Beautifully summarized! I cannot agree more.
But a bigger problem is that not only we continue to rely on the opinions of the past, but that some contemporary colleagues create new misconceptions using the same principle. This was exactly my beef with the notion that a strange (unusual, atypical) object is necessarily a fake in the absence of hard facts. Or, in reverse, that some objects accepted by the “authorities “ as ancient may in fact be newly-made.
Elgood’s re-dating of Indian weapons was based on meticulous analysis of archive documents, not on parroting Pant, Fiegel and Rawson. Re-dating of shashkas was based on hard facts of old church frescoes, not on poor translations of some travel diary.
I do hope Motan is right and the fact-based approach is taking over, although I am sad to see that the old “ herr professor” one is still alive and kicking.
|