Scientists speak out to discredit 'gay caveman' media reports

[William769]

(CNN) -- Reports that surfaced last week about the remains of a "gay caveman" found in the Czech Republic have prompted scientists to take on an unlikely foe -- an overhyped news media that may be overblowing the archaeological find.

"Dudes! I could be wrong, but I think that to have a 'gay caveman,' you need a skeleton that is both gay and a caveman. And this ain't either!" John Hawks, an associate professor of anthropology at University of Wisconsin-Madison, wrote on his blog in bold type.

Hawks joined a chorus of fellow paleoanthropologists, archaeologists and other bone experts who carefully dissected media reports about the dig, which began to increase after first appearing in British and Czech newspapers.

The reports stem from a Tuesday press conference in Prague where Czech archaeologists came forward to reveal their findings -- the unusual burial site of a man dating from 2800-2500 B.C.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/10/czech.republic.unusual.burial/index.html?hpt=T2

[Ian David]

1. Damn. There goes the script for Pauly Shore's next movie. n/t

[Ian David]

2. Third-Gender Neolithic Skeleton isn't as much of a catchy headline.

<snip>

Instead, the possibility of a third-gender grave -- as outlined by the archaeologists -- is more plausible, he said, noting that some cultures have a third category where, in some cases, men may have feminine characteristics or roles.

"In anthropology, you can't equate third gender with homosexuality," he said.

Kristina Killgrove, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, raised similar concerns, saying that using the term "gay" to describe the man is "the application of a modern word to an ancient population."

<snip>

And whatever the man's sexual orientation, Hawks said the fact that he was buried with others is "a sign of cultural acceptance," suggesting that other graves could shed some light statistically on how people were buried in that time.

More:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/10/czech.republic.unusual.burial/index.html?hpt=T2

[arcane1]

3. "an overhyped news media" is hardly an "unlikely foe" for science n/t

[RZM]

5. +1

Well said

[Kelvin Mace]

4. Huh?

prompted scientists to take on an unlikely foe -- an overhyped news media that may be overblowing the archaeological find.

Since when is an "overhyped new media" an "unlikely foe" for an institution (science) which deals in reproducible fact?

CNN, j'acuse!

[jeremyfive]

6. They Deny We Exist Anyway, Caveman or Modern Man

Why should archeologists be immune from the homophobia and bigotry that society practices? They are not.

Turn a deaf ear.

[RC]

7. How about instead doing some more research to find out what the truth really is?

[closeupready]

11. What you really mean: 'how about doing more research until we get a finding we breeders approve of?'

:eyes:

[RC]

12. Re-read what I wrote.

I don't care one way or the other what most peoples sexual orientation is. I really don't.
Except for the woman I'm sleeping with, that is.

[closeupready]

17. This uninformative post is not about the story.

Further, that last bit smells like someone who claims over and over and over and over that they are "100% straight" and then, turns out, surprise, they aren't. Is that correct?

[RC]

23. Wrong on each claim.

My friends are all over the place. I don't care what their sexual leanings are because I have what I want.

[closeupready]

10. Of course scientists can be every bit as homophobic as lay people.

Thank you for saying that. :)

[queerart]

13. Hugs To You....

Indeed... can't have dirty, commie, pinko, tree hugging, pony wanting, special rights seeking Queers messing with true science... (did I miss any pejoratives?)


Would there have been this out pouring from the scientists if two women had been buried embracing one another?


Nah... it would have been ancient cave man porn for the straights (in which the woman in question 5000 years ago would have no interest in sausage, just like today... they don't want you fellows.... your plumbing is all wrong)....


Men were not having sex with other men until those damn Stonewall riots, we all know that......


That is why they spoke of Gays in the Bible the thumper's love to quote... so you know men were doing one another at least 2000 years ago according to their sacred book.... but to take it back 3 thousand more years... well now, that's just crazy talk....


Queers were here since the start of time.... deal with it haters......

[closeupready]

14. Yup, you nailed it there. LOL

:hi:

[Kali]

15. a male skeleton found in a culturally female burial

that is all the facts seem to show (and keep in mind sexing skeletons can be "iffy")

nobody claiming no homosexuality, nobody denying the existence of the natural variation whatsoever

BUT...can you really state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that this skeleton is of a homosexual man?

[closeupready]

16. All of you casting doubt on the findings have ignored the science here.

Anthropologists and archeologists are educated in the science of studying human cultures, present and past. As scientists, they have arrived at these findings and released them to the public.

Now, we have all these armchair anthropologists here on DU saying that the findings were premature, hasty, merely a good way to generate publicity, embarrassing to other scientists, even bullshit, yadda yadda yadda.

"No, I have nothing against homosexuals, I am 100% straight and just for the record, I really like women (oh, and did I tell you yet that I like women?), but we need to study this more before we accept these findings, because I say so."

Ridiculous in the extreme.

Talk about hysteria. :eyes:

[William769]

18. What about the armchair Anthropologists and archeologists here on DU.

just saying.

[closeupready]

21. They know more than such scientists who hold credentials and probably tenure at

accredited universities. At least, that is, when the findings distress them. Well, honey, we all know it don't work that way. ;)

Cheers. :hi:

[Kali]

19. casting doubt on findings?

are you talking to me? I stated the FINDINGS: a male skeleton buried in a culturally female grave.

