this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
274 points (96.9% liked)
science
15765 readers
456 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It barely implies anything except "men" meaning at least two.
If only they started the headline with "Some" and removed all ambiguity
It shouldn't say "Some", it should say "British" because if you read the article this seems to be a trend across British iron age communities.
But Britishers weren't around back then, time travellers notwithstanding, because the land wasn't Britain yet. Furthermore, using "British" in place of "Some" would mitigate the problem but not solve it- owing to that the implication is that the set of Iron Age men were not homogenous. Reducing them to a subset, regardless of the name, still implies that the subset, now, is homogenous. No homo.
So not trying to argue, just have a genuine conversation. Talking from an American perspective, British implies the British Isles (place) to me and not the people (who I honestly have no idea when they lived or currently live there??). I'm not familiar with any other name for the isles (again speaking as an American).
Also, I think (or hope) that most people would understand and any research into the Iron Age is only showing a survival bias that may not indicate the whole population in an area. However, I think it's fair to state that if you see a trend across multiple sites in roughly the same time period, it indicates a larger cultural practice in that area because we are only seeing a small amount of surving evidence. For this reason, I think "some" is too broad.