And lastly, a few notes & thoughts. First, the supporting information file is worth a read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/ajpa.23308/asset/supinfo/ajpa23308-sup-0002-suppinfo2.docx?v=1&s=caf54d8109a0e9b0582d257a49aa8a719b82f23a … In particular, it incl >
-
-
> Likewise, authors do a valuable service in removing the traditional 'the osteologists must be wrong' objection to female weapons burials.>
Show this thread -
> And finally, authors make important point that 'Male individuals in burials w/ a similar material record are not questioned in the same >
Show this thread -
> way' & 'interpretation should be made in a similar manner regardless of the biological sex of the interred individual'. >
Show this thread -
> In my view, it's a fascinating paper; caveats possible+important to note re: exact interpretation (see above), but it is worth defending.
Show this thread -
In sum, I don't have major issue w/ paper, I don't think you should either, & some critiques go too far; see alsohttps://twitter.com/preshitorian/status/907186879656873986 …
Show this thread -
Essentially, amount of scepticism we exhibit over interpreting 581 as a warrior should be similar to that which we'd show if they were XY :)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.