Archeologists unearth first-ever ‘gay caveman’ skeleton

[Playinghardball]

Source: Raw Story
By Stephen C. Webster

Archeologists say they've made a unique discovery in the Czech Republic: 5,000-year-old remains of a human male who was buried in a way traditionally only reserved for females.

To them, this means they've unearthed the first-ever gay human remains.

"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," one of the archeologists told The Telegraph.

She added that by the way the body was positioned, and the objects found buried with him, this person lived either as a gay male or a transsexual female.

Read more at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/archeologists-unearth-first-ever-gay-caveman-skeleton/

[HEyHEY]

1. Jesus fucking christ, talk about junk science

How about this, judging by the way he was found, I assume his buddies buried him that way as a joke!

Could be a NUMBER of reasons.

[KittyWampus]

11. As a cultural anthropologist, this is hardly "junk science" just because you perceive it to be

somehow problematic.

Some cultures we already know of, had formal, prescribed roles for transexuals.

[Teaser]

18. just because we know some cultures did something

does not tell us anything about this individual.

How do they propose to even test this hypothesis?

[KittyWampus]

27. Well, knowing what MANY other cultures have done does give us some idea of what might have lead

to an atypical burial.

[Teaser]

33. right, but how is it *falsifiable*

Look, this is an interesting find, and it *MIGHT* be what the researchers claim. But it's one of a range of possibilities.

I just wish researchers, when communicating with the media, would be as cautious as they are in reporting their results in a journal.

[KittyWampus]

34. So what are some of the other possibilities? Usually, the simplest hypothesis, the one that meshes

with reoccurring, predictable behavior is the one that holds sway.

How is ANY archeological evidence falsifiable?

[JackintheGreen]

38. Define "simplest"

Then define "reoccuring, predictable behavior" in regards to a Mesolithic find of which we have a single example.

Cross-cultural examples can be illuminating in this regard, but I don't find anything "simple" about assigning modern conceptualizations of sex and gender to a prehistoric culture separated form us by millennia in which there are provably different conceptual frameworks.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Teaser]

142. "How is ANY archeological evidence falsifiable?"

Yeah, that's kind of a problem for the discipline, but if one has a particular hypothesis (a flood wiped out civilization X at time Y) then falsification is possible (dig down to that time period, no allulvial deposits...then no flood).

But as for alternative hypotheses, it may be something as simple as honorifics. Perhaps this is an unusual matriarchal culture. Perhaps it is a very high honor to be *buried as a woman*. Is such a thing plausible? Maybe. Dunno.

Again, this is a COMMUNICATION issue. Scientists puffing up their find for the press. I hate that in any field (NASA and arsenic life forms anyone) and I hate it here.

[WatsonT]

197. A theory is not proven correct or supported by saying

"Yeah, well what's your great idea for how it happened? Don't have one? Then I'm right!"

[PVnRT]

170. They usually are - blame the reporters

"Scientists Believe That Caveman Burial Might Indicate Stone Age Homosexuality, Further Study Needed" doesn't sell advertising.

[Aerows]

36. Native Americans

Homosexuals and trans gender individuals had honored places in society as healers, spiritual advisors and intellectuals. Our society is leaning towards hating all of those types of people if you think about it. The Middle Ages did a number on Western Europe. Spiritual advisors were shunned in exchange for authoritarian rulers. Healers and intellectuals were decried as heretics.

Look at the right. That's what they do, too. Anyone that is open minded is to be oppressed, hated and scorned.

[KamaAina]

114. I like the Native American approach to the subject

GLBT people are said to have "two spirits".

Another indigenous people, the Polynesians, show a refreshing lack of homophobia as well. In pre-contact Hawai'i, it was commonplace for men to dress as women and assume the female role in the household. They were called mahu, the word used today for GLBT people.

And if you go to Waikiki Beach, right next to the police station, you will find four large "Wizard Stones". They were said to represent four powerful ancient Tahitian healers. And one is called "Kapaemahu". You figure it out.

[XemaSab]

117. The Middle Ages were a turning away

from spiritual advisors?

[Aerows]

174. I said Spiritual, not religious

I also clarified that I meant the corrupt, authoritarian means in which religion was used to subdue the people.

[WatsonT]

198. Native americans were millions of people with thousands of different cultures

they weren't homogeneous.

[HEyHEY]

43. No, but jumping to a conclusion based merely on a burial ritual you THINK you understand

Is a leap

[closeupready]

75. Right, because you are an anthropologist or archeologist ... RIGHT?

:rofl:

[HEyHEY]

78. Yes, not having a degree in a discipline negates my right to opinion

I should just take everything I'm told at face value, no fucking wonder the world is the way it is with sheep like you around.

[Hugabear]

82. No, but I'd take the word of someone who actually knows what they're talking about

Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting the findings from someone who has spent years researching this.

[closeupready]

90. Your opinion is misinformed when compared to those who have academic credentials in anthropology

and archeology, yes. You can express it, and I can explain why people should discount it in this set of circumstances, yes.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Incitatus]

58. It might help their claim if they found more than 1 person like this.

But then it would still be speculation.

[Zorra]

22. You don't believe there were any GLBT folks 5,000 years ago? nt

[HEyHEY]

44. No, I just don't believe that such a simple conclusion is valid

[closeupready]

48. Why, because you are an archeologist and you examined these remains?

?? :wtf:

[HEyHEY]

52. So, you don't question anything anyone says?

[closeupready]

56. Sometimes. In this case, I'm prepared to accept the findings at face value.

I find it believable and in the absence of a reason to disbelieve it, that's that.

[HEyHEY]

57. How come you find it believable

[closeupready]

63. Because most people have engaged in homosexual relations,

at some point or other, despite Anglo-Saxon insistence that one drop of homosexuality makes you 100% homosexual.

And also, gay people - outside Anglo-Saxon culture - are generally either as much a part of a community as non-gay people, or else respected as cultural authorities, as with many Native American tribes or in parts of Asia.

[uppityperson]

80. oh my. Where to start? How about the middle/near east's acceptance of gay people?

Or "most people have engaged in homosexual relations"? Or "nglo-Saxon insistence that one drop of homosexuality makes you 100% homosexual".

Good grief.

[Hugabear]

87. That's primarily based on religion

Most homophobia seems to stem from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic world. Yes, there are a few other places where homosexuality has been frowned upon, but outside of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic world, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

[uppityperson]

89. "Judeo/Christian/Islamic world" is far different from "Anglo-Saxon culture" nt

[JackintheGreen]

101. Which has dominated large parts of the world

for the better part of two millennia. And yet this lens is the one through which we still (unavoidably) view the world prior to their advent. Perhaps its the terms themselves, or contemporary understanding of them, that is clouding the discussion. I haven't seen very many outright homophobic comments on this page (maybe unintentionally, badly worded, etc), yet the accusation is flying far and fast. Based on contemporary usage. It's just bizarre to me that normative usage is somehow appropriate in one context but not another.

[closeupready]

88. Lots of research on that. But that would require that you read, so maybe you're not interested?

There's a lot of research on gay people in the middle east, and how it was the introduction of Anglo-Saxon culture that brought about the commencement of the persecution of gay people there.

