3 ms·

"My guess is that..." Would you be able to provide some of the evidence that led you to this guess? Or maybe you could give us your credentials, whatever educa

"My guess is that..." Would you be able to provide some of the evidence that led you to this guess? Or maybe you could give us your credentials, whatever education and experience you have that qualifies you to make guesses in the field of pre-Columbian Neolithic archaeology? Let me make it simpler: How do YOU know that 2-year-old death was "common" among these people, at this time? What supporting sources to this putative fact? I can understand being skeptical of the article author's conclusion, if they did a poor job explaining themselves... But your counter-hypothesis is just creative writing, without something a little more solid to back it up.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 5y ago
It'd be surprising if a 2-year-old's death was not common. Before 1900 or so, children in every society died like flies before reaching adulthood. It's why societies are so protective of their children, and why people had large families.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  The issue isn’t so much about arguing about commonness of 2 years old. Of course it was common. The giant leap is to conclude that it was human sacrifice. You need some credentials or provide more information to arrive to this conclusion. That’s what the argument was about.
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  But most infant deaths before 1900 were from infectious diseases that didn't even exist in human populations until our ancestors lived in large enough groups to become disease reservoirs. But your response just proves the meta-point I made, in my earlier comment... If you don't have any qualifications in Neolithic anthropology, and you're not citing any evidence from people who DO have those qualifications, then your uninformed speculations are just fairy tales. In not against unqualified speculation... Just don't be surprised when people point out that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're probably wrong.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 5y ago

It'd be surprising if a 2-year-old's death was not common. Before 1900 or so, children in every society died like flies before reaching adulthood. It's why societies are so protective of their children, and why people had large families.

jeromegv 5y ago
The issue isn’t so much about arguing about commonness of 2 years old. Of course it was common. The giant leap is to conclude that it was human sacrifice. You need some credentials or provide more information to arrive to this conclusion. That’s what the argument was about.
SkittyDog 5y ago
But most infant deaths before 1900 were from infectious diseases that didn't even exist in human populations until our ancestors lived in large enough groups to become disease reservoirs. But your response just proves the meta-point I made, in my earlier comment... If you don't have any qualifications in Neolithic anthropology, and you're not citing any evidence from people who DO have those qualifications, then your uninformed speculations are just fairy tales. In not against unqualified speculation... Just don't be surprised when people point out that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're probably wrong.