Harappan Euhemerus

[Stephen Hodge]

Steve Farmer wrote:

> Euhemerism is simply the technical name for what Shendge is
> doing.
Thank you for the little potted explanation of Euhemerus but I was
aware of who he was and the ideas he propounded in his "Sacred
History".   I discuss him and other related matters inter alia in my
recent book on Atlantis theories -- you will also see from it what my
views are about imaginitive reconstructions of ancient history and
pseudo-scientific diffusionist theories.

> Beyond Shendge, you would be hard pressed to find any modern
adherents.
But if we strip away her "imaginative reconstructions", is there
intrinsically any reason why she should be totally wrong in general
terms ?    I have not read her particular book you quote from, but I
wonder who she was writing for -- an academic audience or a popular
one.   Publishers have a lot to answer for in their demands on authors
!

> We are *not* talking here -- to reply to one of your questions --
about single
> acts of apotheosis.
 So ?

> But I'm an evidential scholar, Stephen.
But often hypotheses go for decades without evidential corroboration,
only to be proven at a later date -- look at astro and nuclear
physics.   There seems to be a greater willingness to tolerate
"daring" or unusual theories in that field.   New theories like
Shendge's have a value inasmuch as they might make consensus scholars
re-evaluate known facts.  I seem to remember that you had certain
theories about the oral transmission of the Vedas in the absence of
written texts but later conceded that it could well be an exceptional
case.   I imagine that both yourself and the "professional"
Indologists found the exchange fruitful.   I find it sad when some
people are not prepared to give other honest and presumably sincere
scholars the benefit of doubt but instead ridicule or misrepresent
those ideas as though oneself knew all the answers.

> I'd be happy to discuss whatever
> textual evidence you think lies behind this miraculous historical
> reconstruction.
You misunderstand me.  I was not writing in support of her
reconstructions at all but I was questioning the overall dismissal of
her theories that may eventually turn out to be wrong but are
nevertheless thought-provoking.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge