after it was were discovered

[GoodTaste]

The researchers concluded that 2 of the 11 marks were from lion bites, but that the other 9 were made by stone tools — suggesting that one individual might have been butchering another. The authors ruled out other cut-making processes, such as wear or blemishes left by people handling the bone after it was were discovered; the colour of the marks match that of the bone’s surface, indicating they are of the same age, says Probiner.

Source: Nature

Okay now we've found a typo left by an editor of prestigious Nature: ......after it was were discovered.

The question here is: which one should be removed: was or were? I'm scraching my head and unable to decide. Because it depends on whether you take it as subjunctive mood or realistic: the former invites "were" to stay while the latter is hospitable to "was".

Which is better?

 

[Tarheel]

after it was discovered

(That somehow got past the proofreader.)

 

[GoodTaste]

after it was discovered

(That somehow got past the proofreader.)

How on earth was it possible for the word "were" being there? It seems to me an unconscious struggle for the grammar somehow happened in the mind of the author/editor.

 

[Piscean]

You are trying to read far too much into a simple typo.

 

[jutfrank]

A lot of errors occur during the editing process rather than in the mind of the writer as she writes. You never know what form a sentence or passage of text may have had in a previous life. Sometimes these stray words remain as vestiges of a rejected expression.