balaji mundkur - the alleged diffusion of hindu divine symbols into pre-columbian mesoamerica

The Alleged Diffusion of Hindu Divine Symbols into Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica:A Critique [and Comments and Reply]

Balaji Mundkur; George Agogino; Thomas S. Barthel; Claude F. Baudez; Margaret N. Bond;Donald L. Brockington; Johanna Broda; Michael D. Coe; Marvin Cohodas; Jeremiah F. Epstein;Ylotl Gonzlez; John S. Henderson; R. A. Jairazbhoy; David H. Kelley; John Paddock; AllisonC. Paulsen; J. D. Stewart

Current Anthropology, Vol. 19, No. 3. (Sep., 1978), pp. 541-583.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28197809%2919%3A3%3C541%3ATADOHD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Current Anthropology is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgThu Jan 31 17:05:40 2008

CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vo1. 19, NO.3, September 1978 @ 1978 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research 001 1-3204/78/1902-0004$04455

The Alleged Diffusion of Hindu Divine

Symbols into Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica:

by Balaji Mundkur

PARALLELSBETWEEN CERTAIN RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS in Hindu and Mesoamerican cultures have been drawn by several modern writers and adduced as evidence suggestive of trans-Pacific diffusion of Hindu influences dating to about the mid-1st millennium A.D. and later. The symbols concerned are those of the deities of the lunar asterisms and the planets-the nak~a t r a and navagrahnlz series, respectively, of the Hindus-as com-pared with the structural features and symbols of the 20-day period in the 260-day Tzolkin/Tonalpohualli sacred calendar

1 This work was done while I was Visiting Fellow a t Yale Univer- sity, 1976-77. I am indebted to George Kubler for many stimu- lating discussions concerning the Mesoamerican material, the use of his library, and his critical reading of my manuscript. The views expressed herein, and any errors that they may contain, are mine. A small part of this work was facilitated by a travel grant from the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. I am grateful to the staffs of the Central Library, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi; the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune; and the Asiatic Society of Bombay, in particular S. D. Chittar, for their helpfulness.

BALAJIMUNDKURhas an adjunct appointment on the faculty of Art History, to lecture on Hindu-Buddhist religious art and architecture and on Islamic art, while retaining his formal position as Associate Professor of Biology a t the University of Con- necticut (Box U-42, Storrs, Conn. 06268, U.S.A.). His publications in the sciences have appeared in Experimental Cell Research, Cancer Research, Genetics, Journal of Histochemistry and Cyto-chemistry, Acta Cytologica, Nature, Zeitschri,ft fur Zellforschung, and the Journal of Bacteriology, among others. For the past several years, however, his research interests have been exclusively in the humanities and cross-cultural, particularly concerning anthro-pological aspects of religious art, animal cults, and iconography. His publications in these areas include "The Cult of the Serpent in the Americas: I ts Asian Background" (CA 17:429-41), "The Enigma of Vaingyaki" !!;,tibus Asiae 37[4]), and "Western Karnataka Icons at Shirali (Archives of Asian Art and Pro-ceedings of the American Oriental Society). He has two articles now in press-"The Roots of Ophidian Symbolism" (Ethos) and "Notes on Two Ancient Fertility Cults" (East and Wes t ) . He is currently preparing for publication an article, "Ha y y a in Islamic Traditions," and a book on serpent cults of the world utilizing an approach based both in the sciences and in the humanities. He received his education both in India, where he was born, and in the U.S.A. and owes his nonscientific interests partly to extensive travels. The present paper, submitted in final form 29 XII 77, was sent

for comment to 50 scholars. The responses are printed below and are followed by a reply by the author.

Vol. 19 . No. 3 . September 1978

of Mesoamerica; a series of nine lunar hieroglyphs of the Maya; and certain groups of deities of the Aztecs and the Zapotecs. These comparisons seem feeble not only because they are superficial and intrinsically contradictory, but also because they are opposed by a vast body of variations in Hindu religious symbolism. Furthermore, they are chronologically incom- patible with historical events. The arguments against these comparisons of imagined parallels have broader implications concerning the totally independent development of astronomical-astrological beliefs among pre-Columbian societies isolated from the Old World, and they illustrate the hazards of utilizing a veneer of religious data that would obscure this in- dependence. The notion that certain features of pre-Columbian religious

symbolism and art stemmed from Mesoamerican contacts with the cultures of India or Indianized Asia is persistently fostered by a minority of modern Americanists. I t is reminiscent of earlier hypotheses that seem to reflect a reluctance to grant New World aborigines the potential of fully independent social evolution, particularly when there exists the slightest hint, albeit imaginary, of "parallel," "ancestral" situations among the Old World civilizations. Not only systematic archaeology, but also modern physical anthropology, geology, hematology, and epidemiology all strongly suggest the absence of foreign influences in Mesoamerica earlier than the 16th century (see Stewart 1973). One cannot ignore the data from these fields when discussing trans-Pacific culture diffusion, though the present theme is not a t all dependent on their support.

The early history of beliefs about culture diffusion to the New World, however, is of some relevance even though we need not consider it here. The writings of Garcia (1607), Viollet-le-Duc (1863), Charnay (1885), and Baron de Waldeck (1838), among others, set the tone of views held between the 17th and 19th centuries. Bizarre and fanciful though they may seem to us now, they were moulded by contemporary scholar- ship and European social attitudes. Modern proponents of the view that cultural influences may indeed have been transmitted across the Pacific during the few centuries immediately preceding or following the beginning of the Christian era differ essentially little from its earlier champions, a t least regarding the relative ease with which they seem to detect influences that, they imply, were grafted upon Mesoamerican cultures. The data these proponents advance, however, are characterized

by considerably more attractive sophistry, involving deeper facets of art, symbolism, and religion, and for this reason merit attention. The general topic is covered in a recent sym- posium and review (Riley et al. 1971, Gardini 1974). I t is remarkable how certain attitudes from the older litera-

ture have been revived in the face of contradictory data and, sometimes, simple logic. For example, Baron de Waldeck, who between 1829 and 1836 explored the Mayan ruins at Palenque, made sketches of friezes a t this site purportedly depicting elephant heads. Commenting on these, Thompson (1927:393), whose authority and archaeological experience few will question, understated that Waldeck, "who . . . was more of an artist than an archaeologist, was not strongly blessed with the gift of accuracy." Waldeck's sketches are paradoxical not only because the elephant is not a Western-hemisphere species and even its prehistoric relatives were extinct here thousands of years ago, but also because the sketches have no correspon-dence at all to actual Mesoamerican relics. Yet, Heine-Geldern (1966) and Ekholm (1953), unaware of the complexities of the art of India, and on the basis of very meager examples which show only the most tenuous traits of elephantine physi- ognomy, have regarded them as one of the indicators of Hindu- Buddhist religious influence in Mexico, exerted in the early post-Christian centuries and peaking at perhaps ca. A.D. 700. Various Southeast Asian countries-ancient India's cultural outposts-are envisioned as way stations. Examples of this kind, based largely on subjective compari-

sons of works of art or other fragile coincidences such as occasional linguistic similarities, need not detain us. The iconographic and architectural precepts of Hinduism are unique, and the differences in the essential qualities of Asian and pre- Columbian religious art are wholly implacable, not to mention their quite distinct conventions of symbolism, aesthetic pref- erences, and treatment of the subject matter portrayed. Rands (1953), Caso (1962), and Willey (1974) have questioned the alleged Asian "origins" of artistic motifs even without in-voking the support of Hindu iconographic texts. I will examine only the more beguiling line of argument of

three modern writers, Kirchhoff (1964), Kelley (1969, 1972, 1974), and Barthel (1974, 1975a), who imply that a certain significant class of resemblances exists among the cultures of Hinduized Asia and Mesoamerica. Their thesis is beguiling not in that it is stated eloquently and accurately, but, rather, in that it depends, in my opinion, upon a body of specialized knowledge so unfamiliar and, understandably, difficult for most archaeologists and anthropologists to grasp that, unless closely scrutinized, it is apt to be seductive. Oblivious of the intrica- cies, they invoke certain debatable features of Hindu pan-theism. These they isolate from context, treat superficially, document inadequately, and only very perfunctorily cast against a historical background. They compare certain Mexi- can with Asian, predominantly Hindu, deities, categorizing them by function and symbolic attributes such as their animal mounts or the natural elements they personify. They either interpret these features with undue latitude or unaccountably overlook them, to the extent that the detection of resem-blances between these deities is held out as palpable. I n the end, what their arguments disclose is insensitivity to an ex-tremely complex Asian religion and its literature-the more so because an immense body of ancient texts in Sanskrit has been translated and competently annotated by Hindu as well as Western scholars. Thus, the majority of physical anthropologists and archaeologists, who, surely, are even less cog- nizant of this literature than the diffusionists, are liable to be confused by the clash of the latter's conclusions with their own more systematically established tenets. I t is in this sense that claims of Mesoamerican "parallels" and "Hindu influ-ences" are subtly distractive. I wish to refute these, pointing out only my most salient objections and some of the key

sources. To facilitate verification, I have cited, with few ex- ceptions, works in the European languages. An important part of this critique deals with what may

seem at first to be an emphasis on tendentious detail. I do not disagree with any general theory of diffusion which holds that the implantation of strange cultural elements from across the vast expanses of the Pacific, if such indeed occurred, very likely entailed complex modifications of the imported traits. Yet, it is the three diffusionists considered here who choose to envision parallels built upon superficial details of religious symbolism.

