First homosexual caveman found

  • Thread starter Thread starter LemonAndLime
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kristina Killgrove, an anthropologist and archaeologist at the University of North Carolina, wrote on her blog, Bone Girl, that the burial site isn’t necessarily proof of any sexual orientation.

“Just because all the burials you’ve found to date are coded male and female based on grave goods doesn’t mean there aren’t alternate forms you haven’t found and doesn’t mean that the alternate form you have found has a lot of significance,” she wrote.

“If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn’t necessarily mean the person had a ‘different sexual orientation’ and certainly doesn’t mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) ‘homosexual’.”

canada.com/technology/science/story.html?id=4584313
 
Honestly…who cares?? People find the most unimportant things to report on. They are about as bad as Greta van Susteren (who has a tendency to find the most unimportant “news” out there and talk about it for what seems like an eternity) and local news reporters who call talking with old ladies about their cookie recipes “news.”
 
KCT said:
I heard it was 8 track tapes - Cher not Liza.
Click to expand...
I would think so.
That would be more appropriate for the age of cavemen and dinosaurs and the like. CD’s were of a completely different era.
 
Better and more credible idea: The guy did something to disgrace himself/his honour/his manhood, and as a punishment he was buried with the women. Or he was an enemy, and he was buried with the women as a deterrent to others thinking of attacking. Or there’s a bunch of other possibilities that are 10x more credible then “he was gay”.

I’ll give an example from a book series I’m reading. It’s dealing with the Viking invasion of Britain (late 800s), and the main character is a pagan (that’s the way he’s described). So apparently in the old Norse ways, when you did you better have a sword in your hand so that you go to Valhalla, otherwise you go to a sort of hell (I think, it’s been a while since I read the books).

So, there’s a battle, some guy gets stabbed. He’s reaching for his sword because, you know, he wants to go to Valhalla. The protagonist’s response is “We don’t want you there”, and he dies swordless.

The response of people a thousand years latter isn’t going to be “he didn’t have a sword because he was secretly gay and a pacifists and blah blah blah”. No, it’s because the protagonist hated him and didn’t think he deserved a proper death.

Who’s to say we don’t have the same thing here? Maybe if he doesn’t get buried with the men “his spirit is cursed to walk in a dark place for all ages” or something like that. The reasons for not following a ritual, especially burial, usually involve a last an eternal “screw you”.
 
estesbob said:
I understand he was also found to have been buried with Liza Minnelli CDs…
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Good one, Estesbob, good one…👍
I like Liza myself. And her last husband WAS gay—and tried to con money out of her, too. Felts sorry for her.

Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

I needed that.
 
curlycool89 said:
Better and more credible idea: The guy did something to disgrace himself/his honour/his manhood, and as a punishment he was buried with the women. Or he was an enemy, and he was buried with the women as a deterrent to others thinking of attacking. Or there’s a bunch of other possibilities that are 10x more credible then “he was gay”.

I’ll give an example from a book series I’m reading. It’s dealing with the Viking invasion of Britain (late 800s), and the main character is a pagan (that’s the way he’s described). So apparently in the old Norse ways, when you did you better have a sword in your hand so that you go to Valhalla, otherwise you go to a sort of hell (I think, it’s been a while since I read the books).

So, there’s a battle, some guy gets stabbed. He’s reaching for his sword because, you know, he wants to go to Valhalla. The protagonist’s response is “We don’t want you there”, and he dies swordless.

The response of people a thousand years latter isn’t going to be “he didn’t have a sword because he was secretly gay and a pacifists and blah blah blah”. No, it’s because the protagonist hated him and didn’t think he deserved a proper death.

Who’s to say we don’t have the same thing here? Maybe if he doesn’t get buried with the men “his spirit is cursed to walk in a dark place for all ages” or something like that. The reasons for not following a ritual, especially burial, usually involve a last an eternal “screw you”.
Click to expand...
Good point. Thought-provoking, at least.
 
The CNN article posted by SonCatcher seems more balanced than the article in the first post. It mentions that the burial site is Neolithic, dating to around 2800-2500 B.C. which is way past the time of cavemen.

And it quotes a couple anthropologists who note that homosexuality can’t be inferred from a cross-gender burial.
“In anthropology, you can’t equate third gender with homosexuality,” [John Hawks, an associate professor of anthropology at University of Wisconsin-Madison] said.
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
More research could possibly determine the gender role of the man, but not his sexual orientation, said Killgrove, who specializes in bioarchaeology.
Click to expand...
 
Dale_M said:
The CNN article posted by SonCatcher seems more balanced than the article in the first post. It mentions that the burial site is Neolithic, dating to around 2800-2500 B.C. which is way past the time of cavemen.

And it quotes a couple anthropologists who note that homosexuality can’t be inferred from a cross-gender burial.
Click to expand...
When did Sodom and Gomorrah occur?
 
Okay so just because this man was buried in a way normally reserved for women, that automatically makes him a homosexual? 🤷:confused: To be honest with you, I fail to understand the logic here. Just because he was buried in a way that was different from the norm for his sex doesn’t mean that he was a homosexual. There could have been some other reason for the odd burial. Or maybe the burial wasn’t odd at all. Maybe there is something else that we simply don’t know. But then again, maybe he was a homosexual, I honestly have no idea. I just think that it is flawed logic to suggest that this man was a homosexual simply because he was buried in a way that was most common for women to be buried.
 
Neolithic man.
Could be, he was a slave or servant. Unfit to be buried like a warrior. Or, maybe, he really upset the tribal “Honco”. I hear, cursing people in the after-life. Has been popular for a long time.

ATB
 
In any case, even if true, what does the find prove except that there were homosexuals then too?

It certainly doesn’t prove that homosexuality is natural. More likely that it was viewed even then as unnatural. So the dude got pointed to the east rather than the natural west reserved for the macho man. 😃

If you found a skeleton that old with an axe buried in its head, what would that prove. That men were homicidal back then? So what? Does that make homicide a natural act?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
In any case, even if true, what does the find prove except that there were homosexuals then too?

It certainly doesn’t prove that homosexuality is natural. More likely that it was viewed even then as unnatural. So the dude got pointed to the east rather than the natural west reserved for the macho man. 😃

If you found a skeleton that old with an axe buried in its head, what would that prove. That men were homicidal back then? So what? Does that make homicide a natural act?
Click to expand...
**
Wait a second, here. Human nature is fallen. It’s corrupted. Someone somewhere is confusing nature, the way it was created or intended, and the way it became after sin entered the world. **
 
Dale_M said:
The CNN article posted by SonCatcher seems more balanced than the article in the first post. It mentions that the burial site is Neolithic, dating to around 2800-2500 B.C. which is way past the time of cavemen.

And it quotes a couple anthropologists who note that homosexuality can’t be inferred from a cross-gender burial.
Click to expand...
I agree with them. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top