![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been dragging myself through a very intriguing and valuable (and at the same time deathly boring) article on the many incongruences associated with the dating and identifying of the so-called "Wu Family Shrines," a collection of carved stones traditionally thought to be part of a funerary monument for the Wu family dating from the Han Dynasty (206BCE-221CE). I was captivated by the author, Cary Y. Liu's, first section, during which he outlined the various problems associated with previous scholarly examinations that relied heavily on the textual sources connected with the monument and discussed in depth the contradictions between said textual sources.
Then came the 30+ pages detailing, in almost cruel detail, the process of the monument's discovery. And, of course, I appreciate that a clear presentation of the discovery (and its many twists, turns, and disparities) is vital to Liu's argument that much of the academic world's scholarship surrounding this monument can be called into question for its don't-ask-don't-tell-style wholesale acceptance of clearly flawed primary evidence. At the same time, I cannot take another word of it at present.
Now, of course, I realize that the inscrutability of story of the monument's discovery and subsequent categorization is not Liu's fault. And I truly do salute his dedication and forthrightness in taking his reader through it so thoroughly. Still, I have to wonder if it gave him as much of a headache as it's giving me. And I also wonder about my own future research projects. What will I do if ever faced with the same kind of monstrous discrepancies and confusions? Hopefully something akin to what Liu himself has done; slog through it and record it for posterity, even if said posterity cannot hardly keep themselves awake for the recitation.
Then came the 30+ pages detailing, in almost cruel detail, the process of the monument's discovery. And, of course, I appreciate that a clear presentation of the discovery (and its many twists, turns, and disparities) is vital to Liu's argument that much of the academic world's scholarship surrounding this monument can be called into question for its don't-ask-don't-tell-style wholesale acceptance of clearly flawed primary evidence. At the same time, I cannot take another word of it at present.
Now, of course, I realize that the inscrutability of story of the monument's discovery and subsequent categorization is not Liu's fault. And I truly do salute his dedication and forthrightness in taking his reader through it so thoroughly. Still, I have to wonder if it gave him as much of a headache as it's giving me. And I also wonder about my own future research projects. What will I do if ever faced with the same kind of monstrous discrepancies and confusions? Hopefully something akin to what Liu himself has done; slog through it and record it for posterity, even if said posterity cannot hardly keep themselves awake for the recitation.
