Oriental philology after Orientalism

One can hardly imagine a more typically Orientalist discipline than philology. Its heyday in the late nineteenth century coincided with the height of colonial domination of Asia by some European nations. Thanks to the critical programme of Edward Said and those inspired by him in the late twentieth century, we now understand how Oriental philology went fist in glove with the violence of colonialism. Philologists could dissect the wording of Oriental texts because colonial armies stuffed them into Western libraries and museums. Indeed, the field itself “now carries a hint of criminality”. How do we live with the original sin of Oriental philology, which is rooted in the expropriation of the written heritage of Asian societies? Can we reconcile the epistemological premises of philology with indigenous ways of handling texts, or will they always be each other’s Other? What possible use does today’s world have for such a culpable and disengaged discipline as Oriental philology?