Maize, called as "ChOLam" (சோளம்) in Tamil is thought to have been indigenous to Mesoamerica. The Mayans were known to have cultivated it since before the start of the Common Era. It was only after the European connection with Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries, cultivation of maize started in Europe. As a result, maize was thought to have been brought from Europe to India, after colonial connection with India. This idea got a beating when sculptures of deities holing maize in their hands have been noticed in India. Predominantly belonging to the Hoysala period in Karnataka, these figures were dated at 12th to 13th century CE when maize was not even known in Europe. This gave rise to a notion that Mesoamericans and Indians had connections earlier which was responsible for having brought maize from the Mayan lands in Mexico. Pity that they never like to give credit to Indians and that maize went from India to Mexico!
A broad based articulation on this issue had been written by Dr S.Kalyanaraman which has been reproduced below. He has shown that maize-type depictions and sculptures are there in West Asian Meluhha hieroglyphs and even in the Vatican. I am giving here my insights in this topic.
First of all let me take up the maize- holding sculptures of the Indian temples. Till today, no temple image is made without following the guidelines of iconography of the olden texts of Shilpa sastra. If a temple image is seen with maize in hand, it must be understood that it was done within some rule of iconography. It cannot be done by someone's whims and fancies when a fruit was imported from a foreign land. Another point is that the foreign vegetables such as carrot, beetroot etc are still not used by orthodox Hindus (there are many in South India) mainly because they are not indigenous and have no sanction from our Dharma texts. Therefore it can be said without any hesitation that a vegetable product like maize, if not available as an indigenous product could not have found its way in the temple sculptures.
The second issue is why maize found its way in temple sculptures of a specific period in a specific locality. For this, one must know that no major deity of Vedic pantheon had been described to hold maize. However in the case of other or lesser deities, the general rule is to represent suitable items that depict the characteristics of the said deity. One can read such a verse in the vaastu text of "Mayamatham",chapter 36, verse 288 under the caption "Saamaanya vidhi". So whatever figures we find in temples with maize in hand, we must know that they are deities with combined characteristics that are related to some idea denoted by maize.
Thirdly, there does exist in Iconography a concept called "Sriphala", a fruit held by Lakshmi. In chapter 36, verse 250 of Mayamatham, it is said that Lakshmi is depicted as holding Sriphala in her left hand. Sriphala means wood apple or Vilva floweror any fruit that exudes splendour or cocoa-nut or indigo plant. For example, the following figure found at Somnathpur near Myosre, is that of a female deity with maize in the left hand. This is a depiction of Sriphala, a splendorous fruit that shows Aishvarya (prosperity) and growth.
The following figure from the same temple at Somathpur has a twin image of female deities holding the maize in opposite hands to complete the notion of a pair.
The following image is from Belur and the next one is from Halebid in Karnataka. The maize is in the left hand of the female deities.
Belur
Halebid
What these females hold in their right hand is not clearly seen. But from another figure in Belur we come to know that it is "chamaram" or fan. This shows that these females are attendants or secondary deities.
Belur.
The maize is representative of Sriphala or the exquisite fruit that signifies prosperity. Karnataka is a region that grows millets of which maize is one. Therefore this crop is depicted in the iconography. It is a rule of iconography that local tradition must be followed in the case of ornaments, adornments and costumes. We can see this followed in temples even today such that the main deities are adorned with costumes suitable for the season. Unless maize is a local crop and a crop that is a traditional one, it could not have found its way into the sculptures.
There are figures of females with maize in right hand. What she holds in the left hand is not seen. But that would denote some quality represented by her.
Somnathpur
The following figure from Halebid shows a rosary in right hand and maize cone in the left.
Halebid.
In iconography rosary is associated with Four-faced Brahma and Saraswathi representing knowledge (gyana). The above figure represents Gyana (rosary) and Aishvarya (prosperity) as denoted by maize.
We can see a similar figure, but that of a male with 6 hands of which one holds the rosary.
The following figure is from my collections, but its location is not known.
One hand is missing but of the five hands, the left hand holds maize and right hand in sin mudra holds a rosary. The sin mudra is an unmistakable sign of Gyana or teaching. Another right hand holds Chakra, an important weapon of Lord Vishnu. The corresponding hand on the left is missing, but inferred that the conch must have been held by that hand. The Shanku – Chakra indicates that the image is that of Vishnu. Though Vishnu is depicted with 4 hands in iconography, the depiction of 6 hands might perhaps represent the 6 qualities of Bhaga that characterise Him as Bhagavan.
