3 ms·
Sheanderthal: Not all Neanderthals were ‘cavemen’
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago> While her overall anatomy excited huge interest, her potential sex was little considered. Instead, the world-wrenching significance of the Forbes and Feldhofer fossils was the first proof of another kind of ancient human entirely. > [...] > The researchers were interested largely in her age and relatedness to other Neanderthal genetic lineages, so the fact that she was a woman was something of a sideshow. > [...] > Archaeology is no exception to biases against women’s interests across science and the humanities. What horror that anthropologists are more excited about discovering a new Homo subspecies different from sapiens and whatever genetic lineage it might have, than immediately consider the gender of the skeleton as the most important thing dive into. > Since the early days, a tendency to conceptualise humanity’s deep origins as populated literally by ‘cavemen’ has led to presumed male activities being presented as most visible and interesting. It seems to mostly be this article that ascribes gendered meaning to terms such as “caveman” and “primordial man”. “man” in anthropology is synonymous with the genus homo, whatever the sex and age be, and even outside of that, such terms as “the little man” or “chairman” or “the common man” bestow no gendered implication.
- Mountain_Skies 6y agoThey're being trendy and trying to impress their friends and colleagues. Don't read too much into it.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoPerhaps, perhaps not — but I see no reason to attack the auctor personally on speculative character traits, when the article itself is already so easily attacked.