Gay caveman?

[Noize]

Ok so these Archeologists found the remains of a 5000 year old male Caveman, but due to the positioning of the skeleton, and the objects around him, they assume he's gay.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/world/gay-ca...y-archaeologists/story-e6frfkyi-1226035159192

My argument is, Why is he gay, just because he was buried along side some pottery? Yes, they did supposedly take burial rites seriously back in prehistoric times or whatever, BUT, what if he was the last man alive from his tribe? If you were the last person alive in your tribe, would you think about 'rites' and 'traditions'?

Just because he was buried alongside pottery and was positioned differently, it doesn't make him gay, he could have just been a feminine male.

It's like finding a 5000 year old female with a dildo and calling her a man hater

 

[Donald Trump]

He wasn't the last man alive. Someone dug a whole, put him in there and then buried it. They also took time to put the pottery in there. They didn't say it's 100% positive that he's gay, it's impossible to be sure. It's a pretty specific thing to do, to not go through the usual burial rites but to change them, it has to be indicative of something.

 

[Dionysos]

It could be anything. For people to assume that a dead man is gay just because he was buried like a woman could be taken by some as insulting, but it is a possibility.

Perhaps he was dishonoured and the other people of his tribe felt that he was not a true man, and so buried him like that. Perhaps he was gay, and this is why he was dishonoured, or maybe he was regarded as a coward for refusing to fight, or being physically weak.

With the absence of accompanying written or pictorial evidence or of stelae we can't be certain at all.

When all we have is a pit filled with pottery and a male skeleton (and an understanding of how the burial rites are usually performed for males) we only know that something interesting has happened here, but we don't know exactly what or why.

 

[Noize]

I see your point, Hal. I guess the main point i'm trying to make is that he might not be gay, like Argor and yourself have said, there could have been circumstances other than the norm, that have lead him to be positioned like that, but they shouldn't just assume something without the proper evidence.

(I might be missing something with regards to that evidence, if i am, feel free to correct me.)

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

I was reading this on ninemsn news today and understood why they might think that he was gay due to the way he was buried but it's still hard to be sure.

He may have been buried that way for many other reasons. Not necessarily because he was gay.

They'll never really know for sure the reasons, so they can theorise all they want.

 

[blakstang98]

A debate, not a personal problem. So...

*Thread Moved to The Sleeping Forest*

 

[Dust]

Until someone makes a time machine and we go visit the funeral and find out everything is just speculation yes based on theory. However when it comes down to it people will believe what they want to believe.

My thought was. Why make an article about this at all? Is this really the most important thing we can learn from a 5000 year old skeleton. Maybe we need better scientists.

 

[Valvalis]

Well as someone who's big into history/archaeology, I will say that some of these scientists fail miserably at creative thinking when it comes to this sort of thing. It's almost embarrassing sometimes how few ideas they can come up with when analyzing artifacts, to try to figure out how people used to live, and then act like they "know for sure" when they don't (Makes me kind of afraid to try to get a job in the field actually, because I know they would probably shun me )

If you go to the "read more" section of that article, which takes you to a different one, it says this:

She added that Siberian shamans, or witch doctors, were also buried in this way but with richer funeral accessories appropriate to their elevated position in society.

​

Ok, so...if the objects found with him had been richer, he might have been buried in a way commonly associated with shamans? Has anyone heard of grave robbing? What if he WAS a shaman, and his grave was robbed shortly afterwards, or else their tribe was just too poor to include those artifacts?

Furthermore, these scientists are pretty ballsy to assume that male homosexuality has always been associated with femininity. We don't know all the details so it's hard to know its abundance, but if male homosexuality was prominent back then, or even commonplace, then for a male to sleep with another male would not have been considered "feminine." If it would have been a normal practice for a male, why would it have been associated with female activity? People have done that in recent years, because of the long-time taboo against gay activities, so people have developed the stereotype that male homosexuality is somehow emasculating. However, there's no reason to assume people made those same stereotypes back then.

These scientists should know better than to try to apply complex details of our current social functions to previous civilizations about which we know nothing. All we know with absolute certainty is that they used pots, and dug graves. And whatever other physical artifacts they've found. Even though there are varying degrees of likelihood about certain aspects of their social functioning, we have no idea what they said to each other, so it's wrong to just sit there and say they behaved in ways that are familiar to our own when they might not have. I mean, for all we know, they could have been an extremely high-tech civilization who thought it would be funny to plant fake "caveman"-looking graves and artifacts here and there, just as a practical joke. And even in rare cases when there are verbal traditions hanging around, how do we know they're not stretching the truth, or have forgotten important details throughout the ages? It's silly to even trust many old writings completely; the Romans wrote a ton of things that made themselves look awesome, but we have very little documentation from the "barbarians" whom they oppressed and invaded, so we really only get one side of the story there.

