Gay caveman?

[Jquestionmark]

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.

Scientist could mean those things, but it does not ALWAYS mean those things. Using the term scientist to describe an archaeologist IS ALWAYS accurate. There's a difference between clarifying and contradicting.

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.

This doesn't make any sense. Archaeology is a science, so they DID go to school to study science. You said they did not. I'm not sure how there could not be a contradiction there.

No.
I enjoy pictures. It illustrated my point. I will refrain from adding any more if you do not like them

Not a fan, but you can use them if you want.

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

Indicating WHAT? Where are you getting this from? I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Squid]

omg guys, you do realise this is a thread about the gay Caveman right? This isn't about 'what science means'

Also I don't get all the people bashing the scientist about this discovery. They know that women were buried like that, that's a male skeleton buried like a woman, with the pots they'd use for a female's burial... there's only a few conclusions they could take from that... one of them is that he was possibly gay?

Back then they probably didn't shun gay people like they did not that long ago.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

I'm gonna play a mod and say that this thread has gone way off topic. Let's get back on it.

It's impossible for what a person's buried with to be used to determine their sexuality. Just because I liked pottery doesn't mean I liked to take up the butt.

FFS, I hate pottery to death, and could care less about how my house is decorated but I'm quite sure that I'm homosexual.

This is just nonsense.

 

[Donald Trump]

If you read the first page, the term scientists was being used. We are all agreed about this? Yeds. Good.
It was my opinion that the term was being used to imply that they lacked the kind of specialist knowledge an archaeologist has. Anyone disagree with this?
So I replaced the broad term scientist with the far more accurate term Archaeologist.

This doesn't make any sense. Archaeology is a science, so they DID go to school to study science. You said they did not. I'm not sure how there could not be a contradiction there.

No, they studied a science.

 

[Squid]

It's impossible for what a person's buried with to be used to determine their sexuality. Just because I liked pottery doesn't mean I liked to take up the butt.

FFS, I hate pottery to death, and could care less about how my house is decorated but I'm quite sure that I'm homosexual.

This is just nonsense.

It's actually not about whether or not he liked the pottery... it's about the fact that burying someone with pottery is their way of burying a woman... its their ritual.

And no one said they knew for sure... it's just a guess that he was gay/third gender etc. The scientists in the article are saying "we're guessing that he may have been gay" everyone in this thread is taking that and twisting it into the scientists saying "THIS GUY DEFINITELY LOVED THE COCK."

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

It's actually not about whether or not he liked the pottery... it's about the fact that burying someone with pottery is their way of burying a woman... its their ritual.

And no one said they knew for sure... it's just a guess that he was gay/third gender etc. The scientists in the article are saying "we're guessing that he may have been gay" everyone in this thread is taking that and twisting it into the scientists saying "THIS GUY DEFINITELY LOVED THE COCK."

Okay but where is the proof that barring a man with pottery means he's gay? It's the burying ritual for women...but is it the burrying ritual for a gay man? And at lot of ancient cultures didn't look down on homosexuality so why would they bury him differently?

They have little to no proof that this wasn't just a mistake of some sort, or that this meant something else. He might have been a gay caveman, but how do we know that the idea of gay even existed then? Maybe he did just like pottery. Maybe he made pottery. Maybe there was a burial mistake.

Who knows, or honestly cares? It's not like this is some sort of great discovery.

 

[Squid]

Okay but where is the proof that barring a man with pottery means he's gay? It's the burying ritual for women...but is it the burrying ritual for a gay man? And at lot of ancient cultures didn't look down on homosexuality so why would they bury him differently?

They have little to no proof that this wasn't just a mistake of some sort, or that this meant something else. He might have been a gay caveman, but how do we know that the idea of gay even existed then? Maybe he did just like pottery. Maybe he made pottery. Maybe there was a burial mistake.

Who knows, or honestly cares? It's not like this is some sort of great discovery.

There isn't any solid proof... this whole article is about them speculating on the possibility of him being the first gay human alive.
It's hardly even an article to debate on because it's not like they're giving any definites on anything... they're just saying "he could have been gay"

I doubt it was a mistake to bury him like a woman... pretty sure they understood he was a guy (unless he was a 3rd gender like the article mentions) Obviously there was something different about this guy as he was buried differently to all the others.

And I care, I think it's interesting to learn about how humans have evolved over time. THings like this are actually pretty big discoveries.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I think this thread shall reach its ugly end sooner or later just because there are only so many different conclusions we can draw based on what evidence that we have.

Maybe one of the reasons the thread went off topic was due to the fact that there is no positive correct answer within this topic....only speculation. yet others still insist on being correct in one manner or another ^^

I dont think his body being burried like that means he is gay in my opinion. I mean 5,000 years ago who knows if being gay was even accepted or not. Also we dont know if we had those kinds of feelings or desires, it seems like being homosexual kind of evolved along with humantity.

Like I said we can only imagine the reasons.