ICONOGRAPHY

To understand the principal subject of this critique-calendrical symbolism-the reader may require a few, very brief in- troductory remarks on iconography. An overwhelmingly great proportion of the Hindu-Buddhist archaeological record, especially that part of it which is significant from the viewpoint of possible diffusion to Mesoamerica, belongs to the post- rather than the pre-Christian era. The religious art of this period underwent, in India, a rapid development. Its roots lie in the pre-Christian centuries, but, beginning a further differ- entiation during the Christian era, it had crystallized well before the end of the 1st millennium. This interval coincides with the growth of Puriinic literature, an immense body of fanciful myths rather like the Greek ones. They retain a weak, modified base of the much earlier traditions of the Vedic and Epic periods. The essentially demotic, rather than philosophical, character of the Puriinas was complemented by a profu- sion of artistic and architectural monuments representing the very complex Hindu pantheon. The need to categorize the attributes of the innumerable deities for purposes of identifi- cation and as a guide for the sculptor or painter and the archi- tect was fulfilled through numerous very detailed texts in San- skrit, known generically as the s'ilpa s'istra and vista s'istra. These distra prescribe almost every imaginable detail of

image making: when and how to begin work on one; the religious ceremonies and rituals involved in the process; the materials to be used; composition of the alloys; colors; animal and other symbols; postures of seated and standing deities; ornaments; vestments; ancillary attendants; the days or times most propitious for worshipping a particular deity; the varied forms assumed by a deity; taboos; and an incredible list of other details. I t is no wonder, as we shall see, that differences of interpretation of detail exist in the various texts despite a certain underlying unity and standardization. Thus, the religious myths of the PurH~as and the astronomical-astrological beliefs of the period, which lasted until about the mid-15th century, were interpreted through highly formalized, easily recognizable symbolic devices. What characterized the art of India, however, was an insis-

tence upon the observance of certain canons of proportions, basic symbolic motifs, and gestures which convey a message. The iconometric and broad morphological constraints upon the artist fashioning an image of a deity were severely conserva- tive. I t is these qualities that typify Hindu (and, by extension, Buddhist) art that have enabled the perpetuation of the "In- dianness" of its visual impact even in those countries of South- east Asia to which India exported its religions and that demand instant verification when a claim is made that traces of its symbolism are detectable in the art motifs or abstract calendrical signs of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. I will exemplify these remarks with reference only to the work of Kirchhoff, but they are no less pertinent when Kelley and Barthel invoke Hindu deities and their symbols-as these authors understand them-in their comparisons of Hindu and Mesoamerican calendrical structure.

C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Kirchhoff's criteria for his thesis that the Hindus diffused their religious system to Mesoamerica include the practice of blood sacrifices and such traits as are ascribed to deities like those of rain, war, fire, fertility, and death among diverse cultures the world over-cultures totally isolated from each other during their historical development. Kirchhoff draws up a list of 12 Hindu-Javanese deities to parallel the Mexican. There are, according to Kirchhoff (1964b:13), resemblances

in "a considerable number of motives in religious art , in-cluding the representation of specific gods with their charac-teristic paraphernalia." In fact, a comparison of the iconog-raphies of Mexico (Seler 1960-61, Beyer 1965, Nicholson 1971, Proskouriakoff 1950) with those of India (Gopinatha Rao 1914, Banerjea 1956) will reveal the hollowness of this assertion. Kirchhoff mentions not a single one of the numerous pertinent Hindu treatises either to support his claim or to facilitate independent judgment by the reader. The Hindu artistic convention of representing deities with multiple pairs of hands is well known. Each of the hands is normally assigned a specific object, such as a weapon, flower, trident, axe, or conch. The deity is not only identified by attributes like these and the particular order in which they are held, but also char-acterized by hand gestures, or mudrd, that denote the deity's aspect or mood, for example, threat, anger, protection, ser-monizing, generosity, benediction, etc. In addition, there are innumerable details involving ancillary personages, animal mounts, hierarchical ranking, and taboos, all of which are set against a background suggesting a specific myth concerning the deity. In short, the Hindu sculptor's personal and profes-sional expression was constrained by strict adherence to the traditional rules of composition and artistic proportions. These conventions were so standardized between the early post-Christian era and the 10th century that neither the identifica-tion nor the exact meaning of an artistic representation is likely to remain obscure. Nothing remotely akin to these Hindu symbols and conventions occurs in Mesoamerica. What little is known about gesture in the art of the Maya (Benson 1973), taken together with the extraordinary disagreement among modern Mayanists as to whether Classic Maya sculp-tures represent priest-kings or deities, only serves to sharpen the contrasts. I shall return to these fundamental contrasts of religious

systems later, but an incongruity must be pointed out imme-diately. The parallels Kirchhoff draws are not between Hindu deities and the shadowy ones of the Maya, usually considered by diffusionists the primary recipients of Hindu religious cul-ture. Rather, they involve the deities of the Aztecs-a people identifiable in history only some five centuries after the cessa-tion of alleged Hindu influence upon the Maya, whose own, undoubted cultural impress upon the Aztecs was transmitted indirectly through the Toltecs. Even if one were to imagine that direct contact between the Hindus and Aztecs occurred in about the 14th century A.D. or that earlier, indirect influ-ences were exerted through peoples other than the Maya, Kirchhoff's effort to seek parallels between their deities does not withstand scrutiny. The fundamental differences are too many, and they contrast glaringly with the occasional, minor "shared" attributes which diffusionists regard as impressive. For example, a parallel is drawn between the gods of fire, the

Hindu Agni and the Mexican Xiuhtecuhtli. Gopinatha Rao (1914, vol. 2:523-24) translates the Agamic description of Agni's iconic characteristics as follows: Agni should be of red colour, with four arms and the hair or jafd of the head which should also be of red colour, standing on end and forming a sort of prabhdmandala [aureole]. He should be seated upon a ram. The front two hands should be held in the varada [boon-granting] and abhaya ["fear not"] poses, while in the back right hand there should be the sruk [ladle] and in the back left hand the iakti [spear]. According to another authority, Agni

should be of the colour of molten gold or the red colour of the rising sun and be clad in red garments; he should also have a moustache and a yajcopavita [sacred thread across the torso]. In his hands he should keep the aksamcild [rosary] and the kamandalu [ritual waterpot]. Where he is represented as possessing four arms, the Vishnudharmdttara states, he should carry in his right hands the flames of fire (jvcilds) and the triizila [trident spear] and in one of the left hands the aksamdld, while the remaining left hand should be embracing his wife Sv lh l . I t also adds that Agni should have four sharp tusks and that his chariot should be drawn by four parrots and that the banner on i t should be d hh a k e t u [smoke]. . . . Of course, variations of this description, which is taken from

the Suprabhed6gama, occur even in India. Some icons of Agni are two-headed, and other variations of major and minor na-ture occur in texts like the Devatdmzirtiprakarapant, Matsya-Pz~ripa,Rzipamandanam, Vis?zudharmottara-Purina,and others too numerous to be named. A certain degree of transmutation of iconographic precepts would be inevitable were Hindu influ-ences grafted upon the very different Mesoamerican culture. Still, one would be hard put to recognize in Xiuhtecuhtli a feature which approximates any of these in significant ways. The single most characteristic attribute apparent in the de-tailed descriptions of Xiuhtecuhtli (Seler 1960-61; Beyer 1965:237-44; Palacios 1935) is one with which Agni has no mythic association whatsoever-the serpent. Xiuhtecuhtli's fiery reptile, the xiuhcoatl, is the direct metaphoric equivalent of Agni's flames, but his numerous other symbols are icono-graphically no less important. On the other hand, Xiuhtecuhtli, like Agni, is symbolized by red, the color people everywhere normally link with heat and fire. Few would seriously advance this or the fact that Xiuhtecuhtli occasionally carries the gzlncamaya (macaw) as more than superficial similarities. I t would seem superfluous to argue further along iconological

lines to point out flaws in Kirchhoff's equivalences and group-ings of Hindu and Mexican divinities. The example I have just given, along with others involving deities of the sun, rain, and cardinal directions discussed previously (Mundkur 1976: 432, 452), should suffice. In addition, many of my statements concerning the views of Kelley in the next section on the naksatra series also apply to Kirchhoff's, as I will show with specific examples. The weaknesses of Kirchhoff's thesis have been considered from another viewpoint by Caso (1964), who discusses the many factors which make transoceanic historical contacts between Asia and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica highly improbable. Kirchhoff's simplistic reasoning is perhaps best illustrated by his own words. Invoking pre-Columbian Chinese influences-which, he believed, may have fused with predomi-nantly Hindu imports to Mesoamerica-he compared the Chi-nese dragon, mythic symbol of benevolence, prosperity, and life, with the Mexican Itzpapalotl. The latter is a demoniacal butterfly goddess who bears the emblems of death on her face. Itzpapalotl, states Kirchhoff (1964b:15), "is likewise drawn with wings and claws, that is, as a dragon." And (p. 27), "We might think that the great religious complex of War, Human Sacrifice and Blood first arose among the Olmecs if it were not for the fact that the rise of that people or rather group of peoples seems to have coincided with the arrival in Mexico of Indian-Southeast Asian ideas and institutions." Need one ask the obvious questions as to what evidence Kirchhoff had for the prior absence of these traits in Mesoamerica and where he got the notion that the Hindus practiced bloodthirsty human sacrifices? Apart from sati-the rite of self-immolation, practiced symbolically by upper-class widowed women during the Vedic age (ca. 1500 B.c.) and revived in a literal way, though only occasionally and in extremely limited situations, during the mid-2d millennium A.D.-human sacrifices have

Vol. 19 . No. 3 September 1978

never had a place among Hindu religious customs (Apte 1951 : 381, 454, 513; Malik 1928; Thapar 1966:41, 152). Cases of child sacrifice to the goddess KIli have sometimes been given much publicity in recent times, but these are exceedingly rare, uninstitutionalized aberrations which few will seriously con-sider to be one of the typical Hindu legacies to Mesoamerica.