The 6 qualities are Gyana, Bala, Aishvarya, Veerya, Shakthi and Tejas. The rosary represents gyana and maize, Aishvarya. The two attendant- looking females near the feet could perhaps be Sridevi and Bhudevi. The local factors that are easily identifiable by the people are employed in sculpting deities and attendants. The presence of maize shows that the location of this sculpture is in Karnataka / Deccan plateau where this crop is predominantly grown and is a major source of food.
A similar looking female figure has been shown by Dr Kalyanaraman.
The depiction of Shanku and Chakra makes her Vishnu Durga, whose name is "SeyyOL" (செய்யோள்) in olden tradition as known from Silappadhikaram. She was the female representation of Vishnu and Lakshmi together. The names Paavai, Kolli, Kollur etc are associated with her. SeyyOL tradition by that name existed 2000 years ago. She looks beautiful and dances well. The representation of maize shows that maize is indigenous to the region as no foreign or imported ones were mixed with deities.
Coming to Tamil texts, Maize or ChOLam as how it is called in Tamil, was actually called as "iRungu" (இறுங்கு) in olden Tamil. There are quite many references to millets in Sangam poems, where thinai (தினை) is the millet often mentioned. There were eight grains and not nine, in cultivation in Tamil lands known by a term "EN padam" (எண்பதம்) (IlakkaNa viLAkkam – verse 619 – commentary) They are நெல், புல், வரகு, தினை, சாமை, இறுங்கு, துவரை, இராகி {rice, some grass variety, white millet, fox tail millet, saamai, Maize, Toor and ragi}.
Rice was grown in Marudha lands that were irrigated well, while other regions grew only millets. Maize's popularity is known from a popular Tamil proverb "ஆனைப் பசிக்கு சோளப் பொரி" {aanaip pasikku chOLap pori} meaning, "can maize pops satisfy elephant's hunger?" This and other terms connected with cultivation of maize such as ChOlath thattai, ChOLak koNdai, ChOLak kadir, ChOLak kollai, ChOLak kaadu etc make it known that this crop had been around for more than 2000 years.
The presence of many references to millets in Sangam texts make me think that maize is indigenous and perhaps was taken from here to Mesoamerica. There was a Mayan who published his book called "ainthiRam" (ஐந்திறம்) in the 2nd Sangam assembly. The existence of this book came to light when the famous sculptor, Dr V.Ganapati Sthapati discovered an edition of this text in Saraswathi Mahal Library of Tanjore. Written as verses in Tamil, this book has a self proclamation that it was authored by Maya, the architect. Though the book dwells on mind control and concentration on Pranava for a successful sculptor, it does make a reference to the land when it was written. Such a reference makes note of the 7 X 7 = 49 lands of Kumari! This is same as what is available in other texts such as Silappadhikaram and its commentary.
The verse is as follows:
"குமரி மாநிலம் நெடுங்கலை ஆக்கம்
அமர்நிலைப் பேரியல் வெற்புறம் திறனாய்
பலதுளி யாற்றுப் பெருமழை திறனிலைப்
புக்குறும் நிலைத் திறன் ஏழேழ் நிலமும்
ஏழேழு நாடென இயம்புறும் காலை"
(ainthiRam – 812)
This puts the period of this text to 3500 years BP. This poem shows that a people called Maya who had expertise in building techniques had interacted with Tamils and spoken Tamil. The following illustration shows the spread of architecture that is similar and of Mayan.
(Pic courtesy:- http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.in/2012/01/voyages-of-pyramid-builders.html "Voyage of the pyramid builders")
The interaction between these regions had existed for long. The building technique had been the same in all these places. But the description of these techniques exists nowhere else in the world, but in India. The above ideas were derived from Mayamatham – a book of Vaastu attributed to Mayan and re-written in Sanskrit and copied for generations by the Mayan school of sculptors.
Either the Mayan sculptors have moved around the world on call or sculptors from different regions learned the same architectural techniques. Since all the monuments are to do with religious places, we can make a tall claim that India or the Vedic society was the source of the views on architecture of temples anywhere in the world. The presence of a Mayan in Tamil Sangam –II makes it possible that he and his ilk had taken the crops from India or South Asia to Mexico which was the last stop for them in the recent past. I call Mexico as the last stop because previously Mayan was associated with Southeast Asia, Lanka, Northwest India, Himalayas etc for which we have references in Hindu texts.
From here it is not difficult to find out how the Pop cone got into the courtyard of Vatican Museum.
This is the replica of the statue of the 2nd century tomb of Emperor Hadrian. The originals can be seen in the Braccio Nuovo Gallery inside the Vatican Museum. (see here for details).
