Something's fucky with this "research":
It was an analysis of substances known as “peptides” in her teeth – which are markers for biological sex - that showed that she was female.
You know how else you can tell a female? From her fucking pelvis. Why this strange way of going about it that's far more prone to error than just looking at her pelvis. Something tells me "her" pelvis wasn't female.
The authors of the study, published in Science Advances, also reviewed evidence of other skeletons buried around the same period in the Americas, looking specifically at graves containing similar tools associated with big-game hunting. They found that of the 27 skeletons for which sex could be determined, 41% were likely female.
This is science-speak for, "we didn't do any actual research, but just read a lot of shit in the library and decided it matched what we were looking for."
This idea goes against a hypothesis, dating back to the 1960s, known as the “Man-The-Hunter model”, which is increasingly being debunked.
Ah, the agenda is revealed. Just how is it being debunked, let alone increasingly? Are you talking about some angry feminist jew bitches sitting in a library deciding that these studies were really finding women? Or is it that women were buried with spears? Because we all know husbands, fathers, and brothers could not possibly have buried them with anything of theirs.
Some present day hunter-gatherers still use atlatls today, and some people also enjoy using atlatls in competitive throwing events, with women and children regularly taking part.
Oh wow. There's some strong evidence. Women and children like to use atlatls in throwing competitions, therefor all of anthropology to date is wrong about the past.
(post is archived)