In many of the articles that come up on google there is only one or two quotes from the archaeologist. These quotes state that the caveman found was probably gay because of the way he was buried. But chances are the researcher said a lot more than that in their statement, possibly qualifying the statement about the caveman being gay.
Another problem that I am having with many of these articles is the fact that the caveman is refered to as being 'transgendered' or 'third gendered' in the same sentence. In anthropology a 'third gender' is a gender that is neither male nor female nor something in the middle. A third gender is a different entity who does not conform to male social norms or female ones. A 'third gender' does also not mean hermaphrodite. However, when reads 'third gender' in the same sentence as a the word 'transgendered', they may assume that third gender means the same thing are transgendered or hermaphrodite.
As students of anthropology or archaeology know, there are many possible reasons for why this man was buried in an unconventional way. Perhaps he was a third gendered individual, and therefor was not buried like a man, even though he was biologically male. It is also possible that he was a member of a religious elite, and purposely buried differently than other men for a reason. It is possible that this was a man from another group or area than the community burying him, and so they did not follow their own unique customs with his grave. It is also possible that the man was homosexual, and so was buried in a different way than the heterosexual men of the area.
There was also an oval shaped beaker found in the grave, a good that is usually associate with female burial. Many of the articles state this as evidence that the buried individual was gay. While this is a confusing anomaly, it is in no way evidence of homosexuality.
What is so dangerous about these articles is that they are read by the public, who does not always think critically about them, or get the whole story. A person may read an article, and come away thinking that the caveman found was definitely gay, although there are many alternative explanations for his strange burial that are all equally possible.
The thing that bothers me the most is that these are the only sources most people are ever going to read on this discovery and others like it! The media twists people's views of what archaeology is and how it works and forces its own heteronormative views on everyone else. It can't bother to get anything right other than the facts it can use to its own attention-grabbing, money-making end. A case like these really goes to show just how little integrity a lot of reporters can have (like me need more reasons to be disenchanted with the media...). There are a couple links in my post that go to journalists who realize other journalists are full of crud in when it comes to reporting on this discovery and point out their mistakes and put the find more into the context of what actual archaeologists have to say.
ReplyDelete