method of dating RV, III

Lars Martin Fosse lmfosse at ONLINE.NO
Wed Jun 10 21:07:34 UTC 1998

Subrahmania wrote:

>So, the data is 'reconciled' into a pre-supposed migrationist hypothesis!.
>If this aint retrofitting, what is ?

Isn't it fairly normal in all branches of science and scholarship to
reinterpret material in the light of new material? It is pretty evident to
me that we have to assign certain weights to evidence. Some evidence is more
fundamental than other. In the case of the migration theory, I, for one,
would regard the linguistic evidence as extemely important, whereas other
evidence would have to be interpreted in the light of the linguistic
evidence. The migration/invasion theory is basic, other evidence deals
rather with exactly HOW things happened. In other words, I don't doubt the
migration theory, but I am quite open as to how things may have happened.

>Actually, this is "standard operating procedure" of invasion/migration
>theorists :  Presuppose a invasion/migration first , and then proceed to
>interpret the data to fit it.

As for presuppositions: I have recently read books by Shrikant Talageri and
D. K. Sethna. Both make a very strong point about the social and political
unsuitability of the migration theory. It is obvious that the "indigenists"
have just as strong, if not stronger, pre-suppositions as the migrationists.
In fact, based on material I have gone through recently, I could easily
maintain that the indigenist theory is politically motivated. (Which, by the
way, does not mean that its followers don't believe passionately in it).

Now, we can either discuss pre-suppositions, or we can discuss the written
and archaeological material at hand. I suggest we stick to the latter.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse Lars Martin Fosse
Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,
0674 Oslo

Tel: +47 22 32 12 19
Fax: +47 22 32 12 19
Email: lmfosse at
Mobile phone: 90 91 91 45

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list