• SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • AppaYipYip@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.