>>11992408It's no coincidence that this coincides with the development of agriculture. Why not a few thousand years earlier or later?
But I don't believe the men were around. They were probably killed or castrated and kept as slaves. I don't think there was a social order that could survive for 4000 years where 17 in 18 men were idle and poor and completely denied access to sex. It probably couldn't survive one year, maybe not even a month. And I don't believe that an order could exist where one man could keep 17 women faithful and raise only his own offspring with such a high number of eligible and willing men around trying to get some unless 17 in 18 men were castrated or dead.
