Some interesting stuff, about <b>origin myths</b> of Syrian christians, <b>caste</b> among them (with meaning of 'superior and inferior') and <b>concepts of 'pollution'</b> among them as well as general christians <i>and</i> muslims in Tamil Nadu.
<b>Indian Christians: Pollution and Origins</b>, C. J. Fuller, <i>Man</i>, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3/4. (Dec., 1977), pp. 528-529.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Drs Jacob and Dube are concerned in their letter (<i>Man</i> (N.S.) 12:340) with the Knanaya Syrians (or Southists). The Syrians I studied were Northists. I have since learnt that my statement that my informants did not know of the Northist-Southist division (p. 57) is incorrect. The division and the story of Thomas of Cana are known to some of the older men. Rather, I should have stated in my paper that the story of Thomas of Cana was never retailed to me by informants, who invariably quoted the story of St Thomas the Apostle when wishing to explain their origins. Characteristically, the story of Thomas of Cana is, I am told, turned round by the Northists. They claim that it demonstrates that Northists rank higher because of their Brahman ancestry, whereas the Southists, descended from Thomas of Cana's Nayar wife, therefore rank lower.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jacob and Dube may have found that, even after five or six generations, new converts were not accepted as Syrians. The situation I found was different and I quoted my evidence (p. 62). Such local differences are scarcely evidence that I misunderstood the situation as I found it. 5. The story of the family buying Syrian status by offering enormous dowries (p. 62) was wellknown in the area. Jacob and Dube find it 'incredible' because they misunderstand the nature of Syrian status and, more generally, of Syrian origin myths. I do not know the original caste of this family. No-one knows. That is precisely the point: lt is possible to slander someone by saying he has low-caste origins, and that he is paying large dowries to buy himself affinal links with <i>bona fide</i> Syrians, i.e. Syrians who are not so slandered. The history of 'genuine Syrians' cannot be examined, for it is a myth. One is a member of the Syrian caste, i.e. has Syrian status, if, as I said, one can claim descent from St Thomas's Nambudiri converts <i>and . . . the claim is accepted by others</i>' (p. 61: my emphasis).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Indian Christians and Pollution</b>, G. Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, <i>Man</i>, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), pp. 591-592.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SIR,
In his article 'Kerala Christians and the caste system' (Man N.S. 11: 53-70) C. J. Fuller affirms that Kerala Christians like Muslims 'have no concept of bodily pollution consequent on birth, death, menstruation or other bodily conditions, nor do they observe pollution for them' (p. 64). I very much doubt the validity of this statement. My data come from the neighbouring state of Tamilnad, where Hindu, Christian and Muslim women observed pollution to varying degrees. Although I have not done research on this particular subject in Kerala, I hold it extremely unlikely that the phenomenon should disappear there. My conviction is based above all on the fact that Christian women also observed pollution in the bilingual district of Kanyakumari, which became part of Tamilnad only in 1956 and constitutes a cultural bridge between the two states. In Tamilnad almost 100 per cent of the Hindu women interviewed observed pollution of some sort. Of the forty-seven Muslim women interviewed all but one had been segregated at puberty, all observed birth pollution and none would touch the Koran during menstruation, but segregation during ordinary menstruation or the prohibition on cooking was decidedly less than among Hindus. Of the forty-seven Muslim women interviewed all but one had been segregated at puberty, all observed birth pollution and none would touch the Koran during menstruation, but segregation during ordinary menstruation or the prohibition on cooking was decidedly less than among Hindus. Of the eighty-six Christian women interviewed only five had no concept of pollution and five more had abolished the observance of pollution, when they were old enough to make their own decisions. Birth pollution and segregation at puberty were the rule among Christians, while segregation during ordinary menstruation and the prohibition on cooking were relatively rare. Pollution for Christians and Muslims may even last longer than for Hindus, as both communities have a preference for the number 7 in the case of menstrual pollution and for 40 in the case of birth pollution, whereas Hindus favour shorter periods.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the Old Testament as well as Muslim law books prescribe the observance of pollution and there are still vestiges of female pollution in southern and eastern Europe, it is not surprising that this tradition has remained alive among Christians and Muslims in pollution-conscious India. From what has been said, it will be clear that the concept of bodily pollution should also be found among Christians in Kerala.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Theirs can't be blamed on Hinduism of course, because the christoislamic concept of 'pollution' is based on the bible. I wonder whether that would explain why anthropologists still stick to the ingrained christian view of calling it 'pollution' even when they are observing non-christoislamic cultures.
I know for a fact that muslim women in N Africa are not allowed to touch the koran when they are having their periods, because of biblical/koranic pollution concept.
Related to Hinduism: Taiwanese friends (Taoist and Taoist-Buddhist) said girls do not go to their prayer room during their menstruation cycle and their mothers don't either, but that in some other families this was now allowed. Don't know about only-Buddhists.