What surprises me is the presence of peacocks. There was no knowledge of peacock in Europe until Alexander's conquests towards India. But peacocks were seen in the motifs in Greece which were described as "Persian birds" by Aristotle. Hera's chariot was driven by peacocks but none had an idea of what those birds were.
(http://www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/H/Hera.html )
Hera was also depicted as holding a pomegranate in her hand. This is similar to Sriphala, the wood apple which also had many kernels inside. Fruits like wood apple, pomegranate and maize have a common thread among them in having many pearl like seedlings that signify growth and prosperity.
Peacocks which are indigenous to India and South Asia have seeds and millets as their main food. The Sangam Tamil text called "Kurinjip paattu" (குறிஞ்சிப் பாட்டு) which describes the life in the hills (where the main God is Skanda whose vehicle is peacock) , gives a detailed description of how young girls guarded the millets cultivated in their lands. At the time of maturing of crops, parrots and other birds used to feed on them. The girls used to spend their time on a shed built on a tree in the middle of millets to chase away the birds and to keep guard on the plants. The pop-cone of the Vatican reminds of one such a scene when peacocks descend on the fields of ripe millet crops. This scene was a common place scene in Tamil lands of KuRinji (low level hilly tracts) in the Sangam period.
Another Sangam text called Perum PaanaaRRup padai describes peacocks dancing in small forests. They were not dense and woody forests, but small ones with short crops. ("மஞ்ஜை ஆலும் மரம் பயில் இறும்பின்" - line 495). As millets and grains are the staple food for peacocks, these small forests could refer to ChOlak kaadu (maize forests) or ChOlak kollai (maize fields).
Any motif depicting the peacock could have corn or pomegranate or any fruit that had small seeds or kernels arranged on it or within it, as they are favourite food for the peacocks and can be plucked easily by them.
It is another story how Hera and Zeus were Parvathy – Shiva replicas and their son Ares was Skanda replica which I will write in another article. Here I wish to point out that the Vatican Pop cone which was a remake of the grave –statue Emperor Hadrian of Rome had its original idea somewhere in Tamil lands or South Asia. As an admirer of Greek art, Hadrian must have got this motif from Greece and wished it to be incorporated in his grave. How this motif came to Greece is a mystery that can be solved by Tirayan connection to Greece. The root came from South Asia in early Tamils' culture.
There is yet another issue I want to say on this topic of maize in the hand of deities of temples. The only other image with a maize like or bud like vegetation is that of Vishnu in reclining posture. Describing the iconography of Anantasayin in Chapter 36 and verse 26, Mayamatham says that Vishnu in ananta sayana ( reclining posture on snake-bed) must be depicted with 4 hands. Upper two hands would hold Shanku and Chakra. Of the other two, the left hand holds a flower and the right hand holds his weapon, the mace. Mayamatham mentions "sapushpO Vaama hasthE". It does not say what flower it could be.
But according to Vishnudharmotthara (III – 81- 6a), Vishnu holds "Sanatana Manjari" in his left hand. A Manjari could be a sprout or pearl or bud or a clutter of blossoms or sprig or foliage or some flower. Manjari also means parallel line or row. This meaning fits with maize that has parallel rows of kernels.
Vishnu as Kurma with cone shaped lotus bud in his left hand.
Vishnu with maize having parallel rows of pearl like seeds.
Maize had taken the place of Sanatana Manjari as it fulfils the description of it.
That iconography has undergone modifications, though not on what they depict, can be seen by comparing the following image, with Vishnu of the above image. The following image is excavated from Dwaraka .
The Shanku or conch is seen in the left hand. The shape of the conch is long and not like how it is depicted generally. By the presence of Chakra (discus) in his right hand, we deduce that it is conch in his left hand. Though the concept of shanku- chakra had remained, the shape had changed over time.
Sometimes modifications had been made – perhaps by force of authority of the king. One such example is Lord Padmanabha swamy of Trivandrum. This deity comes close to the description of Ananta sayin of Mayamatham.
Moolavar – the main deity
The left hand holds lotus and the right hand is stretched out. There is a Shiva linga beneath the right hand. This is how the deity is seen in the temple.
The following image of Padmanabha swamy is the replica of the above image and is made of gold.
http://vakkomsen.blogspot.in/2011/07/sree-padmanabha-tempe-treasure-tight.html
This is one foot height and not in puja in the temple. This image is different from the main deity of the temple in that the right hand is in the pose of doing Puja (offering flower on a Shiva linga). This is an unusual posture that does not obey rules of iconography. Why and how this difference came in to place is a question. What I am going to say here as an explanation may not be palatable to some but there exists some unreported event that could throw some light on the difference in this posture.
