> Given the fact that the pair were both buried around 200 B.C., the Office for Urban Development suggests it is “quite possible” they knew each other.
Certainly fascinating. But why - in the context of science - do they have to make unsubstantiated statements like this? It's unnecessary. It dilutes the standard expectation of what actually constitutes science. Is it any wonder the general public oscillates between no trust and confused?
Leave the TMZ'ing to TMZ. Leave the BuzzFeed'ing to BuzzFeed. Please.
I think that's a pretty reasonable shorthand for saying that two separate archeological sites overlapped in time, place, and culture, and which makes comparisons/differences between them more immediately interesting.
That's my point. It's adding a story arc where there is none.
Unless there is evidence the two grave sites overlapped (in time) then the "theory" proposed is bad science. Again, it sets an unreasonable expectation. Science has enough problems right now. Using faux storylines isn't going to help.
I don't think this is at all as serious as you think. I don't think this is the Zurich Office for Urban Development spinning a cute little narrative, I think it's more similar to the Corded Ware culture [0], where scientists identified a lot of clayware buried in corresponding times and places, and so theorized that the people that make them communicated and shared a culture. The timing, and the coordination, suggested that those people corresponded to the Indo-European spread from near the Black Sea into western Europe.
In taking two things (two pieces of clayware, or two people) uncovered with similar features, you are usually able to extrapolate more information than by holding each one in perfect isolation.
What's more, there's not a whole lot riding on this. The office said "Isn't this interesting, that two archaeological sites are so close in place and time". That usually doesn't happen, particularly that far back in time. If the Office had editorialized that they were lovers, or best friends, I would agree with you, but this is just saying "We can date them to a very similar time, and to a very similar place. They are intrinsically linked, and should be treated as being more close together than separate."
Full disclosure: I don't disagree. In fact, the TV show is pretty funny.
That said, in the name of viewers and profits, they are drawn to the mundane and the minutia. Yes, the model works for them. But that doesn't mean every media source has to be so disposable in terms of actual quality/value of the message delivered.
Certainly fascinating. But why - in the context of science - do they have to make unsubstantiated statements like this? It's unnecessary. It dilutes the standard expectation of what actually constitutes science. Is it any wonder the general public oscillates between no trust and confused?
Leave the TMZ'ing to TMZ. Leave the BuzzFeed'ing to BuzzFeed. Please.