<b>Indian Christians: Pollution and Origins</b>, C. J. Fuller, <i>Man</i>, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3/4. (Dec., 1977), pp. 528-529.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Drs Jacob and Dube are concerned in their letter (<i>Man</i> (N.S.) 12:340) with the Knanaya Syrians (or Southists). The Syrians I studied were Northists. I have since learnt that my statement that my informants did not know of the Northist-Southist division (p. 57) is incorrect. The division and the story of Thomas of Cana are known to some of the older men. Rather, I should have stated in my paper that the story of Thomas of Cana was never retailed to me by informants, who invariably quoted the story of St Thomas the Apostle when wishing to explain their origins. Characteristically, the story of Thomas of Cana is, I am told, turned round by the Northists. They claim that it demonstrates that Northists rank higher because of their Brahman ancestry, whereas the Southists, descended from Thomas of Cana's Nayar wife, therefore rank lower.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jacob and Dube may have found that, even after five or six generations, new converts were not accepted as Syrians. The situation I found was different and I quoted my evidence (p. 62). Such local differences are scarcely evidence that I misunderstood the situation as I found it. 5. The story of the family buying Syrian status by offering enormous dowries (p. 62) was wellknown in the area. Jacob and Dube find it 'incredible' because they misunderstand the nature of Syrian status and, more generally, of Syrian origin myths. I do not know the original caste of this family. No-one knows. That is precisely the point: lt is possible to slander someone by saying he has low-caste origins, and that he is paying large dowries to buy himself affinal links with <i>bona fide</i> Syrians, i.e. Syrians who are not so slandered. The history of 'genuine Syrians' cannot be examined, for it is a myth. One is a member of the Syrian caste, i.e. has Syrian status, if, as I said, one can claim descent from St Thomas's Nambudiri converts <i>and . . . the claim is accepted by others</i>' (p. 61: my emphasis).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Indian Christians and Pollution</b>, G. Eichinger Ferro-Luzzi, <i>Man</i>, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), pp. 591-592.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SIR,
In his article 'Kerala Christians and the caste system' (Man N.S. 11: 53-70) C. J. Fuller affirms that Kerala Christians like Muslims 'have no concept of bodily pollution consequent on birth, death, menstruation or other bodily conditions, nor do they observe pollution for them' (p. 64). I very much doubt the validity of this statement. My data come from the neighbouring state of Tamilnad, where Hindu, Christian and Muslim women observed pollution to varying degrees. Although I have not done research on this particular subject in Kerala, I hold it extremely unlikely that the phenomenon should disappear there. My conviction is based above all on the fact that Christian women also observed pollution in the bilingual district of Kanyakumari, which became part of Tamilnad only in 1956 and constitutes a cultural bridge between the two states. In Tamilnad almost 100 per cent of the Hindu women interviewed observed pollution of some sort. Of the forty-seven Muslim women interviewed all but one had been segregated at puberty, all observed birth pollution and none would touch the Koran during menstruation, but segregation during ordinary menstruation or the prohibition on cooking was decidedly less than among Hindus. Of the forty-seven Muslim women interviewed all but one had been segregated at puberty, all observed birth pollution and none would touch the Koran during menstruation, but segregation during ordinary menstruation or the prohibition on cooking was decidedly less than among Hindus. Of the eighty-six Christian women interviewed only five had no concept of pollution and five more had abolished the observance of pollution, when they were old enough to make their own decisions. Birth pollution and segregation at puberty were the rule among Christians, while segregation during ordinary menstruation and the prohibition on cooking were relatively rare. Pollution for Christians and Muslims may even last longer than for Hindus, as both communities have a preference for the number 7 in the case of menstrual pollution and for 40 in the case of birth pollution, whereas Hindus favour shorter periods.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Since the Old Testament as well as Muslim law books prescribe the observance of pollution and there are still vestiges of female pollution in southern and eastern Europe, it is not surprising that this tradition has remained alive among Christians and Muslims in pollution-conscious India. From what has been said, it will be clear that the concept of bodily pollution should also be found among Christians in Kerala.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Theirs can't be blamed on Hinduism of course, because the christoislamic concept of 'pollution' is based on the bible. I wonder whether that would explain why anthropologists still stick to the ingrained christian view of calling it 'pollution' even when they are observing non-christoislamic cultures.
I know for a fact that muslim women in N Africa are not allowed to touch the koran when they are having their periods, because of biblical/koranic pollution concept.
Related to Hinduism: Taiwanese friends (Taoist and Taoist-Buddhist) said girls do not go to their prayer room during their menstruation cycle and their mothers don't either, but that in some other families this was now allowed. Don't know about only-Buddhists.