[uppityperson]

92. Link needed. Why the continual snark?

[closeupready]

95. I went to school in the 80's, so most of the research I'm familiar with is in book form,

not online. But see Churchill and Boswell for starters.

[uppityperson]

98. I went to school in the 60's, 70's and 80's. No link. Thank you anyway.

I didn't know Winston Churchill was an expert on these matters. I learned something today. Tom Boswell either. Thanks!

[JackintheGreen]

81. You're making normative statements

I am taking issue with the words "most" and "generally." I would accept such an assertion using "some" or even "many" and "often," but certain religions have had such a pervasively pernicious influence on constructions of sex and gender that such statements are historically problematic.

What I find interesting is that people are so quick to accept this particular reading of the site based upon contemporary constructions of sex and gender but attack those who question this interpretation as "homophobic" based on contemporary constructions of sex and gender. I (for one) suggest that perhaps the very ascription of such a decidedly modern framework is - without further evidence to the contrary - inappropriate.

[Hugabear]

67. Maybe because they actually know a little about what they're talking about?

Perhaps they know a little more about the culture of these people, their background, etc? The article doesn't present the findings as an absolute fact, it merely says that it's very likely, given the context.

Why are you so dead-set against this? Does the possibility of homosexuality existing in pre-historic times upset you somehow?

[HEyHEY]

79. No, but it seems to upset you.

I'm also offended that you would think it acceptable to bury a man as a woman because he was gay. He was a gay man, not a woman. Subverting a person gender to advance a hate filled adgenda targetting gays isn't cool now and wasn't cool 500 years ago.

[Zorra]

111. If a woman had been buried with stone weapons, and positioned in

the grave in the same manner as male warriors in the same culture, would you not conclude that there was a good probability that the woman in the grave had what would be considered by many to be a male gender role in her culture?

I do see your point about the information that was posted, but it seems to me that it is highly probable that the archaeologists/anthropologists have a much more extensive background on the apparent nature and customs of the Corded Ware culture, and that this background knowledge led them to voice their conclusion based on probability. Which, when you think about it, is all scientists can do when drawing conclusions about cultures that have no written history.

Honestly, after extensive reading about historical and modern day observations of the prevalence GLBT folks in tribal cultures all over the world, and given the relatively high percentage of (known) GLBT folks in existing modern-day cultures, I am amazed that the discovery of this type of burial is so rare.

GLBT's are the unfortunate victims of profound enculturated conscious and unconscious prejudices in North American societies, prejudices that arise from the primary basis of Western consciousness in what is called the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Simply put, it is a product of ignorance and twisted religion based myth, and prejudice towards GLBT's is so prevalent and runs so deep that many people may not be aware that they harbor prejudices. Such is the nature of all enculturated prejudice.

GLBT folks have more unreasonable, unwarranted extreme hatred and prejudice directed toward them, (even from minorities that have experienced and still experience the effects of extreme bigotry and prejudice) than any other significant "minority" on the planet.

As a "liberal democrat", I believe that if GLBT's do not have equal rights in our society, then no one really has any rights.

So, when posters were so quick to dismiss the conclusions drawn by the archaeologists quoted in the article as invalid, I was really very surprised, and it occurred to me that there was a possibility of unconscious enculturated prejudice at work, which I know now is not the case. I apologize for my confusion.

That said, IMO, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, has a flat bill, and quacks like a duck, I am inclined to believe that it probably is a duck, based on my background in ducks.
Peace

[JackintheGreen]

130. As one of the folk who has problematized this announcement

without faulting the researchers but rather the reportage, I am again reminded of all of the archaeological conclusions from the Indus Culture that looked, walked and quacked like a duck but then turned out not to be a duck at all. We are ascribing contemporary cultural gender frameworks to a Mesolithic culture of whose ideas on the subject we have no ken.

I cannot wait for their paper, in which they will undoubtedly lay out all of the evidence for their conclusions, but in the meantime this thread has really lost an opportunity to discuss the uses of evidence in laying out an argument, devolving instead into accusation and anger.

[Zorra]

160. Honestly, I am not a big fan of anthropologists or archaeologists.

Many, or most, of their conclusions are based on assumptions and I take them all with a grain of salt, and believe some theories have more validity than others.

And I really, really have a profound dislike of the fact that people poke around in my ancestors' graves. It is very rude.

That said, I think that the conclusions drawn by the anthros/archies here are as reasonable as most conclusions drawn by any anthros/archies are in many instances.

If you examine methods of deduction, gathered evidence, and conclusions, it seems clear that the bulk of knowledge gleaned from the endeavors of prehistoric Anthropolology and Archaeology is actually based on the theory that "if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, has a bill, and quacks, it probably is a duck.

Because all we have is what the "duck cultures" (prehistoric cultures) left behind, along with reasonable comparisons we can make to similar "duck cultures" (modern tribal cultures) that exist today or that we have credible historical knowledge of from the past. And historical knowledge is often determined/invented/relayed by invading conquerors.

Best not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and totally dismiss the conclusions of anthros/archies though; most all science is based on probability and predictability, and as "truth" is gathered scientific "knowledge" rearranges accordingly (hopefully).

[JackintheGreen]

162. Not dismissing, just waiting for formal publication. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

42. -1

[HEyHEY]

46. Like I care

[Thunderstruck]

53. You must care, you responded.

[HEyHEY]

55. I had no idea such a calvary of tools would be drawn out by my response

:eyes:

[closeupready]

45. Could be a number of reasons, but they ruled them all out.

Except this one.

Duh. :eyes:

[HEyHEY]

54. Based on what?

[closeupready]

59. What do you mean "based on what" - that's what scientists do.

When you find a set of circumstances that defy explanation, you consider the possibilities, and go with the most likely explanation (speaking in general).

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Incitatus]

62. I don't see anything homophobic in his post.

[cui bono]

64. To think it joke to make someone appear gay is homophobic, or else there would be no joke. n/t

[Incitatus]

68. You don't know that was the intention of the people who buried him. nt

[cui bono]

71. I'm not the one who said that!!! Try following the thread.

:eyes:

[Incitatus]

91. If it was a joke or insult, you don't know if it was because he was gay.

That would be an assumption, just like this article.

[cui bono]

104. Edited post - I get what you are saying now...

EDIT:

Aha! I get what you are saying now, thank you for the clarification. Since the article called the guy gay and the poster then made that comment yes, I took it that the joke was to make him look gay where as it could have been simply to dress him as a woman and not be about making him look gay. It seems that is what it accomplished though, if it were a joke, sinc ethe guy is being called gay. :)

[closeupready]

72. That's an excellent point.

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[Hugabear]

73. See post #51

n/t

[Incitatus]

61. + 1,000,000

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

74. Yes, they should have

held off the beer until the burial was done. Might have shown a little more respect.

No proof, but I like your "junk science" call.

[yardwork]

138. What an offensive comment. Because it's always a joke, isn't it?

Your comments downthread reveal a profound lack of understanding of transgender people. Educate yourself before you put such ignorant, thoughtless comments out here.

