Manimekalai

 

Draupadi, Kunti, Sita, are the names we usually come across in the context of the epics. The strong women in the  epics of south India are less well known.

The Shilapaddikaram,  a Tamil verse epic composed by Ilango Adigal, narrates the story of Kovalan and Kannaki, a married couple. Kovalan fell in love with the dancer Madhavi, and spent all his money on her. Kannaki however remained faithful to Kovalan, and penniless, the couple reached the city of Madurai. Kannaki then took off one of her anklets and gave it to Kovalan to sell, but in the market he was accused as a thief, as the queen had lost a similar anklet. The falsely accused Kovalan was put to death, and Kannaki, when she heard of it, stormed through the city in grief. Finally she was taken to the king, and when she showed him her remaining anklet which was different from that of the queen, he realized he had falsely condemned an innocent man. ‘I am no king’ he said, and in shock he fell down dead. Kannaki then tore off one of her breasts and threw it in the city, which went up in flames. Thus she destroyed the king and his city, and finally retreated to a hill where she died a few days later, rejoining her husband in heaven. Kannaki is worshipped as the goddess Pattini in the Tamil region, a symbol of a wife’s chastity, devotion and loyalty to her husband.

Manimekalai , the sequel to the Shilapaddikaram written by Kulavanigam Chittalai Shattanar [also spelt Cattanar], tells the story of  the beautiful young daughter of Kovalan and the dancer Madhavi.  After Kovalan’s unjust death the courtesan  Madhavi became a Buddhist nun. Her daughter Manimekalai, despite her beauty, shunned the pleasures of the world, and sought truth, finally gaining  ultimate knowledge.

 The story is set in the second century CE in the Tamil region. The text itself  has been dated by various scholars between the second and sixth centuries CE. It  consists of a preface followed by thirty verse chapters. It has many aspects of an epic, with a number of characters, magic, talking statues, and numerous sub-stories.

 The text is considered a Perumkappiyan [Sanskrit: Mahakavya] or great kavya of Tamil literature.

Though her age is not mentioned, Manimekalai is a young girl when the story begins. She was pursued by Udayakumara, prince of the Chola dynasty, as handsome as the god Murugan, but she eluded him.  The ocean goddess  Manimekala, after whom she was named, cast a spell on Manimekalai to make her sleep, and carried her through the air, leaving her on the island of Manipallavam, far away in the middle of the sea. The goddess then returned to the city of Puhar. She went to prince Udayakumara, and warned him to leave Manimekalai alone.  Then the goddess woke Sutamati, Manimekalai’s best friend, told her that Manimekalai would return in seven days, and asked her to go to Madhavi and tell her that the goddess Manimekala had arrived, and had stated that  Manimekalai was destined for a life of asceticism and renunciation.

On the island, Manimekalai was initially afraid, but seeing a magical pedestal of the Buddha’s image, her life and destiny were revealed to her. She received a magic bowl, which could provide her with an inexhaustible supply of food, to feed the hungry. Many more adventures awaited her, while  the Chola prince still pursuing her, was accidently killed.  After narrating her past life, the goddess explained that before proceeding on the Buddhist path, Manimekalai would have to live as an ascetic and study other religions. But as a young woman would not be taken seriously, the goddess gave her secret mantras, through which she could change her appearance and travel through the air. She also revealed  some magic words, which would nourish Manimekalai in case she had no food.  The goddess then disappeared.

Manimekalai, Madhavi and Sutamati went to the great Buddhist teacher, Aravana Adigal.  Manimekalai narrated to him all that had happened so far, and he told her more about the past lives of her mother and friend Sutamati. He also explained some points of Buddhism. The mass of people, he said could not be drawn to the noble Buddhist path, but a few may be influenced to follow it.  He then requested Manimekalai to use the bowl and wander through the world, feeding the poor and hungry, for  ‘There exists no more meritorious act towards gods or men, than to assuage the pangs of hunger.’

