Posted on 11/30/2017 10:11:53 AM PST by BusterDog
Prehistoric women had stronger arms than elite female rowing teams do today thanks to the daily grind of farming life, researchers have revealed, shedding light on their role in early communities.
The study of ancient bones suggests that manual agricultural work had a profound effect on the bodies of women living in central Europe between about the early neolithic and late iron age, from about 5,300BC to AD100.
“We think a lot of what we are seeing is the bone’s response to women grinding grain, which is pretty much seated but using your arms really repetitively many hours a day,” said Dr Alison Macintosh, co-author of the research from the University of Cambridge.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
And they lived way up to their mid-thirties in age.
.
>> “‘cept they died before they were 30...” <<
Total nonsense!
Many of them lived over 900 years.
Short life spans are a modern development.
.
.
The authors of this BS screed need stupid shaming!
.
-PJ
.
Mid nine hundreds in age.
.
There is no such thing as pre-history.
My brother gave a vacuum once to my sis-in-law. She threw back the vacuum like Nolan Rya was pitching a fastball.
Sound like your bro got wrinkly shirt and no sammich
Click the Pic
Thats very interesting...
Not sure I understand why that might be...you say forced labor: wonder how it differed from what they were doing previously. Longer hours maybe....
I'd still hit it.
my simplistic explanation why we have such wimpy young men these days...at least the white ones...
the men go for the skinny women and they expect they'll produce big strong burly football player types?....not happening...
instead, we have a ton of tall, very skinny, types....a good wind could blow them over...imo..
I agree. The study is flawed, because the weak children and women died early. Only the strong survived. 5300 BC is not that long ago, despite them saying prehistoric as if people were like apes back then. They weren't that much different. They were stronger because survival demanded it, and the weaker ones perished. Plus, a sampling of some 94 women going back 6000 years among a worldwide population of some 50 million on average (back then) is not a valid testbed for formulating a hypothesis as fact. This sampling could be dramatically skewed from the mean and has a high rate of error deviation.
Who cares!
Thanks BusterDog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
