Talk:Ambalavasi

Arbitrary heading

"The Ambalavasis proper including Warriers, Pothuvals, save for the Pisharodys have originated from prohibited unions between Nair men and Namboodiri women. Since they came from a patriarchal Brahmin mother and a matriarchal Nair father they were given a position below the Brahmins but above the Nairs. They donot perform the Upanayanam but instead around the 16th age they have a ceremony by which they are initiated by certain Vaishnavite or Saivite mantras into the Grihasthashrama. The Pisharodys have originated from a Brahmin who was on the verge of becoming a Sanyasin as per the then existant customs but ran away in the last moment. That is also the reason why Pisharodys did not burn their dead."

Is there any historical basis to corroborate these facts or are these just some concotions? Will231982 16:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)will231982

The information has been taken from the book of the official Travancore census writer, the first census writer of that country to which these communities belong. He did extensive research and published the book , the Travancore State Manuals, after the approval of the Maharajah of Travancore. These are the traditional origins of these castes Manu

Brahmin - Non Brahmin

To my understanding, Ilayathu is a Brahmin and is above Mootrhathu who is a non brahmin. Ilayathu is among the lowest of the brahmins and moothath the highest among non brahmins.

There are several areas of overlap across the communities in Kerala. Example: The surname Antharjanam is normally used by brahmin women. But there are thiyyattunni families where women are called as antharjanams and the houses are referred to as Illam. --K N Unni (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest Edits

The last few edits have reverted parts where the Ambalavasis are stated to be a caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. This is incorrect. With reference to the chapter on Castes in the Travancore Manuals of 1906, Ambalavasis are an intermediate caste between the Brahmins and the Nairs. The Jati Nirnayam states : 8 Brahmins castes, 2 Nunajatis or minorities namely the Kshatriyas and Samanthans, 12 Antralajatis ie the Ambalavasis and the 18 Sudras ie Nairs including Marar. Thus the position of the Ambalavasi is below the Kshatriya. Similarly Moosad is not a caste which provided priests for Nairs. They are considered the highest of Ambalavasis and hence called Moosad implying senior. They were once Brahmins who lost caste when they tatooed themselves with Shaivite Images. The Elayaths lost caste because they took up the priesthood of the Nairs and hence became the junior most or elayath of Brahmin castes of Kerala. Similarly Poduvals also have an origin from an illicit relation between a Brahmin and Nair like the Variars. They are not Nairs. This information is sourced from the Travancore Manual Manu

The "Travancore Manual" is, I think, the work of William Logan. It is not considered to be a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

One source tag

I'm adding T:ONES here because majority of the content is cited with 'Gough, E. Kathleen (1961). "Nayars: Central Kerala". In Schneider, David Murray; Gough, E. Kathleen. Matrilineal Kinship. University of California Press. pp. 309–311. ISBN 978-0-520-02529-5.'. The other source is cited only at 2 places.

Quoting extensively from T:ONES leads to 'A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased.' HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two sources and, as I said on your talk page, there appear to be several other potential sources if you have the time to incorporate them. Do you have any reason actually to believe that the cited sources are inaccurate and/or biased? - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"there appear to be several other potential sources if you have the time to incorporate them". Till someone does that, we can have the template appearing on this page. Don't you think? HemaChandra88 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're effectively suggesting that two well-known, reputable academic sources might be inaccurate or biased. We're not a colouring book that you can decorate at will. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop practicing polemics. I request you to. The categorization of jatis as Ambalavasi is ambiguous, as is their societal status of them. Both these things are being thrown at random in this article without multiple citations. Also if you are hell bent on patronizing me, I'd have to invoke admins to resolve this dispute. HemaChandra88 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If it is ambiguous then show that using reliable sources. Tagging it doesn't resolve the issue but rather muddies the waters further. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of relevant information

