Can you share a pre-print version of your paper, Oliver? I’m interested in the developmental hypotheses you propose for these findings. When you write “not too far away from some outcomes of philological research” I presume you mean von Simson (1968/1969) (cited in your 2017 paper). But even if your results are close, it cannot vindicate von Simson’s work as “philological research.” It only demonstrates the failure of text-historical philology as it unfolded from Lassen to von Simson, since a a different science and technology, i.e., computer science and information technology, was required. The success of psychopharmacology does not vindicate phrenology as a science. Results acquired through prejudice, chance, or ideology are not scientific results, and the development of a posterior science cannot confer scientificity on them. Finally, we cannot referee past Mahābhārata scholarship without attention to its historical context. Here I recommend looking at The Nay Sciencefor von Simson’s reliance on Holtzmann’s “inversion hypothesis” and on Lassen’s thesis of a war epic before its “Brahmanic” corruption. I have uploaded the section here: http://www.academia.edu/37681318. Also, to bring this discussion, which Jan Houben began, full circle, see this link for Irawati Karve: http://manufacturingrace.org/3-researchers. We simply cannot go forward with philology unless we acknowledge the problems with previous scholarship.