Wow. I wish that was all I could say about this 'gay caveman' idea. I read about seven of the newpaper articles that dealt with the issue and it was pretty ridiculous. Either they just took what the archaeologist said about the man being buried the 'wrong' way and so was gay (which is kind of really stupid) and ran with it or they actually talked to someone in the field who told them it was probably a bit of a stretch. As I'm sure everyone can tell I'm on the side that thinks they're goign a bit far without a proper amount of data. I ahven't read any peer reviewed pubished work on the topic by the original archaeologists and would like to becuase in the newpaper articles a lot of information is missing. First of all how aure are they that these skeletal remains are indeed male? From a picture they looked relatively complete but as Erin mentioned in class, sexing of skeletons is on a sliding scale. Also she gives no data onto how many graves she is comparing this with if; it is an anomally out of a few thousand graves it could be interesting but even out of a hundred not so much. Also a big one for me as I'm taking evolutionary archeaology classes is that an agricultural community is not cavemen! Everytime they mention the 'caveman' bit it makes me cringe, I was hoping even the popular media would be able to tell the difference between pre H. sapiens and ancient farming community of very modern looking and acting human beings. Which brings me to the idea of the 'gay' caveman, the concept of 'gay' is a completley made up cultural phenomenon which easily could not have existed in the Corded ware culture that this person was a part of. The researchers are projecting thier own ideas of what a 'normal' man or woman should be buried like and if they aren't then what this means. There are many places in the world in which a man or woman can take on roles of that of the opposite sex while not becoming a different gender or 'gay'. Sexual preference, which is what the term 'gay' implies in Western culture, is not represented at all in this burial and so I feel this term is inappropriate to describe this man. While this burial is interesting it is definitly not the only one of its kind in the world and without more data and information on the subject I feel it is impossible to make the kind of claims that the researchers are making.
Also in Western socitey homophobia is a huge probelm which needs to be addressed and calling this individual a 'gay caveman' just beacuse he was treated in an unusual way could produce big issues in a field which has already had too much prejudice throughout its history.

        
Sima de los Huesos; the earliest funerary behaviour?

          For one of my other classes I was looking into an interesting site in Spain that got me thinking. The site is Sima De Los Huesos and it is a cave site associated with H. heidelbergensis. Sima consistsof 28 individuals all under the age of 30, with one young child, adolescents, and young adults which compromises 80% of the Middle Pleistocene specimens ever found including a complete range of skeletal parts from the harder more durable bones to rare, soft bones like the hyoid and inner ear bones.  In addition to the hominid remains, which are all located in a continuous depositional context; there are remains of multiple carnivores including foxes, wolves and a very large number of bear specimens. The fact that there are only carnivore faunal remains at this site rather then herbivores and an absences of any materials indicating an occupation site leads some to believe that Sima could represent the earliest evidence of mortuary practices in the world. The age profile of the deceased as well does not indicate a natural occurrence but rather a cultural one.The site is dated to 400 kya which is abotu 300 ky before any other conclusive evidence of intentional burial.
         Another fact which makes this site extremely intriguing is the presence of a single quartzite handaxe associated with the bodies. The handaxe is the poster child of the Acheulean tradition and there exact purpose and use is still debated among many researchers. The one in Sima is a fairly nice representation; it is finely flaked and made of a material not common in handaxe manufacture from the time or area. This tool may have been accidentally introduced into the deposit but may have been symbolically introduced possibly being the first ever representation of grave goods.

Sima De Los Huesos handaxe

(Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis) 

Overall when I look at this site I am not sure what to make of it but lean towards a non-symbolic stance. The remains are all just kind of dumped within the cave and I feel may have happened to end up like this as a result of taphonomic process. There have also been a few papers coming out recently which basically shut down all of the possible 'ritual' behaviour people have been mentioning with regards to this site. Given the sorts of burials we find in the Upper Paleolithic and then comparing those with what we see in Sima de los Huesos, it makes the argument for purposeful burial here look even less valid. There is a general lack of grave goods; specific body orientation and placement and structered symbolic space among many others. I think that the biggest issue in this debate needs to be taphonomy; the site meends ot be able to live up to examination in the context of taphonomy and if it can then still appear anthropogenic in nature it will be much easier to accept. There are though, still many researchers who belive that this site is a symbolic example of formal funerary behaviour, and wouldn't that be awesome if it was? In class we have learned about different funerary practices through time and space but where do they begin and why? Sima could possibly be the first instance of intentional possibly ritualized burial known and if it is it would be especially interesting considering it is associated with an early hominin species, H. Heidelbergensis.

Carbonell, E., & Mosquera, M. (2006). The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: the sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5(1/2), 155-160.
   

So after some immense technical difficulties I finally figured out how to post! you have to actually log in to your account...yes I know embarrassing but here are some of my backlogged posts coming at you in the next few days starting with one I wrote about 2 and half weeks ago and which went into the blue instead of onto my blog :/

This week I was thinking about death and jobs. My sister is going to school to become a police officer and my Mum is always commenting  on how its a dangerous profession and she better not die soon ect. ect. But really, what does it matter? Is there any need to connect death with a concrete thing like a career, when anyone can die at any time for any reason? I think connecting death to certain types of danger, such as a scary job, is a way for people to feel like death is something they can predict or somehow prevent. In our weird Western culture we seem to think we can control all sorts of stuff that we really can't (or shouldn't), nature being a big one with imported plants being only the first step in a crazy attempt to control the mostly uncontrollable. But I really see this aspect of control everywhere in Western society and I think we definitely extend it to the processes surrounding death. From elaborate structured funerals to appropriate mourning wear (like the Victorian example Erin mentioned in class today of actual time periods set apart for the wearing of certain colours by widows and the like) there is a proper way of conducting the processes of death and for the most part people adhere to this. Even funeral homes and cemeteries fit into this, at certain places they restrict the size and shape of your monument, what you can put on it and where you can put it. I feel that this attempt to portray a certain amount of control over something which is ultimately out of anybody's control (minus murders and stuff, and even this if one believes in fate) is because we're scared. Death in this culture is a scary thing, it is not something many people are comfortable with, at least as far as I've encountered, and what people fear or don't understand they try to control. Its an interesting thing to think about when discussing funerary practices cross culturally and how societies with different ideas to ours might differ in their practices surrounding death, which may not be any less important to them but only with less need for structured input from those survivors. 

I  also wonder what other cultures which are possibly more comfortable with the thought of death, feel about danger and if they directly connect that with the idea of death. Also how might a profession represent itself in archaeology, I know we see tools and such and connect it with possible occupations for the interred and I wonder what that might look like these days; a trowel with a former archaeologist maybe, but what about like a mime or a clown or something like that; every person buried in a suit can't be a business man right?