THE NAKSATRA SERIES

The propositions of Kirchhoff ( 1964~ ) and Kelley (1969), including their tabulated alignments of Asian and Mesoameri- can calendrical symbols, undoubtedly possess a certain superficial attraction stemming from their originality. Their basic assumptions have more recently been adopted by Barthel (1974), but his discussion of the theme of this section is brief and based on much the same type of reasoning. I will consider primarily Kelley's and Kirchhoff's schemes, as they are earlier and more exhaustive. Kelley (1969) concentrates on comparisons involving as-

tronomy, with several tables and astral maps pertaining to Chinese, Hindu, Jain, Burmese, and Cambodian divinities or calendric symbols, and the Greek and Hebrew alphabets. At first glance, these impressed me greatly, particularly because Joseph Needham's great work on the history of Chinese science forms one of the bases of Kelley's discussion of Asian- Mesoamerican "parallels." One soon realizes, however, that the pivot of Kelley's argument is the central position he accords to Hindu lunar calendrical deities and that considerations involving other Asian countries are wholly ancillary and less weighty. Needham's "discussion of the Hindu nakshatras [lunar asterisms]," says Kelley (p. 147), "covers the main points. [His] analysis draws heavily upon the work of de Saussure and of J. B. Biot but adds a great deal to their accounts. . . . Needham, rather than his sources, will be cited." The writings of de Saussure and Biot, one might point out, have long since been superseded by more accurate and pertinent information on Hindu astral concepts. Oddly, if one explores Needham's text (1959:252-58), one

finds that he nowhere cites the list of naksatra utilized by Kelley. Presumably, the latter has extracted this from limited information given in one or another of the very few sources of Hindu astronomy which Needham himself depends upon, though these adequately fulfil his own quite different aims. Kelley points out sequences and attributes of Hindu deities

associated with the lunar cycle, purportedly to establish parallel sequences and attributes of days, which, in the Aztec and Maya calendars, are named after deities, animals, or natural phenomena. As with Kirchhoff's alignments, one is struck by the historical paradox of Kelley's statements (p. 151) that "the Maya list shows only four obvious sequent similarities with the Hindu deity list" whereas "the Aztec list shows 12 of 20 obvious, 'primary' sequential correspondences with the Maya list but only seven with the Hindu deity lists." That is to say, the Aztec calendar exhibits three more correspondences with the Hindu deity list than are allegedly detectable in the much earlier list of Maya calendric symbols. This claim tacitly carries an implication which is difficult to accept: namely, that the Hindus exerted cultural influence more effectively upon the Aztecs than upon the Maya. The calendrical concepts of the latter were surely mature by the first quarter of the 4th century A.D. (Thompson 1954 :53), and their cultural eclipse, partly by Toltec domination, was largely manifest by the end of the 1st millennium A.D. The Aztecs did not clearly emerge in ethnohistory before the beginning of the 14th century. Thus, the paradox arises from the circumstance that while undoubtedly the Maya transmitted, through the Toltecs, the essential features of their calendar to the Aztec homeland, history and archaeology-and the ensuing discussion-cast

doubt upon the notion that the Hindus diffused their calendrical symbols to the Maya, the Aztec, or any Meosamerican society which affected the latter. Certain details in Kelley's comparisons require close ques-

tioning. For the convenience of readers, I have reproduced his crucial figure 19 as my table 1, omitting his columns on Chi- nese lunar mansions and on the Greek and Hebrew alphabets because they are irrelevant for our purposes. I have, in addition, eliminated the glyphs linked to Maya day names and a pictorial column on Jain symbols. The Jains are a very small, ultraorthodox religious group very different from the Hindus and share many of these symbols with the latter, but they never diffused their beliefs beyond India, since sentiments of self-pollution prohibited them from venturing overseas. Except for these deletions, the contents of table 1 appear exactly as Kelley presents them, his errors and omissions included.

Table 1 should be explained briefly: In the first column are 28 Hindu naksatra (lunar mansions or asterisms). Each repre- sents a different group of stars, varying in number from one to about one hundred. They occupy successive segments of the night sky corresponding to angular distances of approximately 133" in the moon's orbital path. Now, the moon, in addition to moving westward along with the stars, is also ob- servable as slowly moving eastward among them. The fact that the moon acquires a different background of naksatra about every 24 hours and cyclically returns to the initial naksatra in about 27: days explains why 27 or 28 members comprise the series. Each naksatra is personified by a young girl, has a fixed sequential position in Kelley's scheme, and is associated with a presiding deity. The deity list, as Kelley chooses it, and the attributes of each deity, as Kelley em-phasizes them, are shown in the second column. I t is the sequences of certain of these deities, together with their attributes, that, according to Kelley, betray similarities to his corresponding alignments of Aztec and Maya day names, attributes of the days, or deities, as listed in the remaining four columns. My opposition to this claim stems from Hindu literature and art, but important facets of the Maya and Aztec religions are also involved. Before I elaborate on table 1, two important points need

stressing: First, Kelley's emphasis is not on the naksatra list per se, but on the characteristics of a few selected naksatra and, even more, of their presiding deities. I will endeavor to show that these Hindu deities (a) are not so commandingly important in the naksatra series as Kelley imagines, (b) have inconstant, interchangeable attributes, and (c) are inconstant in their sequential positions. Second, the sequences of the individual naksatra have not, historically, always commenced with the same leading naksatra. In addition, a certain naksatra may be listed twice but in the company of different presiding deities; a particular naksatra may occupy the same skquential position in separate lists, with different presiding deities; two different naksatra, each with a different deity, may occupy the same sequential position in different lists; and one of the naksatra in a sequence may be dropped. Variations like these only show the futility of rigid alignments of Hindu versus Meso- american deity lists. The implications are most pertinent to questions of time relationships in culture diffusion.

In the list chosen by Kelley, a standard, "modern" one used even today, the naksatra series is headed by ASvini and ends with Revati. Abvini's leading position only signifies the fact that the vernal equinox occurred in the first point of ABvini approximately during the early to mid-6th century A.D. and that this particular naksatra series was not used before that event. As proof of this, one may point out that the ASvini-to- Revati order is attested neither in the Yijiiavalkya-smyti nor in even the most recent additions, ca. A.D. 500, to the Mahd- blzirata (Chatterjee 1967 : 11 I ) , which indicates that innova- tions in astronomy had not as yet crept into the religious


literature of the masses. This is consistent with the fact that astronomical treatises which adhere to the ASvini-to-Revati order are not known earlier than the Szlrya-Siddhrinta or the Khandakhidyaka of Brahmagupta (A.D. 598-665?). Hazra (1958 :143) deduces that the old KyttikH-to-Bharani order "held ground at best down to the latter half of the 5th century A.D.," and that the Aivini-to-Revati series was "an established fact in all parts of India . . . only as late as A.D. 550," approximately coinciding with its adoption in the Byhat-Samhitd of Variihamihira.2 Here I must indicate the significance of the concept of

mukham (idipramukha), or temporal headship, of the naksatra series. In the Vedic age, commencing 2000 B.c., and earlier, epochs were named after particular members of a series -the change of leadership synchronizing with the end of one naksatra epoch and the beginning of another. In the earliest, Rg Vedic, period, for example, the leading naksatra was Mygaiiras, but a recession to the constellation Pleiades, i.e., the naksatra Kyttika, is reflected in the literature comprising the Brghmanas (as in the Taittiriya-Brihmana) and in the Taittirrya-Sn~hiti, i.e., ca. 800 B.C. Law (1965) and Abhyan- kar (1976) give many details, as do Macdonell and Keith (1967), but the latter authors erroneously state (pp. 4-20) that "all the lists of the Naksatras begin with KyttikHs." KrttikI persisted as leading member surely during the time of Patanjali (whose dates of birth and death are problematical), but even Panini (300-250 B.c.?), in his Ast$dhyiyi, recognized Kyttik2 for ritual purposes but placed SravisthL (=Dha-nisthl), and not Aivini, at the head of the list for ordinary reckoning (Agrawala ,1953 :177). In the Mahibhirata, the leading naksatra is Sravaqa. The Vis?zudharmottara-Purea (A.D.400-500) invariably retains Krttika as mukhanz. Even the Agni-Puritza (A.D. 800-900) follows this practice, except once, in verse- 8 of chapter 219, which recognizes ASvini as mukham. From the viewpoint of cultural diffusion, these essential

points enable us to detect a curious feature in Kelley's list. In conformity with modern usage, he commences the naksatra series with ABvini in the lead, but vitiates chronological con-notations by giving mukham rank No. 1, midstream, and for no apparent reason, to Kyttika. Thus, we are denied the clue as to when the naksatra deities should be understood to have been imported into Mesoamerican thought. The transition from KyttikI, as mukham, to ASvini was effected, as I have just said, only in the mid-6th century A.D. This date heralds the Puranic age and coincides with the active cultural domination by the Hindus of the coastal or riverine regions of what are now Java, Cambodia, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Here they left their legacies of Purgnic iconography, myths, secular traditions, and, in particular, an important corpus of inscriptions in the Sanskritic and Dravidian languages of India (Coedhs 1968, Gonda 1973, Majumdar 1963, Nilakantha Sastri 1949). Evidences of these cultural imports are as abundant in South- east Asia as their absence is conspicuous in Mesoamerica. Not a shred of these survives, not even recognizably transmuted, in any of the ceremonial centers of Mexico and Guatemala to which the Hindus are believed to have diffused their religious symbolism. Yet, Kelley sees these traits in a body of naksatra- associated deities whom :he Hindus themselves do not envision in quite the same light that he casts upon them. That these presiding deities grace the naksatra series merely

honorifically, while overriding importance is bestowed upon the naksatra, is evident in numerous ways. In astrology, so crucial in day-to-day activities and so inseparable from the lunar calendar of the Hindus, one's destiny is considered to be determined by the particular naksatra under which one is

"For a critical appraisal of the date of Varihamihira, based on his own astronomical computations and statements, see Dhavale (1968). Vol. 19 . No. 3 - September 1978

Mundkur: ALLEGED DIFFUSION OF HINDU SYMBOLS TO MESOAMERICA

born. Children ordinarily are named not after the presiding deity so much as after the naksatra, or the various stars they represent, particularly when these are considered to be auspi- cious (Kane 1938). To this day, Hindu women worship KyttikL and Rohini, rather than their corresponding deities, Agni and Prajapati (Hazra 1958:176). A commentary (pp. 40, 41) on the YijEavalkya-smrti recommends "secret," "beneficial," naksatra names. Epithets like AmbL, Dulfi, Varsayanti (and other stars represented by Kyttikg), Roh i ~ i , Citrg, AnuradhH, Revati, Ardrl, Siddhya, Tisya, or their derivatives are common even today. The practice is an ancient one, specifically noted in the Astidhyiyi (IV.3.28, 34, 37; VIII.3.100) in the 3d century B.C. Indeed, it is probable that the importance of the naksatra antedates the arrival of the Aryans and their sub- sequent addition of their (mainly male) deities as regents of these lunar asterisms. The pre-Aryan element is evident from such Dravidian deity names as Jyestha among the naksatra. The apotropaic, divinatory utility of the naksatra has always overshadowed the ornamental role of their presiding deities (Bapat 1953). The second argument against the placing of undue emphasis

upon the presiding deities is summarized in table 2. I t shows the variations in naksatra lists in only a few representative religious works, all of which belong to approximately the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C. They are based on Kirfel (1920), but I have added the presiding deity corresponding to each naksatra in the various lists. The deities are shown by capital letters, and, to avoid confusing the reader with too many names, are indicated only where there are differences in the Hindu texts or inconsistencies with Kelley's list in their appearance alongside a particular naksatra. When the presiding deity is not indicated, it should be assumed that there is no difference in the pairing from that given by Kelley. A few of these inconsistencies are the following: Rohini