 

[Oliver Queen]

Check it out. Being buried a certain way does not mean that you are gay. You are gay based on certain things. They could have just decided "hey, lets do it like this, instead of like that." None of us were alive that long ago, so none of us knew what they were thinking.

 

[CassinoChips]

I fail to see why the archaeologists making that leap of intuition is so hard to grasp, or so hard to accept. We do the exact same thing on a daily basis in our world today. If we see a male who acts in an effeminate manner, the natural inclination is to assume that person is gay. Or, more specifically, if we see a male engaging in activites or mannerisms that are traditionally reserved for females, we might assume they were gay. In the case of the caveman, we have a male being buried in a manner that is traditionally reserved for women. So they make the educated guess that he may have been gay. It's the same logic.

 

[Emyunoxious]

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

First of all, I'm not your buddy, pal.

Second of all, yeah, it seems like you are trying to say "yes", but you keep saying yeds. What is that about? That's not a word, dood.

Third, everything you just said makes no sense. Everyone who read the article knew they were archaeologists. Everyone that knows anything about archaeology would assume that they're archaeologists. Your first post seemed to do nothing but confuse the issue.

This seems like damage control, buddy. U MAD?

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

They have little to no proof that this wasn't just a mistake of some sort, or that this meant something else. He might have been a gay caveman, but how do we know that the idea of gay even existed then? Maybe he did just like pottery. Maybe he made pottery. Maybe there was a burial mistake.

The patterns indicate they were buried in a manner based on sex. The burial rights have been completely consistent thus far. So if he was buried as the opposite sex, then that indicates he deviated from the traits ascribed to his sex. That indicates possibly being gay, third gender, or something else. That's all they're saying. You're bringing up things they have already considered, otherwise they wouldn't have said he may have been; they'd have said he was.

Who knows, or honestly cares? It's not like this is some sort of great discovery.

Every piece of information is a step closer to understanding our origins and the ourselves. And you obviously care in some manner, otherwise you wouldn't have replied to and discussed this topic.

What this thread really needed was a pointless debate.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Regarding your later post:

I dont think his body being burried like that means he is gay in my opinion. I mean 5,000 years ago who knows if being gay was even accepted or not.

Well, if they gave him full burial rites and he was gay or third gender, then it was probably a sign of respect or acceptance. Many cultures have such views. I'd argue it's more of an indication of a third gender in general (and you don't have to be gay to be another gender) seeing how it seems to be related to what traits are attributed to men and women, since he was buried in a way specific to sex.

A good indication that this is the case is because shamans had an entirely different burial rite and in many cultures, shamans were considered a third gender or entirely different class of human.

Also we dont know if we had those kinds of feelings or desires, it seems like being homosexual kind of evolved along with humantity.

In what way? Do you mean the way homosexuality is treated or considered? Since in that case, it definitely did. But as far as homosexuality itself, the sexual attraction to the same sex, that has always been around as far as we know. There's homosexual animals, there was homosexual ancient men, etc. It's as natural to this world as heterosexuality, if not as common.

Check it out. Being buried a certain way does not mean that you are gay. You are gay based on certain things.

But it does mean that the society viewed him differently in some way.

They could have just decided "hey, lets do it like this, instead of like that." None of us were alive that long ago, so none of us knew what they were thinking.

But we can make educated speculation. What they said was a logical extrapolation. I think we both agree that the discussion can't really go any further, but I think it's foolish to discount what they presented just because "We can't really know." You can say that about anything.

 

[Oliver Queen]

I'm not saying that we discount anything. This could be a very important find with extensive research and tests done. I'm just saying that we don't know what they were thinking when they decided to bury him.

 

[Emyunoxious]

I fail to see why the archaeologists making that leap of intuition is so hard to grasp, or so hard to accept. We do the exact same thing on a daily basis in our world today. If we see a male who acts in an effeminate manner, the natural inclination is to assume that person is gay. Or, more specifically, if we see a male engaging in activites or mannerisms that are traditionally reserved for females, we might assume they were gay. In the case of the caveman, we have a male being buried in a manner that is traditionally reserved for women. So they make the educated guess that he may have been gay. It's the same logic.

See, but there's a lot of assumptions being made in this topic that have nothing to do with this article. I will list them now.

1. The article never says that the caveman is definitively gay. It could be a third gender type deal.

2. This wasn't actually a "caveman". This was many hundreds of years after homo sapiens sapiens stopped living in caves.

 

[blakstang98]

I'm gonna play a mod and say that this thread has gone way off topic. Let's get back on it.

Thanks, but staff can handle this without problems. Let us take care of it.

I see the topic has been brought back to the topic, but lets keep in mind to revolve your posts around the thread topic and try to avoid tangents and debates about other topics. Thank you.

 

[Emyunoxious]

As a gay man, this is a very exciting discovery for the possibilities it raises.

But it is NOT definitely a discovery of a gay man, and it is not a caveman at all. The article misrepresents the time period, but a lot of people in here have apparently neglected to read what it actually says. The headline is a hook, not the whole story.