Oh, where to start with this? He isn't even a caveman! 2500 BC is Mesolothic/borderline Bronze Age. That is some serious shoddy reporting. Know your facts people! However, I think the main problem is that the media isn't reflecting on how one can tell sexual orientation through the archaeological record. Where is the evidence that this man was attracted to other males? In an article posted by the Huffington post, one of the archeologist who excavated the find is quoted as saying "[we] believe the man was probably homosexual or transsexual,". That is a bold statement to make. I think it is far more likely that this is a case of an alternative gender or misdiagnosis of sex. Perhaps, if the sex was diagnosed correctly, the man was taking on a female's role for some unknown reason. If we can hypothesize that in some cases where women are buried "as men" it is because of a role they took on in life (not a gender role, but rather a societal role), then we should be able to think of this as an option for the inverse. Either way, debating a skeleton's sexual orientation is pretty much pointless unless there is some serious supporting evidence in the form or texts or the like in direct association with the skeleton.
Totally agree. And the media issue isn't just a problem in archaeology, but virtually all scientific disciplines. Whether it's taking a quote out of context or misinterpreting an academic paper just to make a story - there's gotta be a way to make sure the information that reaches the public is actually accurate! :S
ReplyDelete