There are  many stories of other people too in this text, connected in some way with the main narrative. Manimekalai  went from city to  city feeding the poor. She was captured and imprisoned by the queen, but released when the queen understood the girl’s  own pure nature.

After further adventures, Manimekalai reached the city of Vanji. Disguised as  a man she debated with  the teachers of various sects and religions. After discussions , she understood the major religions and philosophies prevalent at the time, and felt that none  of them provided the right solution to life.

Aravana Adigal then began to teach her the truths of Buddhism. He explained to her how and why the first Buddha, who was already a being of light, incarnated on earth, and the need for  understanding the four truths regarding suffering, and the means of freeing oneself from suffering through freedom from desire and through detachment, and  by love towards all beings. Manimekalai  became a follower of the Buddhist dharma, lived in a monastery, and continued to perform acts of charity.

Commenting on this text, the scholar Paula Richman says  ‘In Manimekalai Cattanar undercuts, reverses and extends conventional ideas about ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ behaviour to give his account of a woman seeking to achieve the ultimate state beyond gender distinctions.’

Archaeology and garbology

 

Archaeologists are trained to explore and excavate ancient sites. Some sites have monuments that can be seen above ground, but the older the site, the less you will see on the surface. Over time, buildings crumble and collapse, wind and rain add to the destruction, and finally what one will see today is what looks like an earthen mound. Any such mound on flat ground is probably an ancient site. Archaeologists may explore such a mound, digging a vertical trench, carefully removing layer after layer of bricks, pottery and other artefacts, and then analysing their nature and period of time through various scientific methods. Alternatively, they may conduct a horizontal excavation across the whole mound, removing everything layer by layer, labelling and storing it for further analysis. This is when they also come across pits of garbage, known as ‘middens’ which reveal so much about the lifestyles of the past. Of course, human garbage reveals an equal amount about present lifestyles, and studying our garbage is one of the ways in which archaeologists of the future will try to understand our way of life. Garbology is the term used for the science of studying garbage and its disposal, both in the past, and in the present.

 

Right from the time people made stone tools, garbage began to pile up--in those days it consisted of discarded tools and flakes. Later, people discarded seeds, plants, shells, animal bones and pottery, among other things,  all of which can be used to analyse the past. Richard H. Meadow, an anthropologist and zooarchaeologist [specialised in the study of animal remains from archaeological sites] and the excavator of several sites including Harappa, pointed out that: ‘Much of what archaeology knows about the past comes from trash, if trash is defined as the products of human consumption’.  Early dumping grounds, he explained, tell us about ancient civilisations, including what they ate and wore, and how they disposed of their waste. 

 

A particular kind of garbage pit or midden is a shell midden, also known as a kitchen midden. These middens consist of heaps of shells of clams, oysters, mussels and other shellfish, which were discarded after the fish were eaten. One of the earliest shell-middens was found at the Blombos Cave in South Africa, dating to 140,000 years ago. Analysing these shells help us to understand not only what they ate, but how. Were the fish raw or cooked? If an estimate of population could be made, how much did they eat per person? What time of the year were these creatures eaten? Such painstaking analysis leads to an understanding of the past.

 

A similar analysis can be made in the present. Today the disposal of garbage creates huge problems across the world. A recent article in Newsweek suggests that garbage disposal and protests against garbage dumps pose more of a problem to Putin in Russia than pro-democracy activism. 

 

William Rathje [1945-2012], an archaeologist and anthropologist,  has been called ‘the father of Garbology’. In a pioneering effort, when he was  professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Arizona, he started the Tucson Garbage Project in 1973, which developed into a many-pronged study, looking at nutrition, consumerism, diet, recycling and garbage disposal.  Several schools in the US now have similar projects, which is helping to reduce rampant consumerism. Along with Cullen Murphy, Rathje  also wrote a book called Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Though more about garbage in modern times, the book states: ‘Garbage is among humanity’s most prodigious physical legacies to those who have yet to be born.’ 

