Sounds like many tweeters have not taken the time to look at the actual paper. We do use Medieval data, and in fact, compiled multiple new datasets from existing sources. All of our datasets can be traced to the original sources.https://twitter.com/AdmiralHip/status/1193916378245484545 …
-
-
Replying to @JoHenrich
Sir, I read your article about 5 times now. No where do I see an indication of an engagement with medieval sources, or a proper engagement with the secondary literature. I should point out, again, that the medieval data is sparse and absent for many places, across time.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @JoHenrich
I see some old papers and refuted monographs in your reference list. I also see that you do not acknowledge several areas that were under the influence of the Church within the periods you selected.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @JoHenrich
So tell me in plain text: what medieval sources did you use? Don’t direct me to look at the data sets, I cannot see where any of the medieval data is represented there. I want to know: manuscripts, texts, places. Why there is no accounting for cousin marriages post 1500
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @AdmiralHip @JoHenrich
Section 9.3 of their supplemental details the sources used for the Church exposure variables.pic.twitter.com/iX16yzpiB2
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @babeheim @JoHenrich
Can I ask you where you got this from? Reading the supplement it talks about Bishoprics but not this specifically.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Ah nvm, found them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.