The Tulu Tribes - V(a)

In my previous post on Pandyas, I had speculated about matriarchal Pandyas of Megasthenes. I tried to reason why Pandya(believing it to be derived from Pandava) was chosen as part of Hinduization. In my opinion, the Mahabharata story of Arjuna, one of the Pandavas, meeting a matriarchal kingdom probably was inspiration behind one of the matrilineal families of Tulu tribes to adopt it.

I find an amazing proof for this speculation in the kingdom that ruled Tulu region in the past, Alupas. Though Alupa or Aluva is a native Dravidian word (literally, ruler)* they claimed to belong to "Pandayvamsa"(Pandya Dynasty). And according to Wikipedia:

Their coins carried the dynastic title "Sri Pandya Dhananjaya" which means "Arjuna among the Pandyas".

It appears one branch of matrilineal dynasty of Alupas(The dynasty also ruled Kodava region too...and was speculated to be matrilineal there too...or Kodavas were also believed to be matrilineal initially, M N Srinivas) became patrilineal Pandyas in Tamil region.

In my opinion, by 350-300BCE, based on Megasthenes description, a matrilineal dynasty of Tulu women was created in Tulu region.

*Plausibly wrong. It is pronounced as alUpa and not ALupa, where "ALu" means 'rule' in Tulu/Kannada. No idea about etymolgoy of "alUpa".

The Tulu Tribes - V

Pandyas revisited:
Apart from Tulu and Malayalam regions, none of the other Dravidian regions had matrilineal traditions. This is indeed an intriguing situation and needs an explanation.

Sexual Divison of Labour:
There are studies that question the sexual division of labour in hunter-gatherer societies. Instead they opine that it's a phenomenon of sedentary societies. Considering that civilization first took roots in sedentary societies, we can be sure that it would have had patriarchal authority.

But civilization also rose in other hunter-gatherer societies because of contact with sedentary societies. I think the interplay between sedentary community and HG bands determined whether the resulting society became patrilineal or matrilineal.

Since there is no strict division of labour in hunter-gatherer bands, I would consider the family structure was matrilineal and there was no definite community structure or no authority.

Now the present day Dravidian tribes are also not matrilineal. To account for that, I propose that when the concept of marriage entered into these tribes, even though they remained as tribals, matriliny made way to patriliny. Patriliny is a conscious structure and identity whereas matriliny is a natural development which is a non-conscious identity.

But the question is whether it is possible for any matrilineal community to become a matriarchal society. I am going to rely upon Rhoda Halperin's view that food scarcity drives HG bands to adopt exclusive male hunters society. However, abundance would have both sexes in equal responsibility. Here I propose, only HG bands in food abundance regions have any chance of turning into matrilineal and matriarchal(or equal rights as there is no sexual division of labour) non-tribal society. However, we have to introduce one more variable into this. And that is the class of sedentary society that comes into contact with this HG band.

Matriliny and Traders:
I propose if priests and rulers meet the tribal society first then the HG band may turn into patriarchal one. However, if traders meet them first then there could be chances that HG band in food abundance region could turn into matriarchal or equal rights society.

In my opinion, the traders from eastern India moved to south-west coastal India in probably 4th or 5th century BCE. From there they sold black pepper to Arab and Greek regions and imported black-eyed peas. South India around that time was inhabited by numerous Dravidian tribes. And most likely Tulu-Malayalam region was a food abundance region and therefore without much sexual division of labour.

Pandyas:
Be it patriarchal or matriarchal(equal rights), if the transition from tribal to non-tribal society is influenced by another sedentary society then it tries to build upon the structure of the sedentary society or legitimizes itself from the parent society. Here I try to explain the earliest known record of matriarchal kingdom of Pandyas. According to Megasthenes Pandyas were ruled by a queen who was the daughter of Hercules.

Here we can see two legends of north being adopted by matriarch ruling class to legitimize itself. The first one is the name Pandya. There are many speculations that Pandya could have been derived from Pandava. But why Pandava? It's mainly because there is a legend in Mahabharata that would legitimize female rule.

Arjuna, one of the Pandavas, goes to a kingdom ruled by women when the horse of Ashvamedha enters that territory. To cut the story short, the queen Pramila becomes Arjuna's consort or Arjuna becomes her consort. This story along with another Mahabharata hero Krishna (whom the Greeks identified with Hercules) was adopted by one of the matrilineal households after they took these traders as their consorts.

I would think this is how a strong matrilineal tradition was cemented in Tulu and Malayalam region. Maybe even Sri Lanka too was initially matrilineal/matiarchal. I suppose according to legends before King Vijaya, it was ruled by a queen called Kuveni.