 

In fact Garbology, along with capitalism and consumerism, has contributed to the ‘freegan movement’, which, I think, is yet to reach India. Freegans are those who, in theory, are committed to not buying anything at all. Freeganism is against the capitalist consumerist society, and aims to conserve water, reuse goods, grow their own food, use wild plants, and even rummage in dumping grounds and garbage bins for food and other items. They also have a philosophy that shows how one can live with minimum consumption, and with scarcely leaving a mark on the planet. 

 

Language and the handaxe

 

How do you make a handaxe? And what relationship does a handaxe have with language? The Stone Age handaxe had a broad base and ended in a point, and this  point as well as the sides, were sharp, and could be used for cutting or chopping.  It was quite a complicated tool, made of flint or some other stone, with facets that provided a firm grip. Handaxes have been found in Africa dating back to 1.6 million years ago, and by one million years ago had spread to Europe and Asia. The complex nature of this Stone Age tool have led scientists and anthropologists to suggest that it was linked with the development of language. Though no one really knows when and how humans began to speak, and when they moved from making animal-like sounds to speaking words and full sentences, it may have been around the time they made the handaxe. Brain scans of those making such tools today  show that the same part of the brain is used in speaking and in making a tool like this. ‘Tool making and language evolved together’, says Aldo Faisal, a neuroscientist, based on several scientific studies. Others believe that language emerged with modern Homo sapiens, perhaps 200,000 years ago or a little later.

In this context,  many other questions can be raised. Where did language develop? Was there more than one area of development? How did different languages grow? How did they change, develop, and reach the various continents of the world? 

The Italian linguist Mario Alinei and put forward the Palaeolithic continuity theory (PCT) in a two-volume work in Italian, published in 1996 and 2000. Alinei places language development  before that of modern humans, and believes that language diffusion took place along with the earliest migrations of Homo sapiens from Africa or, at the latest, during the late or upper Palaeolithic period. After reaching Europe, there was initially a very slow rate of change but, by the end of the Ice Age, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages had developed. During the Neolithic period, language began to change at a faster pace. This theory finds some support among linguists and archaeologists, and somewhat corresponds with the theory of language evolving along with complex tools such as the handaxe.

Yet both linguists and archaeologists date certain language groups, such as Indo-European,  much later. Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages, along with several others including Iranian, Vedic Sanskrit and most  north Indian languages,  belong  to the large group of Indo-European languages. The theory of this language group  owes its origin to William Jones (18th century), one of the first to discover the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek and Latin. Jones, who came to India in 1783 and became a judge of the Calcutta High Court, knew several languages including English, Persian, Latin, Greek, Gothic (an old form of German), and Welsh. In India, he began to study Sanskrit, to better understand local and customary laws. In 1786, he put forward his views, laying the base for further study. He said: ‘The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure: more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which perhaps no longer exists.’ He stated that Persian, Celtic and Gothic probably also belonged to the same family of languages.

Jones provided the hints that later led to the theory  of Indo-European languages, the  term being first used by an English scholar Thomas Young in 1813, which since then became the standard term for all these related languages. These languages are spread across Asia and Europe, and are today spoken by about 3 billion people, more than any other language group. In addition, they include some extinct languages.

Among these languages, was there one original language? How did the different languages emerge and spread, was it through migration, or through the spread of agriculture as some archaeologists have suggested? And what was the date of the original Indo-European language? This original language has been termed Proto-Indo European (PIE) and about 1500 words reconstructed in it. Dates provided for it include those between 7000 -5000 BCE, with other languages diverging from this. PIE is thought to originate somewhere in Anatolia or in the Caspian Steppes, though many other homelands including India have been suggested. Apart from the fact that dates for the spread and divergence of these languages are  variable,  there are some archaeologists and linguists who feel there was no language such as PIE, and that in any case the date and divergence of languages is placed far too late. (Those interested in  the arguments and counter arguments can read them in my book on the Vedas.)

Recently, a date of origin of 4500-4000 BCE has been provided for Dravidian languages, that is, somewhat similar to dates for Indo European languages.