[hlthe2b]

156. I think the article is overstating what was proposed as hypothesis

and not conclusion by the archeologist. As one who has had first hand experience with the challenges of media accurately reporting on my own published findings--including both the interpretation of findings and any uncertainties/limitations, I can relate. I wouldn't conclude the archeologist to be guilty of "junk science," based on the reporter's rather imprecise language and summary. While the archeologist may have a lot of data to support this as a probable explanation, I feel certain he proposed it as nothing more than a hypothesis. Reporters have difficulty with translating from "hypothesis," "theory," "supporting evidence," "correlation," etc. to "conclusion." One need look no further than the evolution and climate change debates to realize that.

It is an interesting finding, for which the relevancy and interpretation will be debated by others in the field for some time. It will be interesting to see if they find any other similar burials. :shrug:

[liberal N proud]

2. Really?

Someone wants people to believe this shit?

[Incitatus]

66. And people some will

Look at all the crap teabaggers believe.

[Teaser]

3. I'm embarassed to be a scientist when I read this.

seriously.

[Zorra]

19. You don't believe there were any GLBT folks 5,000 years ago? nt

[Teaser]

146. Why would you say that?

What aspect of this do you think bothers me?

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with falsifiability.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

4. The second article they link to has a little bit more information

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

It's just interesting that a male was buried in the way that they always found females buried.

[JackintheGreen]

5. It's an interesting conclusion

and not a little problematic. I can think of several reason that a man might have been buried as woman off the top of my head, and "gay" isn't the first one.

Now, I'm NOT an archaeologist, only and anthropologist, so I don't know the cultural-historical surround to the dig, but I still must question the conclusion. A news item to keep on eye on.

(judging from the other responses, perhaps I am wrong to be so...diplomatic?)

[KittyWampus]

8. What are some of the other reasons. I also am an anthropologist. Transexuals had formal roles

in some cultures.

[JackintheGreen]

30. And they still do

(like Indian hijras)

Off the top of my head, this could be but the first example of a different social status supported by evidence yet to be uncovered or already uncovered but thus far imperfectly understood. For example, I some cultures buried male religious figures in ways that differed from male warrior classes.

It could have been a way to diminish or derogate the power of a rival faction, family, or tribe.

I do not know enough about European Mesolithic culture to know if there is enough evidence to suggest that transsexuals had a recognized role. Maybe there is background here that wasn't published in the popular media but is in the academic lit.

But every time a story of this nature appears - namely that a new burial find has revealed something BRAND NEW about a prehistoric culture - I think of all the conclusions made about various finds in Harappa (my one archaeological hobby) based on single instances that have turned out to be insupportable.

It seems the better path would be to announce a fascinating new burial site that doesn't match previous examples which might reveal new facts about Mesolithic central Europe. Not, "hey, look, we found a gay grave!"

[KittyWampus]

37. Hey, I bet we can all agree here- the article title sucks!

:)

[JackintheGreen]

39. Yay, agreement!

Isn't it funny how a badly written title or article can send an interesting discussion topic so far off the rails?

Cheers :toast:

[ecstatic]

132. Maybe the person was intersex?

Is that the term for people born with both sets of genitals?

[eleny]

9. Diplomacy works for me

Since this is the first burial they've found like this in that area, I'm interested to see if any others are found like this.

I'm not put off by speculation. It's how humans roll, no? :hi:

[snooper2]

6. Why do people always link to that crap raw story site?

All they do is steal stories from other legit publications...

pathetic

[cui bono]

69. Raw Story is crap???

:crazy:

[KamaAina]

120. Because their editor-at-large is a DUer?

Or was, at least: I haven't seen her around in quite a while. :(

[Zorra]

124. Can't handle fact and truth, eh? Interesting. nt

[snooper2]

135. They copy stories from other publications

it's a recycle shop...

How is that getting you more "fact and truth"?

[Zorra]

148. Almost every major newspaper in the US recycles many AP news articles on a daily basis

Rawstory is a credible news source that sometimes breaks stories before other publications and/or engages in investigative journalism resulting in breaking news, news that is critically important but which mainstream media ignores and rarely publishes.

These stories/articles are often posted at DU. Many credible articles regarding electronic voting irregularites are often published at Raw Story, stories that MSM refuses to touch for some reason.

Yes, they do also "recycle" stories. Just like USA Today, the New York Times does, or even like DU does at LBN.

I don't see any validity for your criticism of Raw Story, unless you feel the same about almost every other news provider in the US.

[snooper2]

155. Link a 100% original content article from rawstory

[Zorra]

175. Here, from the very first place I looked:

Raw Investigations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive: Obama has taken a ‘profoundly troubling’ position on assassinations, ACLU tells Raw

Disclosure of government secrets often has little to do with the public's right to know and has everything to do an official's need to tell, according to ACLU deputy director Jameel Jaffer.

And that's especially true when it comes to assassinations, which have not traditionally been an openly admitted component of U.S. foreign policy -- but the American Civil Liberities Union is cautioning that the Obama administration is changing all of that.

In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Jaffer, a key attorney with the rights group, even warned that the Democrat in office has taken a position on unilateral murder so extreme as to be "profoundly troubling" in its legal reach and potential for future use.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/exclusive-obama-has-taken-a-profoundly-troubling-position-on-assassinations-aclu-tells-raw/

Another quickie:

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm

A 100% original content article would not be the reporting of news. It would be either be an editorial, or a work of fiction.

[Ian David]

7. Now, we need to find the first gay Eskimo skeleton...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwO33oUawM8

[originalpckelly]

10. I'll believe this when we find gay cave paintings.

This could have happened for a number of reasons.

[Zorra]

16. You don't believe there were any GLBT folks 5,000 years ago? nt

[originalpckelly]

21. I do, but I don't know if I'd believe such a silly piece of evidence.

There are all kinds of reasons. Unless there is specific information truly showing gay relationships, then it's logical to assume they weren't and it wasn't an error.

[KittyWampus]

25. "Silly piece of evidence"? An atypical burial is not silly. And what are some alternative reasons?

I am sincerely interested.

And remember, it might not be gay but transexual.

It's a crappy title. But a valid hypothesis.

[uppityperson]

131. It IS a valid hypothesis, but a hypothesis is not always The Truth (tm).

I did a search but can't find another article except linking back to the czech one or questionable sources. I'd like to read more.

[Zorra]

26. For those skeptical of why anthropologists came to this conclusion:

This is, of course, not the only reason.

Two-Spirit People (also Two Spirit or Twospirit), an English term that emerged in 1990 out of the third annual inter-tribal Native American/First Nations gay/lesbian American conference in Winnipeg, describes Indigenous North Americans who fulfill one of many mixed gender role found traditionally among many Native Americans and Canadian First Nations indigenous groups. The mixed gender roles encompassed by the term historically included wearing the clothing and performing the work associated with both men and women.

A direct translation of the Ojibwe term, Niizh manidoowag, "two-spirited" or "two-spirit" is usually used to indicate a person whose body simultaneously houses a masculine spirit and a feminine spirit. The term can also be used more abstractly, to indicate presence of two contrasting human spirits (such as Warrior and Clan Mother) or two contrasting animal spirits (which, depending on the culture, might be Eagle and Coyote). However, these uses, while descriptive of some aboriginal cultural practices and beliefs, depart somewhat from the 1990 purposes of promoting the term.

