Incidentally, needs to be emphasized here that is possible to be too sceptical, & some criticisms not necessarily wholly fair. Definitely >
-
Show this thread
-
> potential for caveats+cautions that aren't fully developed in paper, but strikes me we're long way from 'debunking', contrary to some… >
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
> My take, fwiw, is that seems reasonable to believe remains *are* those of Bj 581, reading supp data, & scepticism not really justified. >
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
> Likewise, authors do a valuable service in removing the traditional 'the osteologists must be wrong' objection to female weapons burials.>
4 replies 0 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
> And finally, authors make important point that 'Male individuals in burials w/ a similar material record are not questioned in the same >
2 replies 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
> way' & 'interpretation should be made in a similar manner regardless of the biological sex of the interred individual'. >
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likesShow 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.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Dr Caitlin Green Retweeted Dr Rachel Pope
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 …
Dr Caitlin Green added,
1 reply 2 retweets 19 likesShow 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 :)
4 replies 3 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @caitlinrgreen
Great and balanced summary. Thanks!
@preshitorian will be pleased too1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Glad you liked! :)
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.