(No. 2 and/or No. 16) occurs twice. PrajLpati normally ac-companies Rohini in position No. 2, but Indra displaces him in two of the lists in position No. 16. Jyestha (No. 16) occu- pies the same position as Rohini in four of these lists, in one of which her presiding deity is neither Indra nor Prajgpati but Varuna. The latter also appears alongside Satabhisaj (No. 23) in one of the lists, whereas Indra appears in the others. ViSLkhe (No. 14) has IndrIgni as presiding deity, not Indra as in Kelley's list. Citrii (No. 12) has Tvastr in three cases but Indra in the two others. Invaka or MygaSiras (No. 3) occurs alongside both Soma and Marutah. Mula (No. 17) is not only joined to another naksatra, Bharani, to give the compound appellation Mfilabharani, but also replaced by Vicytau- variations which involve three very different presiding deities. Minor variations in the form of appellation for certain naksatra are apparent in table 2, but, apart from this, one can easily detect in table 1 several differences in sequential positions of the presiding deities and nak~at ra in addition to those just pointed out. The trifling importance the Hindus attach to the sequence

of the presiding deities is apparent in other ways. According to a myth of very early origin, popular to this day, the god Soma (the moon) is simultaneously the spouse of the 27 (naksatra) daughters of Dak~a . Soma's favorite, and the one in whose company he spends too much time, is Rohini (No. 2 ) . However, Soma is never her presiding deity in any of the various naksatra lists, archaic or recent. To continue with the myth, Rohini's jealous sisters complain bitterly to their father, who, in anger, forces Soma to be impartial to his daughters and at the same time punishes him with the curse of consump- tion and alternate periods of recovery and wasting. This is why the moon, at present, waxes and wanes, becoming full alongside a different naksatra each month. By contrast, in the

TABLE 1

cn Q\

Hindu Lunar Mansions

RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN MAYA-AZTECDAY-NAMESEQUENCESAND HINDUNak~atra(LUNARMANSIONS) AND DEITY SEQUENCES ACCORDINGTO KELLEY(1969)

Hindu Gods of the Lunar Mansions Aztec Day Gods Aztec Day-names Mayan Attributes of the Days

-

Maya Day-names

27. Asvini 27. Asuins, theTWINS 5. Chalchihuitlicue,Jade Skirt, a water goddess

5. Coatl, Snake, TWIN 5. Rattlesnake, fire his spirit, bad his destiny, assassin

5. Chicchan, twisted snake, day of the rain serpents no. 9

28. Bharani, bearer

1. Krittika

28. Yama, God of DEATH

1. Agni, God of Fire

6. Tecciztecatl, the moon god with Tezcatlipoca, Smoking Mirror

6. Miquiztli, *muki, DEATH

6. Owl, assassin, bad its fate 6. Cimi, DEATH no. 10

2. Rohini, red, Roe, DEER

2. Prajapati, high god in DEER shape

7. Tlaloc, the rain god 7. Mazatl, DEER 7. Parrot, Quetzal, mountain bird, Cacao tree (cf. 19), bloody claws, bad.

7. Manik; Ceh, DEER no. 11

3. Mrigasiras, stag's head

3. Soma, god of LIQUOR and the MOON-figure in moon RABBIT

8. Mayaud, goddess of the MOON, agave and DRUNKENNESS

8. Tochtli *taw, RABBIT- figure in moon a rabbit

8. DRUNK, deformed dog with jaguar head, LIAR

8. LAMAT, LAMBAT (day of Venus god?) no. 12

4. Ardra, MOIST 4. Rudra, red STORM god (cf. 18)

9. Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Venus god, with Xiuhtecuhtli, god of fire, year

9. At1 *pa, WATER 9. SHARK, jaguar; devourer of children, wives; rich, killer of opossums

9. MULUC, cf. Izil mu, Yuc. mucul, hidden Quiche MU, WET no. 13

5. Pumarvasu, the two good (ones) again

5. Aditi, mother of the gods as a cow

10. Mictlantecuhtli, god of death with Tonatiuh, sun god

10. Itzcuintli, dog 10. The adorned one, parakeet, adulterer; no judgment, understanding

10. Oc, formerly coyote

6. Pusya FLOWER

6. Brhaspati, teacher of gods-planet Jupiter

11. Xochipilli, FLOWER Prince, a sun god

11. Ozomatli,monkey 11. Woodworker, weaver, master of all arts, very rich, judicious

11. Chuen, formerly monkey

7. Aslesa, embracer

8. Magha, GENEROUS

7. Ahi, the serpents

8. Pitrs, the fathers, ancestral dead

12. Patecatl, the pulque and medicine god with jaguars and eagles holding BANNERS

12. Malinalli, twisted 12. Mountain thrush 12. Eb, twist, tooth Good rich man, GENEROUS

9. Purva-Phalguni

10. Uttara-Phalguni

9. Bhaga, God, epithet of Sauitr

10. Aryaman, "comrade"

13. Itztlacoliuhqui, god of cold and stones

13. Acatl *paka, reed, Codex form a SPEAR

13. Beggar, poor man, miserable, low class

13. Ben, reed

11. Hasta, hand 11. Saztitr, a sun god 14. Tlazolteotl, moon and earth goddess

14. Ocdotl, Jaguar 14. Bold jaguar, bloody mouth, bloody claws, meat eater, assassin, Ah Dzunacat

14. Ix, formerly jaguar

12. Chitra,bright

13. Svati

12. Tvastr, CHIEF OF CRAFTSMEN

13. Vayu, wind

15. Xipe Totec, god of flaying with a feathered serpent

15. Quauhtli, eagle 15. MASTER OF ALL THE ARTS, expert weaver, happy and cheerful, very good, of holy words

15. Men, MAKE

Mansions Lunar Mansions Aztec Day Gods Aztec Day-names Mayan Attributes of the Days Maya Day-names pp

14. Visakha 14. Indra, a high god, PROP OF HEAVEN

16. Itzpapalotl, Obsidian butterfly, with death

16. Cozcaquauhtli, VULTURE, or Teotl i tonal, Day of

16. Deer god, thief, hunter, brave assassin, bad fortune,

16. Cib, wax; Ahmac Chabin

markings-one of the GOD, (Matlatzimca, SUN) bad (cf. 6) PROPS OF HEAVEN or Tecolotl, OWL (star gods)

15. Anuradha 15. Mitra, sun and 17. Xolotl, dog of the 17. Ollin, movement, 17. Woodpecker, wise merchant, 17. Caban (cab, earth) Noh, fire god underworld with earthquake bleeder,'curer, good, medicine, a plain, strong

Tlalchitonatiuh, earth-sun judicious no. 1 16. Jymtha, oldest (or 16. Sakra, epithet of

Rohini, cf. 2) Indra 17. Md a 17. Nirrti, decease 18. Chalchiuhtotolin,Jewel

bird (turkey) 18. Tecpatl, flint 18. Bleeder of fevers, worked

flint, momote bird, healthy, 18. Etz'nab (flint knife)

no. 2 bleeder, curer, valiant

18. Purva-asadha 18. Apah, the WATER 19. Chantico, or Quaxolotl, fire 19. Quiauitl, RAIN or Ayutl, 19. Quetzal, infirmity and 19. Cauac, STORM goddesses goddess TURTLE misery as year-bearer, no. 3

Cacao, imaginative, noble

19. Uttara-asadha 19. Visvedeuah, the all gods

20. Abhijit, victorious (often omitted)

20. Brahma 20. Xochiqudzal, Flower Quetzal, the young moon

20. Xochitl, flower 20. Rapacious EAGLE, devouring and death of

20. Ahau, lord, ruler (ah, "male" + au) (refers to sun

goddess boys, rich, judicious, god) valiant, good no. 4

2 1. Sravana, ear (or 21. Vishnu Acvattha, sacred fig tree)

22. Sravistha, most 22. The Vmw , 9 1. Tomacatecuhtli, god of life 1. Cipactli, the earth 1. Corn-bread, Plumeria tree, 1. Imix, Mox, beetle Quiche famous earth gods crocodile comet, lascivious sinner, left-handed

dishonest, indecisive no. 5 23. Satabhisaj 23. Varuna, god of

ocean

2. Qudzalcoatl, feathered serpent

2. Ehecatl, wild 2. Winds, comet air, Plumeria tree, dishonest, very lascivious, bad its fate

2. Ik, wind, breath, life no. 6

24. Purva Bhadrapada 24. Aja Ekapad, the one-footed goat

3. Tepeyollotl, Heart of the Mountains, Jaguar god- with Tlazoltwtl, the old

3. Calli, HOUSE 3. Night, miserable, low class, without fortune, poor, hunter

3. Akbal, of the night no. 7

earth and moon goddess

25. Uttara Bhadrapada 25. Ahi Budhnya, serpent of the deeps

26. Reuati, WEALTHY 26. Pwan , theprosperer, 4. Ueuecoyotl, old fox, 4. Cuetzpallin, lizard 4. Corn goddess, rich, masters 4. Kan, ripe cn

charioteer of the sun a dance god of all arts, the merula bird, no. 8t the precious singers, red Ceiba tree, learned man

SOURCE:Kelley (1969: fig. 19), omitting columns on Chinese lunar mansions, Greek and Hebrew alphabets, glyphs linked to Maya day-names, and Jain symbols.