This deity is mentioned twice in Silappadhikaram. Trivandrum or the abode of this God was known as "Adagamaadam" (ஆடகமாடம்) in Silappadhikaram. {Aadagam means Gold}. Madhari, the Yadava woman who did the famous Aicchiyar Kuravai song- dance in Silappadhikaram died by entering into fire after she heard the sad end of Kovalan and Kannagi. In her next birth she was born in the family of the Priest of Padmanabha swamy temple. Silappadhikaram says this and in that context the info on Lord at Adagamaadam comes. ("ஆடகமாடத் தரவணைக் கிடந்தோன் சேடக் குடும்பியின் சிறுமகள் ஈங்குளாள்" Silappadhikaram chapter 30, line 51)
Another context is that the Cheran King Seguttuvan was preparing to go on his Northern expedition to the Himalayas. At that time the priests of Padmanabha temple were waiting to offer him the "Sedam" (sevadi > Sadaari - meaning the feet) of Lord of Adagamaadam. But the king did not take it on his head as he already had Lord Shiva's feet on his crown. So he took up Lord Padmanabha's sEdam on his shoulders. Commentators write that this sEdam is the garland. Since Lord Shiva's sedam (garland) was on his head, the king could not take Padmanabha's sedam on his head and so he took it in his shoulders.
I differ from this view. By the description that Shiva's feet (Sevadi), it is deduced that he is an ardent devotee of Lord Shiva and "sedam" refers to Sevadi or feet of Lord or sadari..
This is how the Sadari looks. It has Lord's feet embedded on a crown.
This crown will be touched on the heads of devotees as a mark of Lord's feet touching the devotee's head.
The priest puts the sadari on a devotee's head in the picture below.
The priests of the Shiva temple had already offered the SEdam – Sevadi to the Cheran king. (Today there is no practice of offering Sadari in Shiva temples) Or else the king had the feet of Shiva engraved on the crown on his head. Or the king could have offered his prayers to Lord Shiva by placing his head on the feet of Lord Shiva. Now the priests of Vishnu temple (Padmanabha swamy of Adagamaadam) had come to meet him to offer the sEdam of Lord Padmanabha. But the King did not take up the sadari on his head but instead took it on his shoulders. The Silappadhikaram verse makes a veiled reference to his 'tolerance' towards other Gods. (1)
This makes me think that this Cheran king could have established the supremacy of Shiva in his kingdom. This could have prompted him to make changes in the iconography of Lord Padmanabha by having removed the mace from his right hand and instead placed the Shiva linga under that hand. This gives an impression that Vishnu was doing Puja to Shiva and therefore Shiva was superior to Vishnu. To make this a perpetual one, he could have made the golden image of Padmanabha with his right hand holding a flower as though doing puja to the Shiva linga. This king was powerful and even brutal. No one could have gone against him had he really wanted to make a change like this. This incident could have never even been murmured around and that is why there is no way to know that he was instrumental in making the change. But the Silappadhikaram verse gives an indication that there is scope to believe that he visited the Shiva temple to take up the sEdam. By not taking the Vishnu's sEdam on his head, he had shown his allegiance to Shiva more than Vishnu.
This is being told to show that changes in traditional ways of iconography could have been possible at times. But it is very rare and there is no explicit record of such changes as seen in Padmanabha image. On such occasions, if at all such occasions existed, the changes could have been suggested by sages and teachers (Guru) based on some ideology or concept of religious significance and not by sheer force alone.
By this it is suggested that the appearance of maize in the hand of the deities of Hoysala period was the result of adaptation to local culture not in opposition to traditional notions of iconography.
Notes:
(1) The verse from Silappadhikaram chapter 26, lines 61 to 67.
'குடக்கோக் குட்டுவன் கொற்றம் கொள்க' என,
ஆடகமாடத்து அறிதுயில் அமர்ந்தோன்
சேடம் கோண்டு, சிலர் நின்று ஏத்த,
தெண்- நீர் கரந்த செஞ் சடைக் கடவுள்
வண்ணச் சேவடி மணி முடி வைத்தலின்,
ஆங்கு- அது வாங்கி, அணி மணிப் புயத்துத்
தாங்கினன் ஆகி, தகைமையின் செல்வுழி-
- Jayasree
*********
From
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/11/maize-and-pine-cone-meluhha-hieroglyphs.html
Maize and pine-cone Meluhha hieroglyphs of ancient Indo-Eurasia
Maize and pine-cone Meluhha hieroglyphs of ancient Indo-Eurasia