Tampering with history
sns at IX.NETCOM.COM
Thu Jun 18 21:44:41 UTC 1998
Let me make a point clear:
When I say "retrofitting" - I am questioning the methodology of
the migrationists - i.e first assuming that a migration happened
and then trying to interpret data accordingly.
This is crucial, especially when equally valid other options/interpretations
are avaliable - for eg: Retroflexion - is it because of migration or
is it an internal development ?
If one chooses migration - what evidence is there to choose it ?.
If one calls it internal development - then what is the available evidence ?.
I would pick internal development, because there is no evidence of
any migration from evidences like archeology, textual or genetic.
If one notices, the original evidence for a invasion/migration
i.e textual (racist interpretations like dasa,anaasa etc) and archeological
(Harappa was destroyed by invading aryans..) are no longer valid.
Thus the original evidence on which invasion/migration was postulated
doesnt exist !...So - the linguistic evidence which relied on such
archeological confirmation is also suspect !!.
The bottom line is - when linguistic evidence is proposed - corroborative
evidence from other sources should be available. Proceeding with an
initial assumption of a migration, interpreting linguistic data accordingly
and then asserting that there is linguistic evidence of a migration is
example of a "circular" evidence.
For the rest, I guess we should agree to diagree and leave it at that.
More information about the INDOLOGY