ALL other comments or conclusions are speculation - the reporting crew, the reviewers, the press, you, me - EVERYBODY. Nobody can tell sexual orientation from a skeleton in a grave. Period.

Now, there are some POSSIBLE conclusions that one can make about a male skeleton in a female grave yes. But whether he was homosexual? I don't know. Seems like it might be feeding into a modern stereotype that male homosexuals are feminine, to me. More likely might be a transgendered person. Not that he/she couldn't be homosexual, but the FACTS of a male skeleton in a female grave do not prove whether he was homosexual OR NOT.

That is my point. He might have been, he might not have been. Female grave goods are the only evidence of anything. Do they say homosexual male? I don't know. Do you?

That isn't denial about anything. That is looking at the actual facts.

[closeupready]

20. I'm not an anthropologist or an archeologist; are you? No, didn't think so.

But apparently, you know more about archeology and Corded Ware era human culture and burial practices than these 'so-called experts' (air quotes, ;) ). Yeah.

:rofl:

[William769]

22. Apparently you know more than anyone here.

Lets bow to the creator all mighty!

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

24. Yes, because I'm the one casting doubt on the findings of these archeologists

based upon not the evidence which was examined nor my knowledge of Corded Ware era human culture, but merely my reading of my bowel movements, and that's equally as credible as some stupid science degree, because I say so, just like DU's anthropology experts here.

But I guess if you think you're going to be rewarded somehow for taking their side, go for it, honey! :D :hi:

[William769]

27. self delete.

[closeupready]

29. delete

My condolences to you on your loss. :cry: :hug:

[Kali]

25. I'm not the one making assertions.

You are. And in fact I do have a bit of background in the field, yes. Not that I made any claims of expertise in my comments to you. (and why would anybody need to be an expert to see and say what I wrote, anyway?) You are the one saying all this stuff that sounds like you absolutely believe this skeleton is something there is scant evidence for. NOBODY else is saying what you seem to think they are. Not the archeologists, not their peers. Well maybe the original sensationalistic press headline, but nowhere else.

I repeat: a male skeleton found in a culturally female burial

that is all the facts seem to show (and keep in mind sexing skeletons can be "iffy")

nobody claiming no homosexuality, nobody denying the existence of the natural variation whatsoever

BUT...can you really state UNEQUIVOCALLY, that this skeleton is of a homosexual man?

[closeupready]

26. Since you have refused either to inform yourself about this story, or else,

once informed, you have decided to ignore the facts, this may be my last response to you:

>>"But this later discovery was neither of those, leading us to believe the man was probably homosexual or transsexual," Semradova said.<<

Clearly, they have indeed stated that they took time to reflect on the artifacts found, entertained various theories to explain, and believe that the man was homosexual or transsexual.

[Kali]

28. do you have a link or context for that quote? it is not in the OP article.

the quote by Semradova in the OP article is as follows:

"We believe this is one of the earliest cases of what could be described as a 'transsexual' or 'third gender grave' in the Czech Republic," the Czech Position newspaper quoted archaeologist Katerina Semradova as saying at the press conference.


interesting that you now add "or transexual" - seems that is indeed what everybody was saying all along, eh?

Did you read the article in the OP? It seems pretty reasonable in its content to me.

[closeupready]

30. It was in the original story posted last week in GD and discussed to infinity.

>>"From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake," said lead archaeologist Kamila Remisova Vesinova.

"Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transsexual," she added.<<

>>"But this later discovery was neither of those, leading us to believe the man was probably homosexual or transsexual," Semeradova said.<<

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

:eyes:

[Kali]

32. your eye rolly does nothing for your point

the quotes YOU are using state more possibilities than one, do you deny that? She says he was neither a priest or shaman. She says he was probably homosexual OR transsexual.

I do not see where you are picking up all this doubt-casting from everybody - there is the doubt right there from the horse's mouth. You can NOT tell orientation from a skeleton. You CAN make some hypotheses about cultural behavior from the physical evidence.

male skeleton in female grave <<=== physical evidence

"third gender," transsexual, homosexual <<=== possible hypotheses NOTE: they are not the same thing, nor are they the only possibilities!

[mysuzuki2]

8. there is absolutely no way to tell sexual orientation

from a skeleton. Obviously, there were homosexual people in the bronze age. Was this person gay? No way to know. What was this cultures attitude about sexual orientation? Again we don't know. It is often not easy to tell biological sex from skeletal remains. This skeleton looks pretty complete and chances are good that, especially if the pelvis is in good shape, that it may be accurately sexed. Hawks is right however that social gender is not the same as sexual orientation. Anthropology is full of examples showing it is not. Anyone interested should look up the word berdache - among some plains groups of Native Americans it was possible for biological males to become social females. Was there something similar in bronze age Europe? No way to know for sure but it's certainly possible.

[closeupready]

9. Closeted, self-loathing gay person much?

Uh, I think perhaps so. Very much like that guy from the Vatican who denounced gays as helping destroy the Roman Empire (that threw Christians to lions and enslaved people they conquered, but hey, let's gloss over that one). Like, project much, people?

[closeupready]

31. This is just too irritating - I'm done.

nt