3 ms·
If there were a lot of men dying in wars, wouldn't there be a lot of damaged skeletons which would lead to the conclusion that it was a violent time? You're off
by whatshisface 4y ago
If there were a lot of men dying in wars, wouldn't there be a lot of damaged skeletons which would lead to the conclusion that it was a violent time? You're offhandedly dismissing a statement that could have a lot behind it.
- ch4s3 4y agoThere aren’t a lot of skeletons for the time period at all.
- adamsb6 4y agoThere might be such skeletons. But even bones decompose, especially on these time scales. That any time in history was not a violent time is itself an extraordinary claim. Additionally, thousands of men, 100% of a genetic line, opting to not reproduce would also be an extraordinary event. We've seen men turned eunuch by cults before, but I don't think ever at such a scale. We have many historical examples of genocide, as well as invaders killing the local men and taking the women as their wives. There are a lot of possibilities, but this archaeologist is discounting a very likely possibility with flimsy reasoning. I'm reminded of how virologists seemed to unite behind the idea that COVID couldn't possibly be a lab escape, but they had no real evidence to dismiss the possibility. They weren't following the evidence, but rather following the popular narrative.