 

[Big Casino]

I wonder if 5000 years ago being gay or having sex with men was even taboo?
This could be the first ever case of sexual discrimination.

 

[Donald Trump]

They're not scientists. They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology. They've probably consulted some anthropologists too. If you find a man buried like a woman then the first thought most people would have is that he is gay. It may be anachronistic but it's probably the only conclusion that makes sense, given that the Czech Republic is a fair distance for Siberia.

 

[akak103]

He was a true man, that is all, true, he was buried with pottery, doesn't mean he wasn't a potter...XD

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

They didn't say that he was gay, just that he may be an example of a third gender. The only reason this seems to be getting so much attention or contention is because some people get all riled up at the idea of homosexuality or atypical genders. It's foolish to treat their statements as if they made them with certainty when they clearly did not.

They're not scientists. They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology.

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but still... Archaeology is a science and a humanity. Say what you will about its rigor or validity, but it's still science.

Is this really the most important thing we can learn from a 5000 year old skeleton. Maybe we need better scientists.

In your mind, what would be more important? Scientists report what they find; it's not their business to attribute 'importance' to it or prune anything.

and then act like they "know for sure" when they don't

They didn't behave that way in this article, so it's irrelevant.

but if male homosexuality was prominent back then, or even commonplace, then for a male to sleep with another male would not have been considered "feminine."

That would probably be why they mentioned a third gender as well. If male homosexuality was prominent (which it was in many warrior cultures), then they wouldn't be buried any differently from any other men.

because of the long-time taboo against gay activities, so people have developed the stereotype that male homosexuality is somehow emasculating.

Seeing how he was buried atypically, there's a clear inference that he was atypical in some manner. I don't see how being buried as a woman is in anyway a negative thing. Given that it appears he wasn't defaced, then a third gender or homosexuality, even if it was seen as atypical, probably wasn't seen as negative. Specific funeral rites for this atypical individual is more indicative of acceptance of it.

I mean, for all we know, they could have been an extremely high-tech civilization who thought it would be funny to plant fake "caveman"-looking graves and artifacts here and there, just as a practical joke.

Except that there's no logical way to infer that from the findings. For all you know, the article could be a complete fabrication. For all you know, you could be asleep in the Matrix. That form of argument is awful.

 

[Jquestionmark]

They're not scientists. They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology.

Do you know what science is? Or what archeology is? I think you might be a bit confused.

They've probably consulted some anthropologists too.

Are you implying that anthropologists aren't scientists?

Ok so these Archeologists found the remains of a 5000 year old male Caveman, but due to the positioning of the skeleton, and the objects around him, they assume he's gay.

They never made that assumption. What article did you read?

The article I read from the provided link made it clear that he COULD be a homosexual or third gender. I don't recall them saying that he WAS.

Well as someone who's big into history/archaeology, I will say that some of these scientists fail miserably at creative thinking when it comes to this sort of thing.

So, a man is buried in the same fashion as a woman, and it's a poor call to think that the man was either a homosexual or a third gender? What other assumption could be made? It seems to me that giving a man the same burial as a woman is normally given would imply that he is not a normal male by the standards of the society that buried him.

It's possible that it's occupation or combat related, but I don't know enough about those societies to make that assessment. I doubt the "value" of the items buried is the actual issue here, seeing as they made a point that it was jugs (normally reserved for women) and shamans normally receive "richer funeral accessories appropriate to their elevated position" (emphasis on "funeral accessories appropriate to their elevated position") - this was a matter of the type of objects, not their value. I do know that occupation/caste/class is often important, especially in older cultures, but I can't think of a reason related to that which would afford a man a burial situation normally used for women. It seems that the most likely conclusion would be the male exhibited what that culture viewed as typically feminine traits (such as being a homosexual, transvestite, or a third gender).

It's almost embarrassing sometimes how few ideas they can come up with when analyzing artifacts, to try to figure out how people used to live, and then act like they "know for sure" when they don't (Makes me kind of afraid to try to get a job in the field actually, because I know they would probably shun me )

They never said they "know for sure." You did, which is a conclusion wholly unsupported by the article linked (or the article that said article is based on). Why do you think that they are making an absolute claim (seeing as they made it clear it was "likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation" - likely is not a sure state)?

This is why I hate scientists. The over analyze everything around them. This guy's gay because what's around him and how he's positioned.... riiiight.

I find it interesting how everyone is latching on to the possibility of him being gay, and not a third gender. Why do you hate scientists for taking the best information available and trying to form a conclusion (one that they have made clear is not guaranteed, but only likely - do you have a more likely reason for the burial method?)?

