posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
Statements like the following, quoted from the article, make me go... Huh???
"The women and children appear to have died of flesh wounds that have left no trace on the surviving bones."
I'm assuming the so-called wounded flesh also did not survive to be analyzed, since flesh decomposes relatively quickly. So... it seems like a giant
leap to say they died of flesh wounds, when they fully admit there's no trace [evidence] of this on the surviving bones. Anybody else find this odd?
The people also could have died of dysentery that left no trace on the surviving bones.
For all we know, these "mass graves" that archaeologists discover from time to time, may actually be poorly built underground bunkers. Just
OP, no criticism aimed at you... thanks for sharing the article!