According to Brian Joseph Gilly, the presence of male two-spirits "was a fundamental institution among most tribal peoples."<1> Will Roscoe writes that male and female two-spirits have been "documented in over 130 tribes, in every region of North America, among every type of native culture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

[Snoutport]

195. I pictured this caveman suddenly on Ru Paul's show...

skin tight leopard skin outfit with some mammoth fur fringe and a cute little cap made out of a silky gopher, struttin' through the cave making that fringe flip...

Of course there were gay cave people! Who the hell else did all that decorating with the cave paintings?

"Oog say antelope painting look fabulous here over fire pit."

[Ian David]

194. Gay cave paintings? Here you go...

DATE Mesolithic - 10,000 to 8,000 BC
AUTHOR unknown
MEDIA Rock engraving
SIZE unknown
LOCATION Italy - Sicily - Cave of Addaura
NOTES Most of the interpretations of this cave art have centred on this "scene". Various masked or beaked vertical figures surround two curved horizontal ones, one above the other, with beak-like penes or penis-sheaths. Both also appear to have cords or straps between their buttocks and backs. These central figures could be flying or floating, and have been described as "acrobats". Hands are never represented in any of the figures, and limbs are often elongated and pointed. Interpretations of this "scene" provoked intense debate in Italian journals. The debate centred around two schools, one of which took the figures as acrobats, and the other as ritually hanged individuals. In fact Bovio Marconi first suggested that the central figures were engaged in an act of homosexual copulation connected with a virility ritual.

More:
http://www.homoerotimuseum.net/eur/eur05/001.html

Hat-tip to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x175271#175279

[supernova]

12. I don't know why this would surprise anyone

Sure it's probably crudely written and I'd like to see a more formal scientific announcement filled with you know, nuance.

Still, is it really so impossible that ancient cultures included transgender and gay people? And wouldn't it make sense that that person would be buried as they presented themselves in life?

edit: I'll be interested to see what scientists make of this discovery in the coming years.

[Marr]

13. That seems a bit like a projection of modern stereotypes to me.

There's nothing inherently feminine about a gay male.

[uppityperson]

84. Seriously. Gay male=female? "There's nothing inherently feminine about a gay male."

[Zorra]

133. Good point. Gay men do not consider themselves female,

and nothing is inherently feminine about gay men.

Language and semantics problem there.

[KittyWampus]

14. When I studied anthropology in the 80's the term we used was "berdache" referring to Native Am

tribes. Transexuals were accepted into society and had well defined roles.

I find this really interesting.

Those who think this is somehow ridiculous or junk science need to examine WHY they think that.

30 years later, I think the term "berdache" may be no longer in use.

[Ian David]

23. Third gender From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third gender
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms third gender and third sex describe individuals who are categorized (by their will or by social consensus) as neither male nor female, as well as the social category present in those societies who recognize three or more genders. The term "third" is usually understood to mean "other"; some anthropologists and sociologists have described fourth,<1> fifth,<2> and even some<3> genders.

Although biology determines genetically whether a human being is male or female (on the basis of the XX or XY or a variation thereof chromosomes), the state of being neither male nor female is sometimes considered in relation to the individual's gender role in society, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other characteristic. To different cultures or individuals, a third sex or gender may represent an intermediate state between men and women, a state of being both (such as "the spirit of a man in the body of a woman"), the state of being neither (neuter), the ability to cross or swap genders, another category altogether independent of male and female. This last definition is favored by those who argue for a strict interpretation of the "third gender" concept. In any case, all of these characterizations are defining gender and not the sex that biology gives to living beings.

The term has been used to describe Hijras of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan<4> who have gained legal identity, Fa'afafine of Polynesia, and Sworn virgins of the Balkans,<5> among others, and is also used by many of such groups and individuals to describe themselves.

<snip>

In Mesopotamian mythology, among the earliest written records of humanity, there are references to types of people who are not men and not women. In a Sumerian creation myth found on a stone tablet from the second millennium BC, the goddess Ninmah fashions a being "with no male organ and no female organ", for whom Enki finds a position in society: "to stand before the king". In the Akkadian myth of Atra-Hasis (ca. 1700 BC), Enki instructs Nintu, the goddess of birth, to establish a “third category among the people” in addition to men and women, that includes demons who steal infants, women who are unable to give birth, and priestesses who are prohibited from bearing children.<59> In Babylonia, Sumer and Assyria, certain types of individuals who performed religious duties in the service of Inanna/Ishtar have been described as a third gender.<60> They worked as sacred prostitutes or Hierodules, performed ecstatic dance, music and plays, wore masks and had gender characteristics of both women and men.<61> In Sumer, they were given the cuneiform names of ur.sal ("dog/man-woman") and kur.gar.ra (also described as a man-woman).<62> Modern scholars, struggling to describe them using contemporary sex/gender categories, have variously described them as "living as women", or used descriptors such as hermaphrodites, eunuchs, homosexuals, transvestites, effeminate males and a range of other terms and phrases.<63>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender

[supernova]

31. Yes, it's a limitation of language

I think all throughout history, instances where the idea of strictly "male" and "female", "feminine" and "masculine" aren't adequate for describing oneself positively. So you kind of use the words you have. The person in this grave seems to be a good example of this of us in our own time not having productive language on this topic either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. also social sciences dont work the same way as physical sciences

& pretending they do is just stupid.

there hasn't been a single person on this thread trained in anthropology who has called this junk. I suspect most people who have, are not trained in social sciences at all.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

49. +1

[pipi_k]

15. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble...

I always knew it...

[KamaAina]

121. Maybe they can get a GEICO commercial out of this

:-)

[Raine]

192. what about Wilma and Betty? nt

[ChoppinBroccoli]

17. Scientists Reached This Conclusion When They Looked Around The Burial Site..............

...............and decided that it could ONLY be described as..............FABULOUS!!!

[underseasurveyor]

20. Of course it's possible.

"junk science?" Science is investigative and this will need more investigating. Geez the knee jerk-what the hell do they know- or -thats not it :eyes:

Many cultures, historically, held in high regard those they considered different or special in some manner, including homosexuals. And it appears this person was loved and respected enough to have been buried in the manner in which he lived his life.

[H2O Man]

24. Interesting.

While there are other possible explanations, this appears to be perhaps the most likely.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackintheGreen]

35. Having read the other responses

I take this as a dig at me, and one I don't particularly appreciate.

I have said many times and in many contexts in DU that language matters and that writing matters. Perhaps what I should have said is that it is a terribly written article that reads too much socio-cultural context into a much less weighted scientific announcement. I, too, await the formal findings (as I mentioned); there may indeed be more context to this than is revealed in either the rawstory link or the original popular media article.

But what CAN be problematized with the information given is the conclusion that it is a "gay grave," as I wrote to KittyWampus. There are not merely two ways to bury bodies in ancient cultures, the "man way" and the "woman way." This may be an example of a third gender, or a different social role, or a derogation of power/influence after death. It could be any number of things. But if you are going to claim a specific finding in the media then you'd better see to it that evidence is published that backs up the claim. This is not the case here. Yet.

Neither do I consider myself an "uniformed internet poster." I admit the gaps in my knowledge - Mesolithic central European cultures, for one - but my professional training has included training in prehistoric archaeology. I wouldn't be surprised if KittyWampus's did, too, back in the 1980s. It is certainly possible for non-experts to still make educated (really, honestly, you know like from college educated) opinions.