Though these initial contacts with traders made the matrilineal tradition mainstream, as I argued before, the inherent weaknesses, which I would identify as non-conscious matrilineal identity, rendered it non-conscious slave of male overlordship. It is highly possible that one of the male heirs of Pandya line turned it into patrilineal structure and expanded into Tamil region*. Since inherently matriarchy is equal rights rulers need not be only females.

This could be seen in Malayala region where even matrilineal families were headed by only male members. However, the situation was bit different in Tulu region where I suppose the eldest female member of the family had the same rights as the male member.

*Here it should be noted that patrilineal Tamil Pandyas called their capital as Madurai after Krishna's birth place Mathura. We have already noticed that Megasthenes' matriarchal Pandyas also considered themselves Krishna's descendants.

I am a Haratushtrava!

Nitin at "The Acorn" blogged about divergence of Vedic and Avestan cultural/religious values. That is Persians preferring the morals of "Asuras" and Indians going for the might of "Devas". The passage he quoted (from Rajesh Kochhar's book on Vedic people) talks about Zaratushtra emphasising on ethical conducts(that of Asuras) and rejecting Devas.

I am not clear if schism in Aryan society can be exactly pinned to that point. In my opinion, the only change brought about by Zaratushtra was monotheism. I still have my doubts if Asuras were not the supreme even before that in Persian society.

Consider Norse mythology. Even Norse had two sets of gods. Aesir and Vanir. While Aesir cognates with Asura of Indo-Iranian society; the Deva equivalent can't be found in Norse myths. There Deva is generally a single god or God. I am not sure about Vanir equivalent in Indo-Iranian society. If we observe Aesir were supreme and Thor, one of the Aesir (equivalent of Asura), whose 'might' finds an echo in Indra of Devas.

And, of course, many Indians will have problem if somebody makes a statement like we choose Devas because of their warlike, materialistic and amoral nature. Aren't we the nation of peace loving and not-so greedy people with overflowing morals?

Asuras and Tulu tribes:
Anyway, that is not main point of this post. What I found interesting was that Zoroastrians had Asuras as their supreme God/gods. The most important mythical emperor of Tulu tribes , Bali, was an Asura.

Note: The myth of Bali precedes b->v changes in standard Malayalam language. Also, Bali is hailed as a Tulu emperor in Tulu region. The biggest Malayali celebration of Onam in his honour was a later development in Kerala society but that has given an impression that Bali is relevent only for Malayalis. But the fact is Malayali identification with Bali reaffirms they being part of Tulu tribes.

The myth of Bali probably gives an indication of an Aryan group where Asuras held in high esteem inhabiting Tulu regions. Probably, the religion and culture of this group was overwhelmed by the later aboriginal Indians(Hgs H and R2) mainly from Central and East and then by Dravidians(J2b and L) and in the end by Semitised Vedic people . But more than these the greatest impact was the of the first maternal clan of India(mtDNA M). However, some of the cultural things like that story of Bali survived of the Asura worshipping Aryan group.

My uniparental lineages and my cultural identity:
Considering my paternal lineage is Haplogroup R2 which has a greater presence in the Eastern regions of India; the worship originated in that region, that is phallic worship, is one of my cultural identities. I have not tested my maternal lineage. However, it is most likely mtDNA M. So, spirit worship and goddess worship are other two cultural identities. Being a Malayali more than phallic (or later Shiva), spirit worship and goddess worship are my dominating identities. However, being also part of culture of Tulu tribes, the identification with Asuras is also of utmost importance to my cultural identity.

However, in the present day Hinduism with a stronger Semitic influence, the greatest king of Tulu tribes is a tragic hero. And Vishnu and other Devas(now just demi gods) , responsible for his tragic end, are the mainstream gods. This probably tells Indians are morally neutral. Anyway, I cannot accept this. So I have decided to join a religion where Asuras were the highest and the religion which has ethical values( I like it when Parsees following non-materiliastic Asuras are very rich).

But conversion...
I really don't understand why I have to convert. What is the problem in declaring yourself as a follower somebody or some religion? You can study without teachers. Can't you? Initiation from somebody is alright if converts are children (which I don't agree) as they may not understand the things. However, an adult can inititate himself to a new religion.

I am a Haratushtrava!
So here I declare that I am a follower of Zaratushtra and initiate myself to his religion and teachings.

Now, I need some Indianization since I am not a Parsi(or Persian). I think 'h' replaces 'z' in India. Therefore, the name of Zaratushtra must be Haratushtra. Now, the follower of Haratushtra in Kannada;
Haratushtra + avanu -> Haratushtra + he -> he follows Haratushtra -> Haratushtravanu(masc); Haratushtravalu(fem) or

Haratushtrava (unisex)