this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
341 points (98.0% liked)
Greentext
6905 readers
624 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They genocided each other too.
The skeletal remains that we find of males at dig sites have vast amounts of damage to them, and we find significantly less women and girl skeletal remains. Aeons later and the heterogeneity of the Y chromosome is suspiciously low in contrast to that shown in mtDNA. That's a lot of killing and raping
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?
Actively bludgeoned by another tribe and then thrown in a pit. These are young men, I should add
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.
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.
There probably are, but we don't stumble across them as easily as we do the mass grave dig sites I think