Now, that said, if your comment was not a dig a me personally, if I missed some other poster saying "I'm not an archaeologist, but...", I will be the first to admit the mistake. But I do not otherwise appreciate the insinuations of your post.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. But this article is a general interest article, and none of the

'problems' you are talking about come from what the scientists said, but what the reporter said. The actual people did not deliver what they say is a proven conclusion, they stated what they-here is the word they used- believe the burial indicates a gay or third gendered person. You say the information given is a conclusion that it is a 'gay grave' when what the people being quoted say is that they believe it is the grave of a gay or transgendered person. That is, they do not say what you claim they said, there is no conclusion offered, only a theory. A theory which offends you deeply, I'd say.
The way a thing is written about can not be ascribed to the thing itself. What bothers you is the writing about what was said, it seems.
What actual facts do you have to counter their thinking? Anything other than your opinion? They did not make a claim, they offered their own thinking on what they have seen. No one said 'this is fact' they said 'this is what we think from the evidence'. You, on the other hand, have not spoken about the evidence, and seem to be married to the idea that the scientists involved are all hacks, and you know their dig better than they do, their field better than they do. But you offer no actual basis for your opinion, other than it could be true. Which is what they said about their opinion, they think this is the case. They gave reasons for that. You responded, words being important, by claiming they made a conclusion and presented it as fact, which they did not do.
Hearing a theory that bothers you and spinning out about it is not exactly the same as presenting reasons and evidence, nor is it the same as delivering your own differing opinion. When a person says 'I think X' and you claim they said 'I conclude that X is the truth' you are rewriting that person and then arguing with your own rewrite.

[KittyWampus]

50. I think it's the article's title, it's so obviously sensationalist. It detracts from the actual

story. That happens so often.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Yeah, a big part of my point is that this is reported in other ways

in other places, and the text of the article, it took me two seconds to find the telegraph's story on it, the archeologists are quoted and they are simply not making a conclusion as some here are saying. They point to evidence and say 'we believe that possibly...' which is just not 'making a conclusion' it is offering a theory and some of the thinking behind it. I take issue with those who are saying that the archeologists involved are making a conclusion, unlike their great minds, based on a headline from Raw Story, not upon what was actually said by the archeologists. They are not stating that this is fact they now know, they say 'possibly, seems to be, we think' and all of the words one is supposed to use when no making a conclusion.
People seem offended that qualified people put forth a theory they do not care for. They are not addressing the theory, the specific dig, nor the actual culture being studied, or those near by it. They simply declare that the offering of a theory is the same as presenting a final conclusion which it is not.
Bad story in Raw Story. This is better, but still of course, for general readers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

[JackintheGreen]

70. You accuse me me of being offended

by the theory. This is an absurd projection based upon your own insecurities, I would say (so long as we are judging other people based on this thread). The central assertion of the article - thus far presented BY THE REPORTER without compelling evidence - is what bothers me. Not the theory. Bad writing, bad presentation, bad media savvy. Not bad science.

I thought my posts made this clear. Obviously not clear enough.

But please, in the interests of self awareness, if I have written anything that reveals a deep-seated discomfort of abhorrence of the mere notion of a gay burial, do please point it out to me so that in future I can be more careful. Seriously. I can't see anything, but it is my writing and I am close to it (and to my intent, which I know better than you). You saw something, as did the poster to whom I responded. I freely admit the possibility that my various privilege has blinded me to certain linguistic constructions that can be misread by others.

The mere challenging the finding on evidence offered cannot reasonably be taken as evidence of my being bothered or offended by the theory.

[H2O Man]

100. Well said.

[JackintheGreen]

103. No, in fact, it was not

because it ascribes intention that cannot reasonably be gleaned from what was written.

[Ian David]

29. The Surprising History Of Homosexuality And Homophobia.

The Surprising History Of Homosexuality And Homophobia.

<snip>

We know that the ancient view of homosexual sex was that it was innocuous, harmless (so long as both parties were fully consenting), and could be as much a symbol of love between the participants as heterosexual sex. Indeed, in most African cultures, mutual masturbation and anal sex engaged in by pre-marriage adolescents was considered to be nothing more than child-play.

Indeed a vast corpus of literature has been left us by the ancients, which celebrates same-sex relationships, and which in many cases is homoerotic. Much of the literature of “straight society” also makes clear, in a variety of ways, that homosexual relationships were widely acknowledged, not considered immoral or “sinful,” but rather were considered a normal part of life. In many “primitive” societies, such as those studied in Africa and the Pacific Islands, the patterns seen are often the same as those seen in ancient Greece and Rome. Adolescent males would often pair-bond, engage in frequent homosexual relations, and exhibit great love for each other, until the time came to become fathers and husbands. They would then make a choice – going on to find (or be assigned) a wife, and abandoning their same-sex partner. The choice was often difficult – and not a few chose to remain with their same-sex partner for the rest of their lives.

<snip>

Among the last African cultures to be subjugated by Europeans, the Hausa peoples of northern Nigeria and the surrounding countries offer interesting examples of homosexuality among Islmaicized peoples of Africa. Conquered by the British only in 1904, they were studied extensively by British ethnographers within a decade and a half of the arrival of the British – having experienced very limited contact with Europeans in the meantime. These ethnographers included sexual practices, including homosexuality, in their survey. Thus, they give us a unique glimpse into a nearly pristine African Islamic culture.

<snip>

When English and French-Canadian fur trappers first grew acquainted with the cultures of the Native Americans among whom they found themselves, they were surprised to find that there were significant numbers of men dressed as women among the tribes of the region. What intrigued them the most, however, was the esteem with which these men were held by their fellow tribesmen. These men were considered to be spiritually gifted, a special gift to the tribe by God, men with a particular insight into spiritual matters. As they were encountered in most tribes, the trappers chose a French word to describe them all: “berdache.”

More:
http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/the-surprising-history-of-homosexuality-and-homophobia/

[Zanzoobar]

40. There was a protracted battle

He had dug the grave for his sister and was placing the jugs in just the right position. In his grief he let his guard down and took a spear in the back from a vengeful scout laying in wait behind a knoll.

He fell into the grave and layed there waiting for his tribe to find him. He slipped away slowly into the grip of death.

When they found him, his tissues were torn by the animals. He layed decomposing, unrecognized by even his friends.

The remnants of the tribe having concerns for the winter, buried him in the cold ground as he had been found.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. And what supporting evidence do you have for this very

screenplay like theory? Any at all? Of course not. Tell me some details about other burials in that culture, did they take it very seriously or casually? Why was this man digging a grave by himself, at the ascribed burial ground, and then not found for such a long time? Was it common for one person to see to a burial, unattended by others? I've never hear of any culture that did that.

[Zanzoobar]

97. I already told you why.

There was a protracted battle. His tribe was scattered throughout the region. He returned to the camp alone. Hungry. Cold.

He spent two days rounding up tools and looking for food. He came upon the body of his sister in the evening of the second day, some two kilometers from the camp.

His grief was overwhelming and he did the best he could. He was not well versed in all the rituals and relied on his memory to do the best he could.

[CTyankee]

76. I think we'll have to add "gay caveman" to our DU list of perenially contentious threads.

Lemme see, we've got breast feeding, Olive Garden, male circumcision, natural childbirth, smoking, obese airline passengers...hmmm, what have I missed?

