> suppose it's theoretically possible the metal could have been made in China, exported elsewhere to make into the statue
Or the metal was made in China, made into a statue and then reworked into a slightly different one. Happens all the time that statues get melted down and the metal is reused.
> that seems like a claim that would require a LOT of evidence to make plausible
That is not the claim. The claim is that we don’t know.
Direct quote from comment: “the origin of the artwork seems unclear”.
Saying “we know both the metal and the pattern the metal is in came from China” is what requires evidence. (Not extra ordinary evidence, but some. For example the stylistic analysis mentioned in the article could be that evidence easily.)
And before someone tries to psychoanalyse my opinion about the origins of this statue: i do not have an opinion.
The only thing i have strong opinions about is that the person claiming that we do know something is the one who has to provide evidence, not the person who claims we don’t know something.
Or the metal was made in China, made into a statue and then reworked into a slightly different one. Happens all the time that statues get melted down and the metal is reused.
> that seems like a claim that would require a LOT of evidence to make plausible
That is not the claim. The claim is that we don’t know. Direct quote from comment: “the origin of the artwork seems unclear”.
Saying “we know both the metal and the pattern the metal is in came from China” is what requires evidence. (Not extra ordinary evidence, but some. For example the stylistic analysis mentioned in the article could be that evidence easily.)
And before someone tries to psychoanalyse my opinion about the origins of this statue: i do not have an opinion.
The only thing i have strong opinions about is that the person claiming that we do know something is the one who has to provide evidence, not the person who claims we don’t know something.