I complitely agree.
But why "we" talk about "sanskritisation" phenomena if a goddess and her devotional cult are dominated by tribal elements? I would like to describe this goddesses as "tribalised", maybe because they represent a manipulation of the "mainstream" Hindu Devi, to whom are overimposed tribal elements.
 
If the sanskritisation (or brahmanisation) process can be described as a vertical axis where are different degrees of sanskritisation; maybe we could describe this axis with two poles: one "sanskritisation", the other "tribalisation"... obviously the dialectic between cultures bring to hybrid phenomenon, but in my opinion the Hindu-Assamese culture is widely dominated by tribal traditions, and this probably depend by ancient politic needs.
 
Best,
Paolo
 
P.S.: Maybe someone has a pdf copy of Kunal Chakrabarti "Religious Processes: The Puranas and the Making of a Regional Tradition" (2001).
 

On 7 July 2015 at 11:25, Artur Karp <karp@uw.edu.pl> wrote:
Dear Paolo,

> So that are we sure that Kamahya is a sanskritised goddess? Or should we consider the reverse process? Doesn't seem that were the Hindus to emulate the tribal-men incorporating tribal worship elements?

To my mind, both. 

A perfect example of a dialogic situation, whatever the motivation behind the move to set up a new, structurally enriched place of worship and a newly conceived object of veneration. 

Best, 

Artur



_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



--
Paolo E. Rosati
Oriental Archaeologist
PhD candidate in Civilisations of Asia & Africa
Section: South Asian Studies
Dep. Italian Institute of Oriental Studies (ISO)
'Sapienza' University of Rome
Skype: paoloe.rosati