Purinic age (post-A.D. 500), the Pzirva-K6ra?z Agama names Rohini alone as Soma's consort; the Matsya-Purina and the Silpa-Ratna both name two personages, Kinti and SobhH, neither of whom is a naksatm (Gopinatha Rao 1914, vol. 1 : 319). Another important case is that of KrttikH (No. I ) , whose presiding deity is the very high-ranking god Agni (indicated in table 1 ) . In the voluminous Agni-Purdna, a text named after Agni, KrttikI nowhere appears as this god's con-sort (de Mallmann 1963). Some of the Puriinic lists replace Agni, the god of fire, by Skanda (=Kiirttikeya), the god of war (Apte 1890:420[a], 2).

A few of the Puriinic pairings of naksatra and presiding deity that differ from the "modern" sequence in table 1 are mentioned by Gupta (1967 :151, 169). That the Hindus historically have attached only minor significance to these pairings and have never insisted on their rigidity is best disclosed by the Vimana-PurE?za (54.1-9), a text datable to between the 14th and 15th centuries A.D. In this, the god Visnu (No. 21 in table 1) presides over not only Sravana, but also every one of the remaining naksatra. He is conceptualized as iiNaksatra-Purusa," the primeval man, each part of whose body is con- stituted by a different one of the 27 (not 28) naksatra. Pan- dey's (1970 :81) comparisons of astrological works suggest that this concept can be traced back at least to about A.D. 550, when Variihamihira wrote his Brhat-Samhiti.

The authenticity of Kelley's estimates of Hindu deities is in large part diminished by a facet of Hindu religious culture which I must initially explain. I t involves the abstruse philosophical concept of dvandva, which, entwined with the demotic Vedic and PurInic mythology, is reflected in the bewildering situations just examined and in others yet to be discussed. Zimmer's (1951) very lucid treatment of dvandva should be consulted if further clarification is needed. Briefly, the central idea of the concept of dvandva is that, in the final reckoning, all manifestations of nature, material as well as phenomenal, intermediates as well as extremes, are but qualities which describe, emanate from, and are fused in the Divine Power referred to as Brahman (brahmanah parimarah). In this ulti- mate, transcendental Power-the sole reality in nature-opposites are truly indistinguishable. They have no separate existence, for in this Power opposites dissolve in union, so that the distinctions we see in nature are only illusory. Thus, dvandva embraces the union of , for example, opposites like fire and water, knowledge and nescience, darkness and light, death and immortality, male and female (fig. 1).

Hinduism, however, has always existed at two levels. On the one hand are the profound ancient philosophies, compre- hended by a few, on the other the popular mythologies of the vast majority, who have injected the core idea of dvandva- namely, that phenomenal manifestations are but transient,

TABLE 2 VARIATIONS OF hTakjatraAND PRESIDING IN REPRESENTATIVE WORKSIN PAIRINGS DEITIES RELIGIOUS

(After Kirfel 1920, modified to include presiding deities) Athama Veda

XIX.7.1 ff . ; 8.2 ff .

1. Krttikah 2. Rohini 3. Mrgasiras

4. Ardra 5. Punarvash 6. Pusya 7. ASlesab 8. Maghah

9. Ptirva Phalgunyau

10. (missing) 11. Hasta 12. CitrB 13. Svati 14. ViBBkhe 15. Anuradha 16. Jye~!hB 17. Mala

18. Parva Asadhah 19. UttarC A~adhah 20. Abhijit 21. S rava~a 22. Sravisthah 23. Satabhisaj 24.

26. Revati 27. ASvayujau 28. Bharanyah

Kdthaka-Sa?nlzitd Maitrciya?ti-Samhi2d Taittiriya-Samlzitd Taittiriya-Brcihma?ta1.5.1

Krttikab Rohini I n v a k a b / S o ~ ~

BShiI (missing) Tisya ABlesab Maghab

Ptirve Phalguni/

ARYAMAN

Uttare Phalguni/

BHAGA

Hasta Citt'&/INDRA Nistya vii%khe/INDRA~Ni Anoradhab Rohini/INDRA

Tailtiriya-Brcihmana111.1.4.1 ff.

Krttikab Rohiai MrgaSirsa and

InvakBb/ MARUTAH

Ardra Punarvasfi Tisya KSresab Maghab (and

variations) Phalgunyab

(Phalgunyau) Phalgunyab

(Phalgunyau) Hasta Citra/TvAg~~ Nistya ViSZkhe/INDRAGNi Anuradhab Jyesth%/INnRA Mtila/NIRRTI

Asadhah Asadhah Abhijit/BRAHbfAN S r o p ~ Sravisth~h S a t a b h i $ a j / ~ ~ ~ ~ A Prosthapadab/Aj~

EKAPAD

XXXIX.13 11.13.20

Krttikah Krttikah Rohini Rohini I ~ v ~ ~ ~ / M A R U T A HInvag2/MARuT~g

IV.4.10.1 ff.

Krttikah Rohini MygaSirsa/So~~

Ardrii Punarvasti Tisya KSres~h Maghah

Hasta C ~ ~ I ' ~ / I N D R A Svati Vi6Bhke/INDRAGNi An hradhah Rohini/INDRA

BBhu Punarvasu Tisya ABlesah Maghah

Asadhah Uttara As~dhZh (missing) ABvattha Sravisthab Satabhisaj/~ARu~A Prosthapadiih/A JA

EKAPAD

Uttare Pros-

Bahu Punarvasu Tisya ASlesah Maghab

Phalgunih

Hasta Citrtl/TvA?~~ Nistya Vi6Bkha/INDRAGNi AnuradhB Jye:th2/VARu~A Mtila/N1R~T1

Asadhah Asadhab Abhijit/BRAHIdAN Srona Sravisthah Satabhisaj/~NDRA

Mfilabhara~i/V ~ C ~ ~ ~ U / P I T A R A H PRAJSATI Purva AsiidhBh Uttara AsBdhBb (missing) Srona Sravi~thBh Satabhi$aj/~NDRA Ptirve Pros-

thapad%h/AJA EKAPAD

Uttare Pros-

Asadhah AsadhZh (missing) SronB SraviSt,h%h satabhi?aj/~NDRA

P r o ~ t h a p a d B h / A ~ ~ ~Prosthapadah/A JA BUDHNIYAH EKAPAD

t h a p a d B h / A ~ ~ ~ BUDHNIYAH

Revati Revati Agvayujau Agvayujau Apabharanih Bharanib

t h a p a d % h / A ~ ~ ~ BUDHNIYAH

Revati Revati ABvayujau Agvayujau Apabharanih Bharanyah

Revati ASvayujau Apabharanih

NOTE:The presiding deities are indicated in capital letters and shown alongside the appropriate nak~alraonly where associations differ from those in Kelley's listing (table 1). Diacritical marks are in accord with the original nuances, which indicate adjectival, nounal, singular, or plural forms variously used as appellations for the nak~alraseries. To avoid confusion, however, the text employs modern renditions of the appellations.

C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y 548

indistinct, and ultimately one-into their conceptualization of the attributes of deities. Hence. Hindu iconography, which reached maturity largely in the early post-Christian, PurHnic era, assigns certain symbols, such as animal mounts, orna-ments, and gestures, to the images of deities. These devices permit one to visualize and identify deities who personify fire, disease, wealth, etc. While these personifications also prevailed in the earlier mythologies of the Vedas and the Brshmanas, the influence of dvandva in these literary works is apparent in the far less rigid conceptualization of divine attributes than is occasioned by the icon maker's dependence on visual symbols. For example, Agni, who personifies fire, is not merely the "god of fire" as Kelley leads us to believe. Agni also embodies principles which, in the mythical, popular sense, are assigned to other deities. Agni. like any other Vedic deity, is Brahman, the transcendental essence, and is ultimately indistinguishable

FIG 1. ArdhanariSvara, a personag? representing the fusion of male and female principles, of the god Siva and Cma, an aspect of his consort the goddess Parvati. The sculpture expresses the archaic philosophical concept of handoa, the union of opposites, as much as it portraqs a mqthical Pursnic figure involved in the ceaseless battles betneen the gods and the asziras (antigods). 12th century A.D., Khiching, Orissa (Photograph courtes] of the Archaeological Survey of India ) 1'01. 19 . ,Vo. 3 . Septetnbev 1978

from other deities. Though a "fire god," Agni is equally VHyu, the "wind god," or iipah, the water deities. or Surya, the "sun god." or Niryti, the "goddess of suffering and death," or any one of the other deities. The union of wholly unrelated divine attributes is exemplified in compound appellations like Ag- nisoma and Indragni and dualities like Soma-Pfisan, VHyu- Savitr, and others. In addition, all of the other "individual" deities listed by Kelley have flexible. interchangeable attributes, as described by Dandekar (1942), Desai (1967), De- vasthali (1965), Gajendragadkar 11965), Godbole (1965), Gonda (1974), and Sharma (1960).

There is no evidence whatsoever that a pantheistic outlook of the kind just described ever existed in Mesoamerica. Nor does it seem remotely likely that these exceedingly complex Hindu ideas were transplanted there and then modified into forms now unrecognizable. Anders (1963) lists seven pairs of deities from the Popul Vuh of the QuichC Maya, a very late work showing Christian influences, but these are all under- norld gods of destruction and resemble not at all the celestial, Hindu. dvandva deities. A few pairs of Aztec day gods (Nos. 3, 6, 9, 17) occur in Relley's list, but. as we will see, they hardly resemble the Hindu deities. A class of particularly noteworthy resemblances has to do

with the suggestive power of contradictory natural phenomena. An example is the Aztec metaphor of "burning waters" (Se-journk 1957:112). In almost identical Hindu metaphors, the waters iApah) are said to spring from fire (Agni), and bhasma, or fiery ash, is synonymous with Agni in contexts of its union with the waters ("htkla" Yajur-Veda Samhiti, adhygya 12). Garibay 11959) sees "similarities" between Hindu and Nahuatl notions of space and time. He compares the philosophical speculations of the Upanisads ica. 660-550 B.c.),in which the mythical roles of the deities are ignored or subordinated, with the largely mythical Mesoamerican notions recorded in Codex Borgia, a rather late work datable perhaps to the mid-2d millennium A.D. (cf. Glass 1975:ll-13). Garibay is properly careful, however, to avoid any deductions regarding the origins of the Mesoamerican ideas. These cases deserve special mention only to underline the fact that notions of dual divinities or metaphoric unions of opposites are not a Hindu monopoly. They have been independently envisioned, but at other levels of abstraction or of artistic interpretation, by such diverse peoples as the Chinese, African tribes, and the Ngaju of South Borneo (Scharer 1963). With this brief background, we may proceed to examine a

few specific frailties in the "parallels" drawn by Kelley between the attributes and sequential positions of the deities presiding over the naksatra, on the one hand, and those of the Maya-Aztec day names and deities, on the other. The following discussion will be clearer if one refers frequently to table 1.

Kelley aligns Aztec Day 8,Tochtli (rabbit), connected with the goddess hfayauel of the moon and of drunkenness, alongside the Hindu Soma (No. 3) , whom he incorrectly refers to as "god of liquor." The facts are that the rabbit is hardly Soma's characteristic animal attribute or inebriation exclu-sively his vice. The intoxicant called soma, probably a hallu- cinogen extracted from an agaric, is a weakness of all the Vedic deities, who delight in this so-called moon-plant juice. The god Indra (No. 14) is linked with it in particular. Indeed, in the Sima Veda Samhiti (1.1.1) it is not Soma, but Agni, who initially is glorified as the consumer of this "inebriating delight," and the same text glorifies Indra (No. 14) as its principal user. "who delights in quaffing it [and for whom it] is expressed and . . . strained out pure." Kelley resurrects a minor myth which identifies the shadowy figure in the moon as that of a rabbit, but the frog qualifies equally for attention, as the metaphorical caricature of the moon candram jighyksuh

(Sanskrit: [the frog] "croaking at rainclouds") suggests. In yet another myth, the dark spot was made by a priest, but in this case it is Indra who is called the moon (Hopkins 1915:89, 135). Kelley aligns the Aztec Day 15, Quauhtli (eagle), not with

Soma, Indra, or Agni, all of whom have pronounced mythic associations with the eagle (Macdonell 1963 :63, 89, 112, 152), but with Tvastr (No. 12), who has none. One might over-look this in order to accommodate Kelley's desire to match Tvastr's title "Chief of Craftsmen" with the Maya Day 15 attribute "Master of All the Arts," but here, too, one is per- plexed. Thi: title precisely and more appropriately befits Rudra (= Siva, No. 4) in his aspect as dakendmzirti; and i t is this god, rather than the archaic Vedic Tvastr, whom the Hindus even today revere as master or lord of the arts. An alignment of Rudra with Maya Day 15 would seem equally, if not more, appropriate. The eagle and the vulture have distinct associations with

three days (Nos. 15, 16 and 20) in the Mesoamerican calendars, but Kelley selectively aligns the Maya Day 20, Ahau, with the naksatra Abhijit (No. 20), stating in his text (p. 161) that "Abhijit . . . for the Hindus was Vega and two neigh- boring stars in Lyra; another Hindu name for Lyra was 'vulture.' " As a~lthority he cites Allen (1899:282), who, in fact, equates Lyra with "eagle or vulture." However, this inconsip tency must be explored further. One should be aware that Sanskrit vocabulary (Apte 1890:562b, c; 465a; 1969:126) clearly distinguishes the eagle (garutmat or utkroiah) from the vulture (gydhrah or ddksdyyah). Furthermore, ddksdyani, a cognate of the Sanskrit word for vulture, loosely used, could mean any one of the naksatras, but is used specifically in reference to Revati (No. 26). Thus, Kelley's alignment of Abhijit (No. 20) with the Maya Ahau, with its attribute of eagle, is not convincing. In addition, the god BrahmH, who presides over Abhijit, has neither the eagle nor the vulture, but a celestial goose, the hamsa, as his mount. Kelley aligns the Maya and Aztec day names symbolized by

death with the Hindu god Yama (No. 28). I t is the Aztec moon god Tecciztecatl (No. 6) who happens to be aligned with Yama, while the logical equivalent, Mictlantecuhtli, the god of death (No. 10) is not. Kelley describes Yama as the god of death. This is partly justifiable and partly not. As Gombrich (1975 :129) correctly observes, Yama is the god of death, and he lives in heaven, the opposite of hell, according to the Atharva Veda; the two ideas, his heavenly abode and his frightening character as Death, are not well integrated; in the MahBbhBrata [good persons] . . . go at death to Indra's heaven rather than to Yama's. . . . worshippers of Siva [Rudra] and Visnu believed that after death they might enjoy bliss in the heaven of their god-but these heavens find no place in the con-temporary Puranic cosmology. But to return to Yama; he gradu- ally loses his place as a killer to a personification called Death, and retires to a sinecure in his high heaven. . . . When the good die, they go straight to the world of Indra, whereas the bad go to Yama.

The goddess Nirrti (No. 17), Yama's counterpart, and as fearsome, personifies death no less (Bhattacharji 1970:80). Mourners at the important postfunerary obsequies known as Srdddha appeal, even today, to Agni and Soma no less than to Yama. In fact, it is Agni who is initially invoked. His name is called in hymnals thrice, Yama's but once and no more ear- nestly than are Soma's, Vgyu's, Savitr's, and Niryti's (Jaimini Grhyasiitra 11.1; 11.2). Yama's messengers of death are pi- geons (not mentioned by Kelley) or an owl, but his most characteristic and regular association is with a pair of dogs (Macdonell 1897 :172-73). Several questions are obvious: Why is Yama singled out for

alignment with the Maya-Aztec day names for death when certain other Hindu deities serve equally well? Why, despite

their canine symbolism, are Oc and Itzcuintli (Day 10) not aligned with Yama? Why is VHyu (No. 13), who personifies wind, so out of alignment with the Maya Ik and Aztec Ehecatl, Day 2 , named after the wind? Why is the Maya-Aztec Day 19, Cauac or Quiahuitl, symbolized by storm or rain, aligned with the Hindu water deities Apah (No. IS)? Why not with Indra (No. 14), whose quite subordinate role as "prop of heaven" Kelley emphasizes, ignoring that he is also "supporter of earth" and that Indra's well-known primary function is that of producing storms and rain? And why is Mesoamerican Day 19 not aligned with Varuna (No. 23), whose associations with the waters are just as pronounced as Indra's (Gajendragadkar 1965:32)? Is not Soma qualified for alignment with Day 15? Surely, he merits more than the ludicrous title of "god of liquor" that Kelley bestows upon him. Soma's pluvial association is clear from a hymn in the Sdma Veda Samhitd (adhyHya 13) : "0 Soma, pour forth to us rain, even floods of water on all sides, in abundance, and large supplies of wholesome food." And why is Prajzpati ignored? He is the "fertilizing rain cloud" (Joshi 1972 :103). Chuen and Ozomatli (monkey), Day 11, do not align with

Indra. Why not, considering the stress Kelley places on the significance of the monkey (p. 165), when the monkey is "Indra's favorite" (Macdonell 1963 :15 1 ; Law 1965 :35) ?

Cipactli ("earth crocodile"), Aztec Day 1, has been aligned with the Vasus (No. 22), Hindu "earth godsn'in Kelley's list, but he also considers an eventual revision, stating (p. 159) that "there are good arguments for my original alignment and for this readjustment . . . [which] would put the 9 Vasus opposite Quetzalcoatl, who was, as I hope to show, the leader of the 9 gods of America." Here it must not be overlooked that the Vasus are not nine, but eight, in number and that the San- skrit word itself connotes "eight." These eight deities personify natural phenomena-pole star, moon, earth, wind, fire, dawn, light, and water-hardly justifying their characterization as "earth gods" (Apte 1890:953; Gopinatha Rao 1914, vol. 2 : 552). As for the realignment of the Vasus with Quetzalcoatl, is not this "feathered serpent" more appropriately alignable with Visnu (No. 21)-a solar deity whose primary attributes are the cosmic serpent and the celestial bird? Considering the historical and iconographic developments of

the "earth-crocodile" Cipactli of the Aztecs and of the makara of Hindu-Buddhist art, I cannot elaborate upon these aspects beyond making comments of immediate relevance. I n neither case does it seem justifiable to point to the crocodilian nature of these mythic creatures without reference to the period and provenance of specific iconographic representations. I n each case the prototypes may be crocodilian, but, artistically, they are highly stylized hybrids in which ophidian and piscine elements also blend in differing degrees. The makara is exclusively aquatic and purely a creature of fantasy. Essays on the iconology of the makara (Coomaraswamy 1929, Vogel 1929- 30, Viennot 1954) make it clear that this creature may assume various forms, including that of a mammal-like hybrid with a proboscis resembling an elephant's and feet like those of a rhinoceros. I n the earliest artistic renditions, it is pisciform and scaly. Occasionally shown with a "serpentine" body, the makara is almost never depicted as possessing the uniquely ophidian characteristic of a bifid tongue. By contrast, depic- tions of Cipactli which emphasize this feature, even in crocodilian heads, are common (Beyer 1965 :201-202, figs. 138-40; Seler 1960-61, vol. 4 : figs. 654-63, 665-68). Cipactli may also be depicted with a serpent's head or as a fish (see fig. 2 ) . The correspondences, both on developmental and artistic criteria, for Cipactli and makara do not justify a genetic rela- tionship permitting Kelley's alignment of the Vasus with Maya-Aztec Day 1. This is because (a) none of the eight Vasus has a makara mount; (b ) the makara is primarily the mount of GangH, a riverine goddess not involved in the nak-


satra series; (c) Yama, the god of death, is identified with the makara (Vis?zz4dharmottara-Purea 111.54) ; (d) Varuna, the deity of the waters, also has the makara as his mount (Agni-Purdna LI.5) ; and (e) Klma., the god of love and en- snarement, who in certain naksatra lists supplants Tvasfr (No. 12) as presiding deity, may have either a fish (Sdraddtilaka Tantraln XVII.120) or a makara (Sivaramamurti 1942 :90) as his mount and banner emblem. Cipactli, says Kelley (p. 165), "corresponds in sequential position to goat-fish (Capricorn) of the Near East, known to the Hindus as makara"! On the contrary, the Hindu zodiacal period of Makara (December-January) corresponds to the lunar month of PauBya and to the naksatra Punarvasu and ~uBya (Ketkar 1923). Thus, Kel- ley's statement would require moving Cipactli alongside the deities Aditi and Brhaspati (Nos. 5 and 6), far from its present position in table 1. Clearly, Kelley could have availed himself of any one of these conflicting alternatives, but he ignores them all without telling us why. Kelley calls attention (p. 176) to his a!ignment of "the