So what is the link between the handaxe, early language developments, and the evolution of language groups such as Indo-European and Dravidian? Is there a link at all? A complete theory is yet to be worked out.

What is history?

 

The world is changing at  a rapid rate, and how will historians record these changes? How have they done so in the past?

To start with, it is necessary to realise that  ‘the past’ and ‘history’ are not the same thing. History refers to accounts constructed by historians, and is not a blanket term for the past. E.. H. Carr, in his path-breaking book ‘What is history?’ brought out many aspects of history, some of which are still debated today. He rejected the outdated Victorian concept of history as an objective record of facts, and put forward this point in a very simple way. He said; ‘The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context … It is the historian who has decided for his own reasons that Caesar’s crossing of that petty stream, the Rubicon, is a fact of history, whereas the crossings of the Rubicon by millions of other people .. interests nobody at all.’ Putting it slightly differently,  history is an account  which chooses facts.

The concept that choice is involved, has however given rise to extreme views, as for instance, that  history is anything one wants it to be. The presumption here is that the past is so totally  inaccessible, that we can only know versions of it. Deconstructionist theory even suggests that history is not  a record of the past, or an interpretation based on evidence, but  a fiction, a literary form like any other imaginative narrative. Post-modernist theory suggests that there are innumerable untold and hidden histories, hence there cannot be a linear history that tries to make sense of the past and leads up to the present.

Many historians, including E H Carr, adopt a middle ground, rejecting the theory that history is purely subjective, based only on individual views, ideology and interpretation, but at the same time recognising that individual interpretation and ideology are an aspect of any historical writing. Carr believed  a historian could be objective and transcend  individuality. He felt the present does affect ones views of the past, and history actually is  a result of a dialogue or interaction between the past and the present, and between the individual and society.

It is not possible here to go further into the innumerable debates  on what constitutes history today. The somewhat complicated and obscure nature of these discussions, can be depicted by one division of history writing into five categories: 'Reconstructionist, Constructionist, Postconstructionist, Deconstructionist and Endest.' 

Despite all the debates all historians are aware of two key aspects of history writing, i.e., that it involves a selection of facts and an interpretation of them, and that both these aspects would reflect the ideology of the individual historian.

Another major aspect to be recognised and understood is that history, that is the historians' understanding of the past is constantly changing. The past does not change, but as has been pointed out earlier, the past and ‘history’ are two different things. History changes along with new research, new ways of interpretation, new tools used for uncovering the past, new finds, and new ideologies.  

A historian has a vast array of facts at his/her disposal.  Out of this, how and what does one choose?  Choice is based on several factors, the first of which is the nature of history to be written, and the scope and area to be covered. For instance, for a general history of the world, one would select some limited  topics of India’s history.  For a history of a country such as Ghana or Norway, India may be barely touched upon, while a history of India would focus on all the aspects of the country. There can also be specific types of history such as social history; economic history; subaltern; political history; general history, anthropological, religious, women, or  regional history. In addition there are  specialised histories, for instance,  art history, history of music, sports, military history, historical geography,  or the history of any other topic. A particular approach to history, such as Marxist, subaltern, postmodernist, psycho-analytical, etc., also leads to different choices.

Within the field of history there are other specialisations such as archaeology, numismatics, epigraphy and  iconography. These can be subjects in themselves, but are also used to understand different aspects of history. The knowledge of a language is another important  tool in reading texts for an understanding of history, while the field of linguistics is also important in historical analysis.

In addition, a number  of different sciences are used in interpreting history. A recent trend is the use of  genetic research, including analysis of DNA and genomes. This is used in archaeo-genetics, particularly  to trace migration patterns. However, caution has to be used before accepting the results of these studies, which are often based on very limited and selective data. 

Chemical analysis of various artefacts,  pollen analysis, and dating techniques including Radio Carbon dating and thermoluminescence are among the other scientific techniques  used to understand the past.  Statistical methods, and socio-economic mathematical models can also be used.

This article provides just a brief glimpse of the complexities of history. And yet, every person believes that he or she can make authoritative comments on the past!