<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Human Sacrifice in Stone Age Europe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://anthropology.net/2007/05/30/human-sacrifice-in-stone-age-europe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://anthropology.net/2007/05/30/human-sacrifice-in-stone-age-europe/</link>
	<description>Beyond bones &#38; stones</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:33:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jules</title>
		<link>http://anthropology.net/2007/05/30/human-sacrifice-in-stone-age-europe/#comment-15370</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jules]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anthropology.net/2007/05/30/human-sacrifice-in-stone-age-europe/#comment-15370</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;By its slender proportions, the third was judged to be female, aged seventeen to twenty&quot;
Oh dear, I wish people would stop that. Sexual dimorphism is relative to time period and population, and not as simple as small = female. 
Anyways, I thought the middle skeleton had been sexed as a male? A lecturer of mine reviewed the case about three weeks ago and she mentioned that all individuals were males. Maybe somebody reassessed the skeletons after this post was made?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;By its slender proportions, the third was judged to be female, aged seventeen to twenty&#8221;<br />
Oh dear, I wish people would stop that. Sexual dimorphism is relative to time period and population, and not as simple as small = female.<br />
Anyways, I thought the middle skeleton had been sexed as a male? A lecturer of mine reviewed the case about three weeks ago and she mentioned that all individuals were males. Maybe somebody reassessed the skeletons after this post was made?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