Until someone makes a time machine and we go visit the funeral and find out everything is just speculation yes based on theory. However when it comes down to it people will believe what they want to believe.

In a time not too far from now, the only information we will have about the holocaust will be records and evidence, not eye-witness accounts. Do we have to have an eye-witness to have an analysis of a situation that we can rely on (not saying that this "caveman" analysis is perfect, but why should we assume it is based on belief instead of evidence?)?

My thought was. Why make an article about this at all? Is this really the most important thing we can learn from a 5000 year old skeleton. Maybe we need better scientists.

I happen to think that the cultural history of humankind is very important. Do you have an example of something more important we could learn from this skeleton? I would think that an understanding of ancient culture could be very valuable.

Ok, so...if the objects found with him had been richer, he might have been buried in a way commonly associated with shamans? Has anyone heard of grave robbing? What if he WAS a shaman, and his grave was robbed shortly afterwards, or else their tribe was just too poor to include those artifacts?

They specifically chose to include jugs. Jugs are typically only buried with women. Even if they were buried as a shaman, and the items were robbed, the jugs would not have been there.

Furthermore, these scientists are pretty ballsy to assume that male homosexuality has always been associated with femininity. We don't know all the details so it's hard to know its abundance, but if male homosexuality was prominent back then, or even commonplace, then for a male to sleep with another male would not have been considered "feminine." If it would have been a normal practice for a male, why would it have been associated with female activity?

What about a third gender? They specifically mention that as a possibility. You're ignoring half of what they said. Your scenario just makes the third gender explanation better (which is likely why they included it in the first place, since it also makes sense).

People have done that in recent years, because of the long-time taboo against gay activities, so people have developed the stereotype that male homosexuality is somehow emasculating. However, there's no reason to assume people made those same stereotypes back then.

They kept their options open, and did not specifically assume that male homosexuality would be associated with the feminine (they could have been a different gender altogether, something that the researchers mention as a possibility).

These scientists should know better than to try to apply complex details of our current social functions to previous civilizations about which we know nothing. All we know with absolute certainty is that they used pots, and dug graves. And whatever other physical artifacts they've found.

Seems like we actually know quite a bit, based on what you just said. We know some typical burial practices. You're contradicting yourself, saying that we know nothing about the civilization but we do know about the burial practices (which is an aspect of the civilization being analyzed by the researchers in this particular instance).

Even though there are varying degrees of likelihood about certain aspects of their social functioning, we have no idea what they said to each other, so it's wrong to just sit there and say they behaved in ways that are familiar to our own when they might not have. I mean, for all we know, they could have been an extremely high-tech civilization who thought it would be funny to plant fake "caveman"-looking graves and artifacts here and there, just as a practical joke.

For all we know, some aliens put that stuff there. For all we know, the Invisible Pink Unicorn rigged the burial site. For all we know, the US is ruled by lizard people in disguise. Sounds silly when you look at an argument like that, huh?

We DO KNOW that many cultures, ancient and modern alike, have had some very serious traditions and feelings concerning death, and I find it hard to believe that we would find burial sites set up as a joke (as that would mean desecration of someone's corpse, a very serious action by most culture's standards).

And even in rare cases when there are verbal traditions hanging around, how do we know they're not stretching the truth, or have forgotten important details throughout the ages? It's silly to even trust many old writings completely; the Romans wrote a ton of things that made themselves look awesome, but we have very little documentation from the "barbarians" whom they oppressed and invaded, so we really only get one side of the story there.

So should we discount that information, or do our best to account for that bias? Seems a bit quick to ignore historical data just because it was written by the victors. Sure, it MAY be warped, but why would that warrant us treating it like a total fabrication?

 

[Donald Trump]

Do you know what science is? Or what archeology is? I think you might be a bit confused.



Are you implying that anthropologists aren't scientists?

You're 0 from 2. I did not imply anything, you inferred incorrectly.
People were referring to the archaeologists as scientists, a non specific term that has connotations of people wearing white coats. People like this.

I was pointing out that they are not scientists, they are Archaeologists. Archaeology is a science, but they're not just random scientists.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

People were referring to the archaeologists as scientists, a non specific term that has connotations of people wearing white coats. People like this.

I dunno... that looks more like a flasher. Or Batman. And really, Batman is a chemist and an engineer. He doesn't experiment.

I was pointing out that they are not scientists, they are Archaeologists. Archaeology is a science, but they're not just random scientists.

If Archaeology is a field of science, and they are people studying within it and using the scientific method with their studies, how would they not be scientists? They are practicing science, educated in a field of science, and following the scientific method.

I mean, archaeologists aren't the common image of scientists in labs and lab coats (though they do work in labs a lot, too), but that image isn't accurate anyway. Even a scientist who fits that image, like a chemist, isn't only a scientist or only a chemist. Both terms apply.

