When we are talking about real research, we are talking about patterns and trends. Figuring out that a particular sword is from, say, Kutch and belonged to such-and-such is like putting a small simple tile on an empty board of 10,000 piece puzzle. Research is about unearthing governing principles.
Unfortunately, very few people are dealing with it. Perhaps, a book by Rivkin and Isaaks about history of Eastern sword comes closest to it.
Also, we lack the most powerful research tool: experimental verification. We cannot change anything in our database, we just observe individual examples and try to tie them into some more or less coherent story. But our databases are contaminated by outliers, composite examples ( true, not faked by sellers), throwbacks, accidental examples of items wandering into foreign territories, late imitations etc.
We have to rely on the opinions of our predecessors, and we all know how far-fetched some of them could have been.
In short, research of arms and armour can never be as academic and conclusive as, say, physics or molecular biology ( and those have their problems, too). We are dealing with the past, with history, and I do not have to remind anyone that we still are not sure about demise of Roman Empire or the meaning of French Revolution.
This is not to say that we should abandon all hope; just that we have to know out limitations.
|