Book review: Indus Age- the Writing System by Gregory L.Possehl.

[Lars Martin Fosse]

>

Bo Klintberg wrote:

> I think there are some serious philosophical problems with your
> conclusion. If I understand you correctly you seem to say something like
> the following:
>
> The Indo-Europeans migrated. We have not found any of their records
> where they say they migrated. Since we haven't found any such records,
> they did not write such records. And since they did not produce
> such records, it must be because they did not consider it important. And
> since THEY did not consider it important, WE should not
> also consider it important.

This is not what I am saying but your interpretation of what I am saying. What I am
saying is this:
1. Indo-Europeans migrated. Such migrations are historically recorded since the first
millenium BCE. I see no reasons why they shouldn't have migrated before that. It is
the only reasonable explanation for the extensive spread of Indo-European languages,
and probably also for some archaeological data as well.
2. The earliest migrations were by people without a writing system. Which means that
they had an oral history. Which means that "history" very quickly got absorbed by myth
(see e.g. Eliade, Myth of the Eternal Return, or Cosmos and History".). However, we
sometimes see a need for a "history" (as in Rome, where Virgil produced an epic on the
basis of imaginary history). In such cases, origins were regarded as important and
"histories" were produced.
3. What you choose to regard as important is a matter of personal taste. My point was
simply that the non-mention of migrations in the Veda doesn't prove anything. It is an
argument ex nihilo.

> My questions are as follows: Is it PROVEN that the Indo-Europeans
> migrated?

I would say that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. For a recent account,
you may try Bernard Sergent's book on Les Indo-Europeens.


> Does the fact that we DON'T have unearthed any records
> necessarily imply that they didn't write any?

Not necessarily. But in the case of Greece and Rome, we have enormous literatures
without a hint of what happened in prehistory. This is not surprising if you have read
Eliade's book. Before writing, oral history prevails, and oral history tends to be
concerned with other things than "historical events" in the modern sense of the word.


> And even if they didn't
> write any records, how can you KNOW that the reason was that they didn't
> consider it important?

I don't know, it is an inference. The Romans produced a myth of origins when it became
politically important. But I'll agree that the inference has a weak link. My point is
rather: if it had been important to them, they would probably not have given us an
historical account in the modern sense of the word, but they would have given us an
mythical or half-mythical account of a place of origin. The Iranians did - in the
shape of airyanam vaejo. The Indians did not.

> Let's assume that the reason for why we haven't found any records about
> migration is, as you seem to say, that they did not write any records.
> Then, philosophically speaking, it would not be impossible that such a
> behaviour would be the result of a situation in which there WAS no
> migration; thus, why should they write any records of migration, if there
> was no migration?

This is too abstract. We know quite a lot about Indo-Europeans in various shapes and
of their languages and cultures. We know that they migrated, beyond reasonable doubt.
Before you philosophise, check to see if there is evidence to indicate that they
migrated. But of course: if you don't migrate, you don't have a memory of a migration.
My point, however, was: if you don't have  a memory of a migration, there are at least
two explanations. Consequently, the fact that a migration is not mentioned in the
ancient Indic literature has little argumentative value. I hope this inference is
philosophically acceptable.

Lars Martin Fosse