Aztec cipactli also with the lunar mknsion Srlvana [No. 211 because an alternate Hindu name for this constellation was Acvatta, the Sacred fig tree." He continues, "Compare the previous discussjon of Tree/Vulture association which rather tends to align Srlvana with Ahau. Perhaps the vulture was supposed to be in the crocodile tree as on page three of the Dresden Codex" (italics mine). Analogies of this kind only beg the question why Kelley does not align Cuetzpalin (lizard), Aztec Day 4, with the naksatra Jyesthl (No. 16), since the Sanskrit cognate jyesthi translates precisely as "lizard" (Apte 1890:519b). Or, as an alternative, might one not align Jyesthl with Maya Cauac (storm), Day 19? As a personification of the storm or rain, we have in the Maya Chac a probos- cidiform deity who qualifies strongly as a parallel to Jyesthl, for this naksatra, too, is named after a "long-nosed" goddess bearing the epithet hmtimukhd, literally "elephant-faced" (Banerjea 1956:382). Ophidian symbolism occurs in both the Mesoamerican and

Hindu lists. In view of the cultic importance of the serpent

Mundkw: ALLEGED DIFFUSION OF HINDU SYMBOLS TO MESOAMERICA

in these civilizations, Day 5 Chicchan and Coat1 (serpent) are obviously misaligned with the Agvins, the Hindu presiding deities "the twins" (No. 27) ; these have no ophidian attributes whatsoever. Presumably, Kelley's reason is that coatl also means twins. I t seems to me that he has ignored the more important fact that the primary pre-Nahuatl symbolism of the serpent in Mesoamerica is pluvial and cosmological. As a re- sult, two major Hindu ophidian deities, Ahi and Ahi Budhnya (No. 7 and 25), plus the important god Visnu (No. 21), whose symbol is the serpent of the cosmic sea, are out of alignment. Any one of these ophidian presiding deities with pronounced aquatic associations is clearly a more reasonable parallel to Mesoamerican Day 5 than are the ABvins. Kirchhoff's (1964a) alignments seem to me as hollow as

Kelley's, since they are susceptible to exactly the same type of questioning. These authors disagree radically in their match- i n g ~ of the Aztec sequences and tlie naksatra deities-a mea-sure of the absence of any clear-cut similarities among them and of the artificiality inherent in inferences based on at-tempts to correlate uncorrelatable data. Kirchhoff draws special attention to his lists, stating that they are "without interruption" while reminding us that Kelley's "operates with interrupted sequences." The net effect, however, is no more convincing than Kelley's. In Kirchhoff's table 2, Soma is "the home of the dead," DurgS "the goddess of death and destruction," Visnu "the god of fertility," Apah "the mothers of fire," Vlyu "the bringer of rain," and Indra "the god who destroys when drunk with soma"! These descriptions range from partly true to incorrect. Furthermore, Agni and Xiuhtecuhtli, though each personifies fire, are far out of alignment. So are Yama and Mictlantecuhtli, who personify death. Kirchhoff, like Kelley, also compares the calendrical animals

of the Aztecs with the animals associated with the Hindu deities, but, again, their disagreements are sharp. Calling attention to its novelty, Kirchhoff produces a list of 27 animals, each of which symbolizes a naksatra. I t is important to realize

FIG. 2. Representations of Indian makara (above) and Mesoamerican Cipactli (below). (Reproduced from Vogel 1929-30 and Seler 19-61,)

Vol. 19 . No. 3 . September 1978 551

that he does not mention the source of this list beyond stating that it is "Tamil" (South Indian). That it contains 27, not 28, animals would instantly characterize it as archaic and cer-tainly Vedic, but this is highly improbable, as we will see. On the other hand, his presiding-deity sequence betrays archaic traits, since it begins with Agni, i.e., corresponds to KrttikZ as mukltam. To aid the reader in drawing his own conclusions by com-

paring Kirchhoff's and Kelley's animal correlates (from table I ) , I have reproduced a visual scheme, rather than a word list, in figure 3. To be consistent with Kirchhoff's animal list, this religious pictogram is intentionally chosen from South India. I t depicts various astral symbols and is taken from an anonymous 1835 report. I t is of unknown date, perhaps late 18th century, but it will eventually be clear that it reflects ideas originating mostly after about the 12th century A.D. The central 9 squares house the planetary deities, and these are

ringed by the 12 zodiacal symbols. Only the sequence of 28 animals in the peripheral segments need concern us now. Kirchhoff's list is identical with this except that he (a) does not account for the absence of animal No. 28, the important ~nakara ,especially since his parallel naksatra list has 28 members; ( b ) replaces the female goat and the male and female cobras in Segments 3, 4, and 5, respectively, by the "constellation Auriga" in each; ( c ) replaces the male goat in Segment 8 by a male buffalo; and (d) replaces the fox in Segment 21 by a lioness. One should note that the horse in Segment 1 initiates the sequence by symbolizing the naksatra Aivini. In Kirch- hoff's animal alignments, the horse corresponds to the rabbit (Tochtli, Aztec Day 8) via Mayauel, the Aztec deity whom he aligns with the Hindu presiding deity Brahmz (No. 20 in table 1) . Kelley, on the contrary, aligns Brahml very differ- ently-with the eagle or flower, Maya and Aztec symbols for Day 20, corresponding to the Aztec deity Xochiquetzal.

FIG.3. South Indian pictogram representing the planetary deities (central 9 squares), ringed by the 12 zodiacal signs and, peripherally, by 28 animals symbolizing the nak~atras.Ca. late 18th century. (Reproduced from Transactions of the Royal Society of Great Britain and Ireland 3 :31; numerals added to indicate sequences.) 552 C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y

Jones's ([1790]:295) list of 27 naksatra symbols from an unspecified Sanskrit text differs totally from both Kirchhoff's and Kelley's (Jain) lists. Only 7 out of 27 have animal con-nections: horse's head, cat's paw, snake, dog's tail, boar's head, and fish. Of these, only the horse is common to Kirchhoff's and Kelley's lists. To conclude this section, I should cite the lack of any firm

linkage of animal symbolism, presiding deity, and naksatra inter se. I shall draw two examples from the highly structured succession of festal events occurring during the Hindu lunar months. These are named sidereally and have a special asso-ciation with the series of naksatra in that the name of each month is derived from the particular naksatra in which, or adjacent to which, the moon is full in a given month: Yama (cf, table 1) is the presiding deity of the naksatra Bharapi, which corresponds to the month of Ahvina. Nevertheless, Yama is honored in the month of KHrttika-when the two presiding deities are Agni (of KyttikB) and PrajBpati (of Rohini). The second example is of one of the most important festivals involving an animal, the serpent. The worship of live cobras or their effigies is set for the month of MBrgaAirsa, which corresponds to the naksatra Mygahiras, symbolized by a deey's head. I t is also more commonly obs~rvedin the month of SrHvana, corresponding to the naksatra SravanH, whose pre-siding deity, Visnu, has a serpent attribute. However, the fes-tival was rooted in India's prehistory long before the ascen-dancy of this god in the early post-Christian era. More significantly, it is not observed in the months of MBgha and BhBdrapada, though each, through its naksatra, is linked to an ophidian presiding deity, Ahi and Ahi Budhnya. In addition, the festival of the very important serpent goddess ManasH occurs in Ahidha, a month that has no ophidian connotations. Other examples may be deduced from Kielhorn (1897). Clearly, the classical, PurBnic, and demotic traditions in

India are replete with variations of the kind I have noted. Unless one is intent on detecting "similarities," the utilization of a few imprecisely presented items of information as data can be hazardous. In cross-cultural comparisons involving Mesoamerica, it is even more difficult to justify when little or no specific reference is made by the diffusionists to textual chronology and the cultural history of Hindu-Buddhist India. The next section, on the symbolism of the planets, illustrates this no less equivocally than the naksatra.

THE NAVAGRAHAH SERIES

Efforts to show that there is "good evidence that much of the Mesoamerican calendar system is of Old World derivation" have also depended upon the attributes of a group of nine Hindu planetary deities known as the navagrahdh. Kelley 11972) and Barthel (1974, 1975a) describe what they believe to be correspondences between these deities and a group of nine Mesoamerican "Lords of the Night." These are known from glyphs pertaining to a lunar sequence (Glyph G) origi-nally deciphered by Thompson (1929). The correspondences claimed, in my opinion, are no more persuasive than those adduced from the naksatra system and susceptible to much the same lines of counterargument. I wish to point out only a few of the many facets overlooked by Kelley and Barthel. As the foundations for their alignments are essentially alike, I will discuss Barthel's view less extensively than Kelley's, though there are grounds for an ampler consideration of spe-cific weaknesses in his arguments. The nine Lords of the Night represented on Maya monu-

ments can be traced back to at least A.D. 322, the date borne by the important jade relic termed the Leyden Plate, described in detail by Morley and Morley (1939). I t must be stressed that the glyphs and the elaborately costumed figure engraved

Mundkur: ALLEGED DIFFUSION OF HINDU SYMBOLS TO MESOAMERICA

FIG.4. The Leyden Plate, Proto-Classic Maya, bearing the date A.D. 322 and a glyph for one of the nine Maya Lords of the Night. (Re-printed courtesy of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.)

on this relic (fig. 4) are executed in the Proto-Classic Maya style and that it constitutes the earliest surely dated hiero-glyphic record of the nine Lords. Thus, the possibility exists that these nine Maya personages were conceptualized several centuries earlier. Little or nothing seems to be known about their evolution.