This page is always getting reverted to a page which contain erroneous information. It contain irrelevant information like that of Sanketams {The temples in which they worked comprised four basic types:those in sanketams were large and were dedicated to deities which were worshipped throughout India, such as Shiva and Vishnu.private temples, owned by Nambudiri families, which were smaller versions of those found in the sanketams}, whereas many relevant information are missing. The page atleast should contain the basic information of all the castes generally considered as Ambalavasis. If there is any dispute regarding the inclusion of a certain caste, please discuss here and then change --पुष्पकः (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read the reasons why much of the page has been repeatedly deleted - as is explained in the page's edit history.
Please note that several of the sources you cite, such as Sadasivan, Garg and Edgar Thurston, are NOT considered reliable sources, whilst the table of "Castes and professions" is totally unsourced. This may be taken from Edgar Thurston, but as he is not reliable, even if it was sourced to him, or one of the copies of his work, that would still be unacceptable.
Please note that consensus has placed all pages with content related to South Asian social groups, such as this article, under general sanctions, so be particularly careful when editing such pages, or you may be blocked. - Arjayay (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Frequent reversion of the Article

The page Ambalavasi is getting reverted to an earlier version frequently. However the page to which it is getting reverted lacks a lot of information which are necessary and generally expected from the Ambalavasi page. Generally, people search the term Ambalavasi in order to find out various castes coming under this social group. The page to which it is getting reverted does not contain that information properly. It has too many spelling mistakes also. Nobody refer to the caste Pushpaka as Pushpaga. Only in some loose English transliteration, it appears so. But the page to which it is getting reverted uses the term Pushpagan; and those who revert it says that it is reliable. Funny!. Further, the classification of temples such as sanketams, private temples, bhagavati temples etc. are not necessary and relevant while describing the Ambalavasi communities. Such irrelevant things are included there. There are a number of castes in the Ambalavasi community. There may be disputes in including some of the castes in Ambalavasi group. However, it will be better to show those castes also and mention about the difference of opinion. Please talk before making such reversions. Thank you --पुष्पकः (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This has already been answered above - please stop re-adding the same unreliable sources and unsourced information. - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, पुष्पकः; your additions are, apart from unsourced and poorly sourced, consisting of original research, as well as undue emphasis on your personal opinion. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are reverting it to the earlier version, please add reliable sources to the information in that version also. If you are thinking that the article to which you are reverting is correct, provide sources to me also for stating that only the castes mentioned in your version of the article (i.e. Chakyar, Pushpagans, Others: Nambiar, Marar,Pisharodi, Poduval, Variar) only come under this category. From where did you get the term 'Pushpagans'? From where did the 'ga' come from! None of the Keralites use the term Pushpagans. You might have obtained it from some unreliable sources. The transliteration that you are using itself is wrong.. and you are arguing that it is correct. Instead of answering the questions, you are continuously reverting it back. The term Pushpagan is wrong. It is Pushpaka. And what is the role of Sanketams? Did any Ambalavasi related to Sanketams? What is the relevance of Sanketams in an article such as Ampalavasi?. From were are you adding these information? Instead of retaining relevant information, you are reverting it back to something, which is odd and not relevant. Try to communicate with a member belonging to Ambalavasi community in Kerala. Why you people are trying to keep the erroneous information?--पुष्पकः (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not expect reliable sources to prove a negative, only to support the claims that are made in an article, and we are only interested in what has already been published in Reliable sources - not what "a member belonging to Ambalavasi community in Kerala" thinks, or wishes, is correct. - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent reversion

We don't care about what some self-proclaimed-welfare societies claim to do for certain castes etc. and neither such content is anything of encyclopedic value unless and until found to have a significant coverage in reliable sources for the proclaimed purposes.Winged Blades^Godric 14:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweepers

I admit to being surprised that our source says Marars are/were both temple musicians and sweepers because the latter doesn't really gel with the notion that they lie somewhere between the Brahmins and Nairs in the ritual ranking system (sweeping being something more usually associated with untouchables/Dalits etc). Is it possible that the source has got it wrong? - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Just visit old temples ....only ambalavasis were allowed for adichu thali in inside the temple....They did not allow even nairs for adichu thali in inside temple as they are belongs to sudras... Nair persons are allowed for adichu thali in outside temple only.....Just visit temples ....Ok.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwikieye (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nairs and Ambalavasis are not related

