it sounds more like blood sport than an organized battle.

In the latter, a greater proportion with unhealed fractures would have been present as combatants too wounded to stagger off would have been finished off by their side or by the victors.

Blood sport would have given horrific injuries in mostly men, who tend to take more risks, the injured carried off to have their fractures set and splinted, relatively few being injured mortally. However, sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you and bear baiting has never been considered particularly safe. Or lion, tiger, hippo aurochs, or even wild horse.

ETA: Armed conflict between armies was definitely going on during that time period, only it was in the eastern Mediterranean region. Odd how some things never seem to change.

stands in comparison to Native American populations that were engaged in periods of ongoing skirmishing with neighboring tribes/bands? (and of course not all of them were)

Still, the raids would have left more than 10% dead among the losers. and I don't think those who survived their wounds would have been given a chance to heal and were buried later in the same place.

Blood sport, on the other hand, would explain it perfectly.

we are a murderous species.