[supernova]

Chicken

hellacious fights about cooking chicken.

[supernova]

86. Dupe

I hope this glitch goes away in DU3.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. +1,000,000

Fucking classic.

[Biker13]

106. Pit Bulls n/t

[CTyankee]

113. Oh, how could I forget?

Altho I haven't seen one recently...

[Kadie]

112. Air Freshener.

Made the mistake of talking about it once.

:scared:


:rofl:

[CTyankee]

116. Shame on you, Kadie. You should know better!

:rofl:

[Kadie]

122. I have learned my lesson.

Believe me.

:)

[eleny]

115. Do you have evidence of this? Links? Research?

[CTyankee]

118. My empirical study told me so...

:hi:

[eleny]

123. Oh, well in that case...

[blondeatlast]

136. Laura Branigan--a classic. nt

[JVS]

143. That talentless hack!

[CTyankee]

149. There ya go! Doesn't this thread have all the earmarks of our DU classic

flamewar threads? I am struck by how similar the characteristics are. Even the title lends itself to this thread genre...

[closeupready]

83. It might help to point out here that the anatomy of the human male makes credible

the idea that homosexual activity is 'hardwired' into our evolutionary past, given where the prostate is located and the areas of the body that are employed in the act of intercourse.

I don't expect to change any of the homophobic minds here, but it is something to consider in terms of the idea that many cultures embrace the human body as it is and accommodate its needs, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon culture which has historically done some pretty horrific things to the human body in the interests of "progress".

[JackintheGreen]

94. I'm curious about this Anglo-Saxon culture you keep mentioning

as if it were some isolationist culture that has somehow managed to dominate opinions world wide for the last 1000 years. I can guess at your intent, but would you mind clarifying?

[closeupready]

96. Anglo-Saxon culture. They set out and killed people who failed to do their will.

And rewarded those who helped administer their empire.

[JackintheGreen]

109. Stating it emphatically doesn't clarify the matter

There were Angles, and Saxons, and Jutes, all from the continent, all invading the British Isles in the second half of the first millennium CE. They weren't a unified culture as such. Even if we assume as much, this Anglo-Saxon culture was harried by Vikings from about the 9th century, resulting in a further "dilution" of whatever pure culture you seem to be imaging existed in the first place. Though even this would have mixed with the Celts, Picts, and other groups on the Isles prior to, say 500CE.

This cultural admixture was then invaded by French-speaking Normans (well, langue d'oil) in the mid 11th century (I will tell of the Battle of Hastings/as happened in days long gone by/When Duke William became king of England/and 'arold got shot in the eye/It were this way...)

By this point, if we can even assume a coherent Anglo-Saxon culture, Christianity has long taken hold in Europe and the Teutonic religions known to the Anglo-Saxons were, to put it kindly, in disarray.

So I ask again, can you clarify what you mean by Anglo-Saxon culture? Or is it an ideological construction you are using to make a point? And what point could that possibly be given the thumb-nail sketch I have just given? Really, I am somewhat confused by your insistence.

[coalition_unwilling]

187. Thanks for this. If we had a little more Jute and a little less Angle and

Saxon, the world might be a better place :)

[PVnRT]

172. Anyone who disagrees with you is homophobic?

Ummm, OK.

[WatsonT]

196. And Anglo-Saxons invented prudishness and homophobia apparently

I mean look at all those anglo types in the middle east burning and stoning homosexuals to death and veiling women.

[Withywindle]

102. Wow.

I saw this story on another blog last night and followed the links and read the comments (wish I hadn't) and the same bizarre thing kept coming up.


"I think it's most likely they buried him as a woman to INSULT him."


Really? So many people's thoughts go to that right away? First off, there's the assumption that treating a man as a woman in any way has always been a terrible insult in all cultures everywhere. (And what does that assumption say about the person who holds it?)

Yes, the headline and the writing is sensationalist. This is all too common in reporting about interesting new developments in the physical sciences as well as the social sciences. We should be used to it and be able to filter through it by now. What the actual researchers in the article said is, as Bluenorthwest pointed out, "Based on the evidence we have now and what we think we know about this culture already, we think this is the most likely conclusion..." Hardly a sensationalist claim--unless you think the possible existence of evidence of some kind of GLBT person acknowledged as such in his/her culture is in itself a very extraordinary and far-fetched claim.

I don't think it's necessarily far-fetched. We'll probably never know for 100% sure if that's the case here or not. Might have just been a straight guy who really loved to cook. But wow, the kneejerk angry reactions in the modern world are a fascinating anthropological phenomenon to observe in their own right. (No wonder some people prefer to study old bones.)

[Hugabear]

105. Um, that same "alternate" reason came up in this very thread

It got deleted, but still shocking to think that it would appear here on DU

[Withywindle]

110. I know, that's why I had to make my comment.

You expect it from the sort of mouth-breather that trolls all over the comment sections on newspaper web sites, but on DU....*sigh*

I'm not shocked. Just bummed. I think it represents a desire to cling to evo-psych gender essentialist crap that wants to be believe that strict, immobile "man hunt-woman gather" male/female divisions are "natural" and go way way way back, and all this feminist/GLBT stuff is just some kind of modern "PC" aberration.

[justiceischeap]

107. Makes you kinda miss the Matriarchal society, doesn't it?

When being a woman was revered instead of an insult? I blame this on religion, greed and power. Not to say that women aren't and can't be powerful because we all know better (or at least should know better) but nothing good really happened to society, in my opinion, when Christianity took root.

Homosexuality wasn't deemed "sinful" or something to be looked down upon in our society until "a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. <4>" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions One could posit that if it weren't for Christianity the above emperors wouldn't have had a reason to outlaw same-sex unions.

As for the insults to the GLBT community in this thread, if you don't consider yourself homophobic but if what you say has a bunch of folks claiming it's homophobic, then you need to rethink your views on homophobia because if it walks like a duck and quacks like one too, well, it's a damn homophobic duck.

[coalition_unwilling]

188. I keep telling my wife that we need more Matriotism, not more

Patriotism. She has reluctantly agreed with me :)

Stole the joke from Joseph Heller's 'Catch 22' (I think)

On edit: Speaking of Joseph Heller, his 'God Knows' has a hilarious send-up of the not-so-latent homoeroticism between David and
Saul's son Jonathan whom David, in one of the Psalms, says is "more beautiful than any woman."

[Lyric]

108. Apparently the idea of gay or transgender cavemen is very threatening.

Or at least many of the responses to this thread would make it appear so.

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

119. I find assumptions wrong. And sensationalistic headlines of articles wrong.

I don't see anyone here saying there weren't all sorts of sexual orientations in any time period, just challenging the assumption that being buried in a traditionally female way means a male was gay. And lots of other assumptions and insults based off that.

[Lyric]

127. But why challenge quite so...vehemently?

There are lots of ideas out there worth discussing. If we found a cave painting that could be interpreted as cavemen demonstrating contempt and disgust with excessive individual wealth, for example, we wouldn't argue QUITE so hard against that idea. Why? Because we LIKE that idea. We LIKE the idea that even cavemen might have recognized that too much concentration of wealth is bad for everyone. I'm sure there would be some debate, but not the all-out aggression against the idea that we saw here.

