08-13-2016, 04:13 PM
Christopher Matthew didn't present data for the theories we're discussing (overhand vs underhand), he introduced anecdotal evidence based on his own reenactment experiments. Others have also done experimental archaeology and their theories are different. That means someone is right, someone is wrong, or all sides are right and wrong, but more so, it means that there is no way to prove this discussion conclusively. Overhand has its merits, it has historical evidence backing it up, and it has experimental archaeology proving its usefulness. Underhand has its merits, it has some historical evidence backing it up, and it has experimental archaeology proving its usefulness.
