallen’ brahmins in temples, especially when the ambalavasi are not the only mixed-race offspring of brahmin men in Kerala. Another theory, held by some among the ambalavasi pisharoti community, is that the subordinate tier of priests represented converts from Buddhism. Yet the Izhava of Kerala, a community who identify with a Buddhist past as borne out by historical facts, were denied entry into temples until 1936; therefore, it is counterintuitive that certain other Buddhist converts would not only be granted entry but elevated to priestly roles in temples. The real explanation clearly lies elsewhere. Indeed, it lies elsewhere spatially and temporally, across the Indian Ocean, on the western shores of the Red Sea, thousands of years prior.
Pharaonic Egyptian priests too were organized in a similar two-tiered hierarchy: azhmancher chief priests (note the similarity with the priestly title azhvancheri of Kerala), who belonged to aristocratic nobility were at the apex. They were assisted in their duties by secondary wtb ‘pure’ priests, named so for the strict rules of cleanliness associated with their temple work — rules of purity much like those in Kerala temples even today. They are called wab by Egyptologists according to the more common interpretation of the ‘arm’ hieroglyph 𓂝 between [w] and [b] as [a], but I prefer the less common interpretation of [t] because of the similarity of wtb in pronunciation and meaning to Malayalam wetip ‘clean.’
The king led the hierarchy of all azhmancher priests of the land. Although in theory he supervised religious rituals in all temples all over the land, in practice he delegated his powers to the azhmancher priests who performed these religious tasks on his behalf, like the thantri of Kerala temples. A priest titled sh-khanti shared some duties of the azhmancher but was not considered in as high a regard. The sh-khanti and wtb priests worked alongside each other in the temple, performing daily rituals. Unlike the azhmancher and wtb priests, whose positions were hereditary, the sh-khanti priest was not attached to the permanent roster of temple workers but was rather brought in on an as-needed basis, similar to the shanti of Kerala.
The daily rituals in the Egyptian temple followed along lines remarkably similar to the ones in Kerala temples. They began before sunrise when the azhmancher priest bathed in the water of the sacred pond and cleansed himself. He had to abandon any woolen or other “impure” clothing outside the doors of the temple and enter bare chested, wrapped in a linen mnkht. Then, he consecrated offerings prepared the previous day, opened the door of the sanctuary and lighted the morning lamp. He unveiled the statue of the deity and prostrated himself before it. He offered prayers, cleansed the shrine of the previous day’s offerings, washed the statue of the deity in the shrine with incense and water, decked it in fresh clothes and ornaments, and anointed it with oil and unguents. He burnt incense pellets before the deity in a bronze censor. Iron was not used in temple worship because it was considered impure.
Flowers were offered to the deity loosely, tied together by the stalks, or in bouquets. The statues of the deities were frequently crowned with garlands of fresh flowers. Various sweet-scented ointment was placed before the deity in vases of alabaster or other containers as a gift, or otherwise anointed on the idol of the deity. The priest offered food to the deity, chanted various hymns to symbolically imbibe the statue with life force from the offerings, and finally closed the door of the sanctuary thus ending the ceremony. In many temples, one of the wtb priests circumambulated the shrine with a mobile image of the deity, similar to the shiveli ritual in Kerala temples, in which the ambalavasi mutthat circumambulated the shrine with a small idol of the deity.
The secondary wtb priests, paid through rations according to ancient Egypt’s redistributive economy much like the ambalavasi priests of Kerala, had more diverse functions than the azhmancher and the sh-khanti, from being porters of the sacred bark, like the mutthat, to gardeners charged with watering the temple, to simple artisans. They were involved in processions and had specific ritualistic duties. Yet, despite working on sacred temple duties, these heteditary wtb priests, like the ambalavasi, were not allowed into the temple sanctum. Some wtb priests held titles such as ‘overseer of divine offerings,’ which suggested their involvement in distributing ritual offerings to other wtb priests, analogous to the mutthat of Kerala. A lector priest handled sacred dance-drama performances, comparable to the ambalavasi chakiar performing kudiyattam. Some followed music as a vocation and performed during temple rituals, like the ambalavasi marar. Some others, belonging to a different class as in Kerala temples, were craftsmen, whose duty included sprinkling purifying water before the wtb priest as he carried the idol of the deity in procession around the temple, like the panchagavyam thalippan of Kerala. The sm priests, similar to the ambalavasi ilayat, had no temple duties, rather they were funerary priests, called to perform funerary rites.
Considering all these remarkable similarities, the ambalavasi of ancient Kerala very likely derived from the wtb priests of pharaonic Egypt, following for more than three thousand years, the same rituals, the same lifestyle, the same footsteps as their ancient counterparts across the ocean. But after India’s independence in 1947, the community transformed rapidly, forsaking traditional temple work for more lucrative modern careers. They survive only in name now, as a vestigial caste of a former time, although a few continue their traditional vocation despite enormous cultural and economic pressures, remembering with fondness the sacred work their ancestors had pursued conscientiously generation after countless generation.
Bibliography:
Allen, James. 2013. The Ancient Egyptian Language: An Historical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, James. 2010. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to The Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burrow, T., and M. B. Emeneau. 1984. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon Press. Available at https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/burrow/. Updated February 2021.
Faulkner, Raymond. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Repr. 1991. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Forshaw, Roger. 2013. “The Role of the Lector (ẖry-ḥbt) in Ancient Egyptian Society.” Doctoral Thesis, University of Manchester.
Fuller, C.J. 1979. “Gods, Priests and Purity: On the Relation Between Hinduism and the Caste System.” Man, New Series, vol. 14, no. 3: 459–76.
Gardiner, A.H. 1927. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3rd ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 438–548.
Gundert, Hermann. 1872. A Malayalam and English Dictionary. Mangalore: C. Stolz.
Herodotus. ca. 400 BCE. The Histories, Book 2, translated by A. D. Godley, Loeb Classical Library. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1920. Accessed on July 16, 2020. Retrieved from https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/2A*.html.
Iyer, Anantha. 1909–12. The Tribes and Castes of Cochin. 2 vols., repr. 1981. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
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.
Pisharoti, K. Rama. 1926. “Pisharoti Rituals.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 56: 83–89.
Pullapilly, Cyriac. 1976. “The Izhavas of Kerala and their historic struggle for acceptance in the Hindu society.” Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 11(1–2): 24–46.
Ramawarrier, N.V. 2014. Kharaksharangal [In Malayalam]. Thrissur: Mangalodayam.
Sauneron, Serge. 1960. Priests of Ancient Egypt. London: Evergreen Books Ltd.
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, 1997).
Spalinger, Anthony. 2013. “Further Remarks on the Old Kingdom Phyle System.” Orientalia, Nova Series, vol. 82, no. 3: 157–206.
Spencer, Neal. 2010. “Priest and Temples: Pharaonic,” in Companion to Ancient Egypt, vol. 1. Edited by Alan Lloyd, 255–73. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Teeter, Emily. 2011. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, Version 15, Oct. 31, 2014. Edited by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Last Accessed June 20, 2021. https://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/.
Unni, N. P. 2006. Tantra Literature of Kerala. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corp.
Varghese, Anna. 2010. “Professor Vijay Kumar Thakur Memorial Prize: Temple Service Groups in Ancient and Medieval Keralam.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 71: 88–96.
Wilkinson, John. 1878. The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 3 vols. London: John Murray.