The vehemence and vitriol on display here both point to an unusually high level of anger and resentment at the idea that cavemen might have been gay (OR transgender--don't forget that part). Perhaps that doesn't seem odd to you. I suppose you could explain it away as merely a reaction to an unproven assumption. But I think that would be flippant. Normal debate about a relatively uncontroversial topic just doesn't work that way. It's not like assuming that the caveman was gay/trans is going to HURT someone. If anything, it helps to establish the inherent normality of homosexuality, transexuality, or both.

The reactions I saw were WAY too over-the-top to be explained away as a reaction to a bad "assumption".

[uppityperson]

129. I cannot speak for anyone but me.

I found the accusations of homophobia/etc when someone posted another possibility too nasty. Those are what I challenged.

I find this find very interesting, but nastily insulting someone who says it may not be accurate is wrong. That was my point.

[Hugabear]

134. To be honest, the very first response to the OP didn't set a very good tone

When the very first post derisively dismisses the findings as "junk science", it does tend to set the tone for the thread.

[uppityperson]

139. calling something junk science can only mean that poster deserving of crass insults?

Du is something sometimes. Hypotheses are only hypotheses and deserve to be challenged.

[Marrah_G]

147. I think it was more the "hahaha his buddies probably were playing a joke on him"

It just re-enforces the gay=bad type of thinking. I know for me that set a sort of mocking tone. Probably unintentional, but still it rubs alot of people the wrong way. The thread just went down hill from there.

[uppityperson]

183. I reread that and I agree.

It was mocking and in bad taste.

[Withywindle]

141. You're still not really responding to Lyric's point

Her point was that the initial reactions were waayyy too vehement to represent real reasoned debate. Immediately lashing out with a shout of "junk science", inventing really far-fetched and convoluted "alternate" speculations, dismissing what the scientists (not the reporters) have to say and clinging in a very emotional, one-liner sort of way to denial of the possibility....

not reasoned debate. And that very emphatic, kneejerk resistance to the possibility in the article, based on nothing more concrete than emotional reaction IS homophobic.

The pain or anger someone feels when being told something they said was homophobic is NOT more important than the pain and anger queer people feel when they hear a homophobic remark. Calling a homophobic remark homophobic is not an extreme or particularly nasty thing to say, if it's true.

[Lyric]

151. I understand that, but

as a gay person? I found the irrationally-extreme oppositional reaction to even the idea that he MIGHT have been gay/trans to be nasty. And hurtful. It's the kind of reaction I'd expect to see from my right-wing uncle if someone told him that his great-grandfather was gay. I too can only speak for myself, but I found it both alarming and insulting. I don't necessarily believe that it was intentional. But that doesn't make it "right".

It's possible that both sides could be wrong. It's possible for something to sound homophobic, even if it wasn't intended that way. In that case, rather than throwing a temper tantrum and storming out, doesn't it seem reasonable to say, "I'm sorry if that came out badly. It wasn't my intention to make it sound like I have a personal problem with the idea of gay cavemen. The reason I reacted so vehemently is (insert reason here)". I'd be quite interested in that reason, because I honestly can't think of any that explain the ferocity of the reaction. Science makes big assumptions all the time. Why were people so strongly oppositional to THIS particular one--enough that they were willing to completely discount the expert opinions of the people actually ANALYZING the excavation, and go balls-out to express defiance and doubt toward their conclusions?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

180. I'm sorry if anything i wrote came out badly.

It wasn't my intention to make it sound like I have a personal problem with the idea of gay cavemen.

I don't see questioning the validity of a hypothesis as being any sort of phobic and in no way meant my questioning to be anything like that.


"Why were people so strongly oppositional to THIS particular one"? Have you sat in on in of the Health Forum posts?

As I said, I can only speak for me, and I guess I come from the viewpoint of sexual orientation shouldn't matter to anyone but those involved with each other. I also seem to not see phobia in posts that you might. My apologies.

[JackintheGreen]

137. I agree with uppity

Many made suggestions - sometimes poorly worded and (probably) unintentionally offensive suggestions - and they were vehemently attacked as homophobes. For some of us the accusation was more delicate, but clear accusations of homophobia were made against just about everybody who questioned the finding on evidence. Some went so far as to say that if you don't have training in archaeology or anthropology your opinions were worthless. Except that some of us have stated in this thread that they are trained in these fields. And yet the accusations continue.

It is not idea of gay cavemen, in the main, that has elicited angry and reactive responses but rather the vitriolic attacks made against us for daring to suggest (sometime indelicately - and I'm looking at you, HeyHey) the possibility of another conclusion. For those of you who don't wish to feel attacked, don't attack first.

Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth. In my estimation, approximately two cents.

[closeupready]

154. Now that I've calmed down a bit, I still see things as I did earlier.

I have two of the three on ignore now, and I would probably just stay out of a thread containing 'unintentionally' offensive suggestions, since, as far as I know, if I FEEL I have been offended, then I have INDEED been offended. ;) You are of course entitled to feel differently. :)

Cheers. :hi:

[Lyric]

158. Oh, believe me...I felt offended.

I was attempting to be diplomatic, lol.

[closeupready]

163. Way to go - Cheers, Lyric!

:hi: :)

[JackintheGreen]

164. As I go back and read some of the posts I missed

after the initial explosion I see that some of them did, indeed, spiral into overt expressions of what I will charitably attribute to institutionalized homophobia, expression of which is often difficult to avoid/recognize by persons deeply entrenched in the institutions into which they are enshrined (e.g. America, the church, sports, the military, etc.). These were called out. My own posts were briefly attacked but then dropped after I responded, leading me to conclude that I either couched my thoughts better or lodged unassailable arguments. ;)

If you've a mind to and can point to any statement of mine that might have gone astray I wouldn't take offense.

And I'm still interested in clarification on the whole Anglo-Saxon culture thing. Seriously. I am genuinely curious in why you couch your discussion in these terms.

[closeupready]

165. I'm calm now, lol, so I can just let water stay under the bridge.

I don't recall you being offensive. More generally, it's okay, it's a fact of life, people can be rude and not know it, so I can deal. Now, let's stop this before someone suggests we go get a room...! :rofl:

:hi:

[JackintheGreen]

168. Cheers n/t

[uppityperson]

182. My apologies, did not mean to be offensive. Since you have pm's from me blocked, should I assume I

am one of those you blocked? If so, perhaps someone else could pass on that I in no way mean to, oh damn. Here's the link to my other reply.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=834226&mesg_id=839872

I noticed that I challenged a post of yours elsewhere in this thread, "most people have engaged in homosexual relations, at some point or other, despite Anglo-Saxon insistence that one drop of homosexuality makes you 100% homosexual.
And also, gay people - outside Anglo-Saxon culture - are generally either as much a part of a community as non-gay people, or else respected as cultural authorities, as with many Native American tribes or in parts of Asia."

I still would like to see evidence of those assertions. I would be happy to read, irregardless of your questioning snark, but "see Churchill and Boswell for starters" isn't clear enough. Thank you.

