Deities as reflections of cultural history
The religious-cultural history of South India (and for that matter, other parts of India) were often reflected in myths about the deities. In fact, a number of deities were coming into being or rising in popularity in various parts of India during this period.
One who attained popularity throughout India (and not only in the south) was Ganesa, the elephant-headed “elder” son of Siva. Ganesa came to represent the embodiment of “wisdom” and was worshiped as one who blessed “new beginnings,” but his roots were probably to be found in a variety of pre-Hindu sources. These probably included the ways the elephant was honored in different settings, for example, as a totemic object in tribal or forested areas and as a symbol of royalty (for it was used as a mount for kings in battle or in royal displays). Whatever the origins, Ganesa was depicted iconographically by at least the sixth century ce15 and became thereafter a permanent part of the pantheon, especially as a member of Siva’s family.Another deity which arose to some significance after the sixth century and became especially popular in the area now known as Kerala is the deity known variously as Aiyan or Sasta. His story illustrates the way the symbolism of a deity can reflect its cultural history. Prior to the sixth century, the honorific term ai referred to heroic hunter figures or to honored Jain or Buddhist monks. Once divinized as Sasta he was presented as a son of Siva and a teacher par excellence making him a Hindu alternative to the Buddha and, in Kerala, as Aiyan, a hunter par excellence, a deity of tribal peoples and protector on the fringes of villages. By the early medieval period, myths depict him as the son of Siva and Visnu (the latter in the form of the feminine Mohinl) and ascribe to him the name Hariharaputra (the son of Siva and Visnu). How does the birth of Hariharaputra reflect the cultural history of Kerala? One finds a rapprochement occurring there in this period between Saiva and Vaisnava communities perhaps in the face of Islamic and Christian settlements.
Indeed most temples in Kerala by the twelfth century had combined Saiva and Vaisnava motifs and shared a common ritual tradition. Another factor may be reflected in the myth: apparently, during this period, the Nayars, a major landowning group in Kerala, were becoming matrilineal while the menfolk were off fighting. The Nayar women who were primarily Vaisnava developed relationships with Nambudiri (Saiva brahman) men. The sons of these alliances alone were deemed fit to serve as kings in Kerala.16 Yet another factor may have given the myth a political significance. Certain royal houses in Kerala may have found legitimation by linking their regime to that of the Hoysalas, a dynasty headquartered in Karnataka, where they had patronized Harihara (Siva-Visnu in combined form). Hence, the “son” of Harihara extended the power and authority of the earlier dynasty into the “newer” dynasty which patronized him. In a similar way, many variations on the birth, incarnation, and exploits of the deity reflected the self-perceptions of many communities: of tribals, for example, who claim the deity impregnated an ancestor or the toddy tappers who maintained the god once drank toddy to “save the world,” hence was “one of us.” Stories about the gods, like those about sacred places, often reflected the perceptions and social history of those who perpetuated the myths.17