• LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wait, I am stupid. Does that mean that many men died, and only few procreated? And assuming the birth rates are the same, why wouldn’t there be women skeletons? After all, everyone dies, whether in a fist fight over who gets to have sex at 14 or of cancer at like 70?

    • tetris11@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Does that mean that many men died, and only few procreated?

      Actively bludgeoned by another tribe and then thrown in a pit. These are young men, I should add

      why wouldn’t there be women skeletons?

      They are not killed, but captured and carried away as spoils of war to the conquering tribe

      • Honytawk@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        They are not killed, but captured and carried away as spoils of war to the conquering tribe

        So why aren’t there women skeletons at those conquering tribes? They had to die somewhere.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I believe you misread, they said a high number of males with evidence of trauma. Basically a very large percentage of male skeletons showed damage. The original comment didn’t say there were no female skeletons.

          Also depending on the dig site mass graves of men killed in combat are common. Those would obviously lack women.

        • tetris11@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          So why aren’t there women skeletons at those conquering tribes? They had to die somewhere.

          There probably are, but we don’t stumble across them as easily as we do the mass grave dig sites I think