4 ms·
If the skeletons all died from the same injury, a blow to the back of the head, and were killed over a period of time, why isn't the most obvious answer that th
by merpnderp 7y ago
If the skeletons all died from the same injury, a blow to the back of the head, and were killed over a period of time, why isn't the most obvious answer that this lake was a religious site and these people killed in a religious ceremony? It's not like sacrificing captives, slaves, and members of one's own people was uncommon.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThe Wikipedia article offers more information. Two groups, one dating from ~9th c CE, the 2nd about 200 years ago. Even if the earlier set of skeletons were from several different dates or years, the possiblity that this was some sort of travel route and local sheltering spot, with as noted, hail-induced fatalities, seems plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roopkund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roopkund
- logfromblammo 7y agoBut "religious or ceremonial" is archaeology's cop out. According to article, the skeletons had compression fractures, consistent with blunt-force injury (as by hailstorm), and analysis of the skulls is planned for the next study. I'd rule out banditry, military action, natural geological or weather events, and poisoning first.