| Original Message: Let's look it it this way.... |
|---|
|
I can show you some beads I bought in a store in San Francisco in 1980—41 years ago. If I were naieve about beads, I might say, "These beads are from San Francisco." Or even "These beads were made in San Francisco." The first statement is circumstantial. And it is true, as far as it goes. The second statement is not true (because no one in San Francisco made such beads). But these are the things naive people think and say, constantly. An "archaeologist" does not travel around the world, seeking to buy interesting beads. But someone who is interested in archaeologically-interesting beads might do that. And he might present himself as an "archaeologist." But that would be a subterfuge (deceitful). This "archaeologist" might show you photos from a museum in Ladakh, and say "These beads were made in Ladakh." And he (being not very well-informed) might actually believe that. But his belief does not make it true. All we really know is that this person says the photo is from a museum in Ladakn, and he and his friends believe this means the beads shown were made there. Many many people have naive ideas about beads. They think and believe many untrue and even impossible things about the beads they have or have seen. I have been reporting this for most of my career, that began in the early 1970s. I cannot say with any authority that the beads in-question were not made in Ladakh; nor even that they would not be found in Ladakh. Neither is impossible. I can only say that, in antiquity, most carnelian beads, found anywhere from across Asia, were made in India; or were made by people who learned Indian practices. That is a conventional proposition. And I can say that, in terms of Ladakh material culture, I have not seen such beads from that context. That doesn't mean there are none. I have not studied early Ladakh; nor have I been to their museums. But I can say that, on the surface of things, what has been said sounds a great deal like the misinformed beliefs of someone whose knowledge is over-simple—and is typical of people in many parts of the world where mythology and simple ideas are believed. It is very possible that you have related your story candidly and honestly. And it is possible the person or people who spoke to you believe what they said—and that they were archaeologists. I can only say, based on my experience, that the story sounds far-fetched. Or simplistic. Or made-up because of the goals or desires of the people who spoke to you. The story is only interesting if we consider it MIGHT be true, and if it encourages further investigation. That is how scientific inquiry operates. Be well. Jamey All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|