By contrast, Hindu ideas about the planets and the deities personifying them emerge clearly in the literature of quite early periods. To the sun and the moon (which were regarded as planets) were added Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn to yield a complement of seven. The chronological de-velopment of their divine symbolism need not detain us, for it long precedes the period of trans-Pacific culture contacts between India and Mesoamerica pictured by the diffusionists. Of greater relevance is the fact that an eighth member, Rghu, originally known as SvarbhBnu, a demoniacal asura (antigod) who causes eclipses, is a late addition. When RBhu is first en-countered, in the Atharva Veda (XIX.9, lo ) , it is in connec-tion with the sun. The literature of the Epic period, such as the Rimciyana (ca. 400 B.c. ) , continues the older planetary beliefs. The important astronomical treatise composed in A.D. 499, the Aryabhat?iya (111.15, 16), mentions only seven planets, omitting RBhu entirely.3 The latter's rise in impor-tance, therefore, was rather tardy and occurred only after or during the 7th century. Banerjea (1948 :100; 1956:444) states that no more than eight planetary divinities, RBhu included,

3 The influence of Aryabhaffa,its author, was so great throughout India that "well nigh every one of the scores of astro?omical [and astrological] works produced in Kerala follows the Aryabhattiya basically" (Sarma 1972:6). This circumstance is noteworthy be-cause of the importance of southern India in the history of Hindu migrations overseas, as the later sections of this essay will amplify.

Vol. 19 No. 3 . September 1978

FIG. 5 . Rzhu-Ketu as a single entity symbolized by a serpent. a, linked to the 27 nak~atra,each indicated by the first syllable of its name in ncigri script; b, with the naksatra inscribed within the sinuous body and the seven grahdh named above it, following the pre-6th-century convention of placing Sani (Saturn) first and Candra, i.e., Soma (Moon), last. (From the Narapatzj'ayacarycisvarodaya [A.D. 11701, pp. 132, 207.)

occur in the Grahayiigapatta, a text of the 8th to 9th centuries A.D. The full complement of nine, the nnvagrah6h, was attained

with the addition of Ketu-an event most likely to have occurred in the late 9th or 10th century. In Orissa, the Indian province whose ancient seaport of PBlura connects it with the period of Hindu cultural expansion in Southeast Asia, the temples of nearby Bhuvaneivara4 have no sculptural repre-sentations of Ketu until the GangB dynasty (A.D. 1076-1586). The Muslim chronicler al-Biruni recorded in about A.D. 1030, during his visit to India, a note on a mythic serpent whose head was called RBhu and whose tail Ketu (Sachau 1910, vol. 2:234). However, this notion seems to have been neither widespread nor important in the art, astronomy, and religion of even the two preceding centuries. At the important mid-7th- century Para6urHme4vara temple at Bhuvanehara, the principal lintel at the entrance to the inner sanctum depicts only eight grahiih, including RHhu but excluding Ketu. The first mention of Ketu in an astroloeical-numeroloeical

" -

context occurs in the Narapatijayacarycisvarodaya by Narapati (d. A.D. 1176), a Sanskrit text in part devoted to rites for propitiating the planets and the naksatra. RLhu (p. 118, verses 11-15) is here caricatured as a serpent, and his tail is termed Ketu. Thus RHhu-Ketu is a single entity, and he is associated with the 27 naksatra (fig. 5a) more pronouncedly than with the other grahcih. Narapati refers far more frequently to Rihu than to Ketu, and a similar predilection persists even in later religious-astrological works like the Muhzlrtacintdma?zi of RBmadai- vajiia (A.D. 1600) and in the very comprehensive survey of the history of Hindu astrology by Diksit (193 1 :163, 166, 170, 184, 200). All three authors, among others, emphasize five, seven, or eight grahiih and/or the naksatra, often ignoring Ketu. I t is clear that Ketu's astrological status is rather subordinate and that it was tardily derived from comets and meteors, for he is referred to in the plural in at least two Sanskrit texts reproduced by Gopinatha Rao (1914, vol. 1: appendix C, 97). In the mid-6th century, VarLhamihira's Brhat-SamhitZ (XI.7- 28) listed 1,000 k'ctu, naming 32 of these meteors or comets as the malefic sons of RBhu. Discussion of additional information is deferred. To sum up: RBhu gains prominence not much before the

4 Panigrahi (1961) and Fabri (1974) discuss dates and other details of the BhuvaneSvara group of temples.

8th century A.D. and Ketu not much before the mid-loth.5 By this time, each bears the fictitious appelation graha, "planet," and represent the ascending (Rihu) and descending (Ketu) nodes of the moon. Their enhanced status is built upon (a) an early, Vedic reputation of RIhu as a malefic demon of eclipses; (b) the eventual metaphorical superimposition of a serpent's evil character upon RBhu; and (c) the abrupt as-similation of Ketu into the group of planetary deities to represent the tail half of a serpent's severed body-an assimilation perhaps inspired by the analogy of a comet's or meteor's tail. These relatively late visualizations acquire greater meaning when they are related to a myth: RBhu, the anthropomorphic demon, has obtained by stealth the elixir of immortality and is apprehended by Visnu-but only after he (Rlhu) has drunk a drop of it. Visnu cuts off RBhu's head before the elixir descends his gullet. This episode simultaneously explains (a) the withering away of the headless part of his body (represented by Ketu, as the descending node of the moon); (b) the immortality of the head, which pursues the moon cease-lessly for its store of elixir and, vengefully, the sun (an aspect of Visnu), occasionally even succeeding in catching up with them and swallowing them-thus causing eclipses; (c) the astrological usefulness of these symbols of malevolence; and (d) the occasional, though by no means exclusive, iconographic characterization of Rlhu and Ketu as partly ophidian in bodily form. I t is important to remember this last point, for both Kelley (1972:60, 66) and Barthel 11975a:49) make much of ophidian symbolism. We will soon see that this is remark- ably inconstant, so that the ophidian simile derived from the myth of the decapitation of the anthropomorphic demon RLhu cannot be stressed unduly. Indeed, nowhere does Narapati,

5 The perennially avid Hindu interest in astrology has occasioned a recent book, Uttar Kdlimyta (1976), in Sanskrit, with commentary in modern Hindi. Ketu is mentioned on p. 167. The original text is said to be the work of "Kavi [poet] Kl1idLsa"-a name certain to enhance the book's commercial prospects. However, one must not confuse this author with his illustrious namesake, the poet-dramatist who, according to some Indian scholars, flourished in the 1st century B.C. (Others argue that he lived from A.D. 240 to 300 [Ketkar 19551.) In any case, his surviving works certainly are not centered upon astrological or astronomical themes. The Ydjitavalkya-smyti [Acciradh., XII.2951, composed between A.D. 100 and 300 (Kane 1930, vol. 2 , pt. 1: p x i ) , mentions ketu, presum-ably in the same sense as in the Blhat-Samhitd, i.e., as meteors or comets.

C U R R E N T A N T H R O P O L O G Y 554

RBmadaivajfia, or Diksit refer to RBhu and Ketu as the severed head and tail of a serpent. These observations provide a minimal background for testing

Kelley's (1972 :63) belief that "the Indian evidence throws a good deal of light on the Mesoamerican sequences and strongly indicates that the list of nine planets was borrowed from India." With this assertion he generically allies the nuvagrahdh not only with the nine Maya Lords of the Night, but also with certain Zapotec and Aztec deities that he regards as equivalent to the Maya G series of nine lunar hieroglyphs. Some of these equivalences may not be acceptable to Mesoamericanists, and Kelley (1972 :53-54, 59) himself speculates when accounting for certain obvious discrepancies. From our viewpoint, the pivotal focus is on the nine Maya glyphs and the nine Aztec, rather than the little-known Zapotec, deities. The most decisive argument against linking them with the

navagrahih should by now be apparent: How could the Maya complement of nine Lords, whose existence can be traced back to at least A.D. 322, possibly be akin to the Hindu planetary deities when the eighth and ninth members of this series were not added earlier than about the 8th and 10th centuries A.D. respectively? Indeed, as we have seen, Ketu, unlike RBhu, had neither mythological nor iconic forerunners. I t might seem unnecessary to extend the argument beyond

this point. Yet, it is desirable to dispel claims that divine symbolism analogous to the Purgnic Hindu is detectable not only in the G series of Maya glyphs, but also in the Aztec pantheon (which is not clearly identifiable before the 14th century) and in the modern calendrical pantheon of the Zapo-tecs from the LoxichL region of southern Oaxaca. These two pantheons may, of course, have early origins and possess some elements inspired by the Maya. Referring to the symbolism of these Mesoamerican deities,

Kelley (1972 :59) asserts that "there are some striking simi-larities with the Hindu sequences." This inference is founded on numerous errors of interpretation of the Hindu material, including the emphasis of minor points and the dismissal, perhaps unwitting, of very significant alternatives. Dowson (1968) and, especially, Mackenzie (n.d.), whom he cites in-ordinately, are, as we shall see, quite unreliable. The informa-tion attributed to al-Biruni, the l lth-century Arab chronicler, has inherent limitations and is sometimes complicated by errors on the part of his translator and interpreter Sachau (see Shas-tri 1974:332 n. 17). The foundations of Kelley's speculations, however, are enfeebled chiefly because the original, key sources of Hindu traditions and authoritative commentaries on them have been neglected. That Hindu and Mesoamerican divine symbolism have little

or nothing in common will be apparent from table 3, which shows the iconographic traits of the navagrah6h as described in a few representative texts. The data are abbreviated from the original. Only the most important identifying features are retained with sufficient completeness to reveal the range of variation that precludes alignments based on delineations of similarities. For ease of comparison, Kelley's (1972: table 1) tabulated alignments are reproduced without changes at the bottom of table 3. The data speak for themselves-for in-stance, the wide discrepancies in, even absence of, presiding deities connected with the navagrahih, deities whose charac-teristics form the basis of Kelley's sequences. In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies which cannot be brought out through tabulation. I shall enumerate a few of these:

1. "The most obvious" of the "striking similarities with Mesoamerican sequences" (p. 59)6 is said to be that of the sevent

balaji mundkur - the alleged diffusion of hindu divine symbols into pre-columbian mesoamerica

Documents