It’s already kind of iffy to assume religious significance to a find, but to assume function within a ritual? Those bones could be her collection of pretty bones for all we know. That’s bad science journalism. I bet the archeologist got caught musing what could it mean and the writer simply cherry picked what they thought was most interesting.
the writer simply cherry picked what they thought was most interesting
seems like that’s a fair description of what all journalism ends up being, but most especially science journalism… i hate trying to sift through articles for actual information on finds like this…
It’s already kind of iffy to assume religious significance to a find, but to assume function within a ritual? Those bones could be her collection of pretty bones for all we know. That’s bad science journalism. I bet the archeologist got caught musing what could it mean and the writer simply cherry picked what they thought was most interesting.
seems like that’s a fair description of what all journalism ends up being, but most especially science journalism… i hate trying to sift through articles for actual information on finds like this…