 

[Squid]

I think he was trying to say that they specialise in Archaeology rather than just any old science? So they'd have a better idea at this kind of thing than any other scientist.

thats how I understood it anyway.

 

[Jquestionmark]

You're 0 from 2. I did not imply anything, you inferred incorrectly.
People were referring to the archaeologists as scientists, a non specific term that has connotations of people wearing white coats. People like this.

Actually, I'd say my logic was pretty solid. You said "They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology." and "They're not scientists."

First off, scientist is defined as "an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences." By that definition (the common definition, people who are experts in science {archaeology being a science}), the researchers are scientists. You did not imply that they are not scientists. You stated it. If you want to use non-standard definitions for common terms, I'd appreciate it if you could define them in advance.

Second, your other statement is self-contradictory. You said "They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology." Archaeology is a science (you say so yourself in the next segment of your post that I quote: "Archaeology is a science"). So, lets replace archaeology with science (since archaeology is science): "They didn't go to university to study science, they studied science." The only way this statement could have worked is if you meant that archaeology is not a science. I apologize, I should have pointed out your contradiction, and not assumed that you meant archaeology was not a science.

Third, I'm sorry I thought you may be implying that anthropology was not a science. That's why I asked.

Fourth, that image brings nothing to the conversation. What is the point of that?

Fifth, I'm not sure where that puts the score. Sorry, I don't tally points in a debate, I discuss the issues at hand.

I was pointing out that they are not scientists, they are Archaeologists. Archaeology is a science, but they're not just random scientists.

The problem with what you're saying here is that all archaeologists are scientists. Not all scientists are archaeologists, but all archaeologists are scientists. It's like rectangles and squares.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make, since if they are archaeologists, and archaeology is a science, then they are scientists. There's a pretty big contradiction there.

 

[Donald Trump]

Ah yeds
What this thread really needed was a pointless debate.

First off, scientist is defined as "an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences." By that definition (the common definition, people who are experts in science {archaeology being a science}), the researchers are scientists. You did not imply that they are not scientists. You stated it. If you want to use non-standard definitions for common terms, I'd appreciate it if you could define them in advance.

You've taken what I said ever so slightly out of context. That context being that scientists was being used to describe people who were archaeologists. The former, as you have so adequately described is quite a broad term. I was clarifying. Because a scientist could have been a chemist, or a marine biologist.

Second, your other statement is self-contradictory. You said "They didn't go to university to study science, they studied archaeology." Archaeology is a science (you say so yourself in the next segment of your post that I quote: "Archaeology is a science"). So, lets replace archaeology with science (since archaeology is science): "They didn't go to university to study science, they studied science." The only way this statement could have worked is if you meant that archaeology is not a science. I apologize, I should have pointed out your contradiction, and not assumed that you meant archaeology was not a science.

Science like scientist is a broad term. I did not say that they did not study a science. I said they did not study science. There's a clear difference there. There are no courses on science, only specific scientific courses.

Third, I'm sorry I thought you may be implying that anthropology was not a science. That's why I asked.

Fourth, that image brings nothing to the conversation. What is the point of that?

Fifth, I'm not sure where that puts the score. Sorry, I don't tally points in a debate, I discuss the issues at hand.

No.
I enjoy pictures. It illustrated my point. I will refrain from adding any more if you do not like them
Ah yeds. Forget about keeping score.

It's a matter of terminology. Scientist is a nonspecific term indicating, in this instance, a lack of knowledge.

 

[Emyunoxious]

It's a matter of terminology. Scientist is a nonspecific term indicating, in this instance, a lack of knowledge.

SO, now you're making up a, what is this, third definition of science? None of which have had anything to do with science? Listen, BUDDY, science is a colloquial term for the body of knowledge that has been gained through the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS THIS RIGHT HERE.

What do you mean that "scientist is a nonspecific term indicating, in this instance, a lack of knowledge"? Science is about knowledge. Never does scientist mean a lack of knowledge.

Do words mean nothing anymore? Can we just use terms out of context and make up what they mean as we go along? Apparently we can, because you've misspelled "yes" in every post I've seen.

 

[Donald Trump]

LISTEN BUDDY
I HAVE NOT MISSPELY YEDS
OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE WAY SCIENTIST WAS BEING USED BUDDY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEANT THAT IT DID NOT MEAN SOMEONE WHO WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE. BECAUSE BUDDY, SCIENTISTS CANNOT KNOW EVERYTHING, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE BUDDY, THAT A SCIENTIST WOULD KNOW ABOUT DIGGING UP PEOPLE IN BOHEMIA BUDDY. I WAS MAKING IT CLEAR BUDDY, THAT THEY DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUTBUDDY



















































MITSUKI