[uppityperson]

181. Thank you, that's what I mean, just not so well expressed.

[coalition_unwilling]

189. You are not a homophobe. You are a Anglo-Saxon-ophobe. Or

maybe a Anglo-Saxon-Jute-ophobe :)

[Zorra]

125. Hmm...but...why on earth would anyone be threatened by this idea?

:hi:
:popcorn:

[JVS]

126. I find 20th and 21st century conceptions of gender/sexuality don't transfer well to a few hundred...

years ago. I'm even more skeptical about how well they transfer to a few thousand years ago. I've read articles about Queen Elizabeth being called King and given other masculine attributes in literature written in praise of her. Things like female Pharoahs wearing false beards would be similar. As would the Norse concept of "ergi" (unmanliness). Gender and sexuality are concepts that are more complicated than being able to simplify with calling this caveman find gay. There does seem to be some significant cross-gendering at this grave though, and that is interesting and should be noted.

[Lyric]

128. And the OP mentions the transgender possibility too.

Our 20th century conceptions of gender/sexuality are irrelevant. Our "conceptions" might not have existed back then, but that doesn't mean that the state of being gay and/or trans didn't exist. They might have understood it differently, but that doesn't mean that they didn't recognize it.

[JackintheGreen]

140. I've been whistling up this tree for hours

I wish you better success. :)

[Toucano]

144. +1

Not only that, but imposing 20th and 21st century Western concepts of human sexuality is even more ridiculous.

[KamaAina]

150. The Queen Elizabeth thing was a popular joke

after her death, it was said that King Elizabeth had been succeeded by Queen James.

[JVS]

153. Not a joke. This was in a seminar. I can't recall the article, but the theme of the day was...

the Femme Forte in baroque literature. They actually showed usage of the word King in government documents and letters to the court.

[Rex]

157. I think the responses are more toward the incredulity of it being a 'caveman'.

In terms of the culture was clearly not in the Stone Age. I have no doubt in my mind there were homosexual australopithecus. We see it in primate culture - apes and monkeys displaying sign of homosexuality or bisexuality. To think early humans did not display the same characteristics as their cousins, is denying the way nature works imo.

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. 'Caveman'? What bollocks. There's no cave involved, and this is from a recent culture

'Copper Age' - ie they had copper. Less than 5000 years ago. And found in a Prague suburb.

Whoever reported this hasn't got a clue. These were not people living in caves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

[justiceischeap]

152. Don't muddy this thing up with facts, damnit!

How dare you... ;) It seems a lot of people don't take into consideration the fact that things were different culturally before Christianity came into being. Christianity has changed culture in a huge way and not always for the better.

[Lyric]

159. I agree about Christianity.

Frankly, the ONLY thing that Christianity has brought to humankind's table that didn't already exist beforehand is the idea of treating others as you'd want them to treat you--and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that THAT idea existed beforehand too.

:shrug:

[TriMera]

161. Actually, writings attributed to the followers of Confucius

are filled with the negative or "flip side" of the Golden Rule.

"Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."
Confucius

[Lyric]

167. Well see, there you have it.

It appears that Christianity as a specific religion has contributed absolutely nothing new or valuable to human culture.

[TriMera]

169. +1. n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

190. Well, the idea that a Covenant of Love replaced (or fulfilled) a Covenant of Law

may be Christianity's unique contribution to religious thought. It's a groovy construction, although Paul really fucked things up with all his Manichean false dichotomies.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

166. As somebody else said (and I agree). junk science. -nt

[Zorra]

173. Nomadic hunter gatherer/pastoral societies use(d) any good shelter

that is/was available according to their needs.

I frequently see things (literally thousands of things) that nomadic as well as cliff/pueblo dweller folks used in caves all over the Southwestern US. I have no doubt that Geronimo hung out in a cave whenever he needed to. I've slept or taken shelter from the weather in caves whenever I needed to.

I would bet that Corded Ware folks probably used caves whenever they needed to, so there is a good possibility that there actually were caves "involved", but the culture probably didn't totally fit into the generalized modern concept of "caveman".

I give the reporter a pass on this one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

177. Sleeping the odd time in a cave does not make one a 'caveman'

Otherwise you and I would both be 'cavepeople'.

A typical dwelling for the Corded Ware culture:

A post-built house is stipulated for Poland, based on a bone engraving. However, evidence of houses are rarely found.

The wetland site Torwiesen II, southern Germany, was located in the marsh, half way between the “lakeshore” of the Federsee and an island. It bisected a log road. The village consisted of longhouses and smaller buildings. Walls were constructed of double poles, holding either horizontal planks of large sticks. The houses faced the log road with their gable (narrow) end. A ca. 1.5 m wide stick covered walkway separated the houses.

http://www.comp-archaeology.org/CordedWare.htm

The culture would have been nothing like the generalized concept of 'cavemen'. These were people who made pottery, used copper, and built houses with poles.

[Zorra]

178. I know. But the reason I give the reporter a pass

is that relatively few people understand that humans have rarely lived full time in caves, and commonly refer to the people from prehistoric nomadic hunter gatherer/pastoral societies as cavemen. The reporter couldn't give an explanatory scientific discourse on Eurasian neolithic cultures in the 1 minute he was allowed by his editor for the soundbyte article he was writing. So he probably used "caveman" as a generally understandable term that the majority of his readership would at least partially relate to at a glance. I knew what the reporter meant immediately, and was immediately interested in reading the article by the headline, despite the generalized terminology of the headline. I'm sure the editor is overjoyed with his reporters' performance. Sure caught my eye.

Anyway, the passage below explains what I'm getting at pretty well:

Cave dweller
A cave dweller is a human being who inhabits a cave or the area beneath the overhanging rocks of a cliff.

Some prehistoric humans were cave dwellers, but most were not. (See "Homo" and "Human evolution".) Such early cave dwellers, as well as other prehistoric peoples, are also called cave men (the term also has other meanings). Despite the name, only a small portion of humanity has ever dwelt in caves: caves are rare across most of the world; most caves are dark, cold, and damp; other cave inhabitants, such as bears, cave lions, and cave hyenas, also have made caves inhospitable for people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_dweller

Thanks for the cool info on the Corded Ware people.
Peace

[muriel_volestrangler]

179. 'prehistoric' may not be an appropriate word either

This was before written history for this area, it's true; but at the same time, not that far away, Egyptians and Mesopotamians were writing stuff down. Some archaeologists argue Corded Ware people grew crops, as well as keeping domesticated animals; and they may have had wheeled vehicles. The reporter didn't even call them neolithic - he pointed out it was the Copper Age. The 'general understanding' of 'caveman' really doesn't apply to this culture.

[ddeclue]

171. Umm able to take giant leaps of logic and evidence in a single bound..

how again does this make him gay?

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

176. Or as I like to call him, the "Gaveman". nt

[Marrah_G]

184. Best post on the thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Marrah_G]

185. My son used this story for his current events homework tonight

No matter what the truth of the mans life was it's a topic that is interesting to discuss and ponder the possibilities. What would life have been like for GBLT people back then?

[uppityperson]

186. +100

[Warren DeMontague]

191. My hunch is, they probably had more pressing things to worry about than that.

I suspect it wasn't until humans stopped having to fight fairly constantly for survival that they started obsessing about their neighbors' personal business.

Plus, if our chimpanzee and ape cousins are any indication, homosexual acts among primates are a fairly regular occurrence, and aren't really that big of a deal.

[Marrah_G]

193. Very true!