Shree Chattampi Swamikal has never said that Ambalavasis belong to Nair community. Both these communities had different professions. Both these communities have different ancestry. In Keralolpaththi it is not written that Ambalavasis are from Ahichhatra. The rituals of both communities are different. For example, Naga Puja and Shaktheya Devi Puja were mainly performed in Nair community. Ambalavasis have their own different family deities. I don't know about their Pujas. I know a Nambeesan family they have told me about two rituals of their community. First is "Ammayeyum ammiyeyum chavitti iranguka(അമ്മയേയും അമ്മിയേയും ചവിട്ടി ഇറങ്ങുക)", this is one their wedding rituals and it is performed by bride when she leaves her home after Thalikettu. Second is "Anthithiri(അന്തിത്തിരി)", in this ritual a cotton wick soaked with oil and is lit and kept on a Peepal leaf and an Aarti(ആരതി) is performed to babies with that. This Aarti is done every evening until Choroonu(first meal ceremony). These two rituals are not there in Nair community. Both patrilineal and matrilineal Ambalavasis have no similarities with Nairs.

In "Devadasi System in Medieval Tamil Nadu" it is given that "Tiruvacagam lays stress on garland making, sweeping, smearing and dancing as the duties of Devadasis. Devadasis of Tiruvallam Temple picked up flowers and strung them into garlands." The Devadasis mentioned in ancient Hindu books were not like Devadasis of today. They were only temple servants and also were religious people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.246.107 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that Swamikal is not a reliable source, whereas those which we cite in the article are university academics etc. You are not going to get that removed from the article, especially given that we deliberately avoid saying that they flat-out are related. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Classification as threaded and threadless

I think it will be suitable to describe castes and professions separately and mention the thread-bearing ambalavais and threadless ambalavais separately as described below. Submitted for opinions:

Castes

The castes which comprised the Ambalavasi community each contained only a few members. The castes may be broadly classified under the two main heads of - (i) the thread-bearing Ambalavasis and (ii) the threadless Ambalavasis. Under the former head come the castes such as Pushpakan, Nambeesan, Thiyyadi, Kurukkal, Muthathu, Chakyar etc. who wear the Sacred-thread and under the latter Pihsaradi, Varyar, Pouval etc. Owing to their similarities in social customs and manners, some castes among the sacred thread bearing ambalavasis are together called Pushpaka Brahmins.

Sacred-thread wearing Ambalavasis

"Pushpaka Brahmins"

• Pushpaka (Pushpakan Unni), who bring flowers to the temples
• Theeyatt Unni
• Nambeesan
• Kurukkal
• Puppalli
• Nambidi

"Others"

• Chakyar
• Nambiar
• Moothathu
• Ilayathu

Threadless Ambalavais

• Adikal
• Pisharody
• Marar
• Warrier
• Poduval

The feminine name of threadless ambalavasi castes are formed by adding the suffix -syar to the masculine names as Adkikal-Adisyar, Pisharadi-Pisharasyar, Marar-Marasyar, Variar-Varasyar, Poduval-Poduvalsyar.

Temple services

The various sections of ambalavasis have each their distinct service to perform in the temple. Pushpakans and Nambeesans are suppliers of flowers to temple, Chakyar stages drama, Marar serves as temple musician, Poduval serves as temple manager and storekeeper, etc.

This relates to the edit of yours that I just reverted. I did so because, aside from some shuffling around of list items that were already sourced, you added additional unsourced items to the lists, headings that seemed not to be based on the sources and entire paragraphs that also lacked sources. Please read WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Nambdis

Nambidis are not Ambalavasi /Pushpaka Brahmins. They are not doing any temple activities(Kazhakam). They are just like Nambudiris, only difference is they are not doing 'Pooja'. SSVT-history (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC )