Chronicles
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Was just reading in British Archaeology (March 2003) an article on roman Burials - and it particularly covered the issue of infanticide.
I do quite accept that infanticide happened. What I disagree with is the argument of the degree to which it was practiced.
In simple terms, there are too many assumptions rising that I feel are unsupported - or else simply not convincingly explained. In the article in question, it looked like sloppy scholarship. Or maybe it's just myself being over-opinionated.
For example, one issue raised is that the majority of buried babies are those at "full term", rather than a spread of various stages of embryonic development. The interpretation here from some archaeologists is that these babies were therefore buried only after being exposed to death.
However, before jumping to sensationalist perceptions, the more mundane interpretations needs to be adderssed.
(out of time - will continue later)
I do quite accept that infanticide happened. What I disagree with is the argument of the degree to which it was practiced.
In simple terms, there are too many assumptions rising that I feel are unsupported - or else simply not convincingly explained. In the article in question, it looked like sloppy scholarship. Or maybe it's just myself being over-opinionated.
For example, one issue raised is that the majority of buried babies are those at "full term", rather than a spread of various stages of embryonic development. The interpretation here from some archaeologists is that these babies were therefore buried only after being exposed to death.
However, before jumping to sensationalist perceptions, the more mundane interpretations needs to be adderssed.
(out of time - will continue later)