Artto
Tiina Brown
.... Cavemen is not a good example, as too much of ... "male viewpoints" ... has influenced archeology.
What? So you think females hunted mastodons, and males picked berries and looked after the children? That would be completely in contradiction with common sense.
Do you mean that common sense dictates gender roles now?
No, i don't think you are that illogical, since "Common Sense" has changed from time to time.
No, i think you mean that archeologists has been logical, and using common sense when deducting their findings.
However, i have heard of incredibly flawed deductions from male archeologists, like:
* They found a grave filled with weapons, it had to be a Warrior's Grave.
However, someone pointed out the bones buried there was a woman's.
Then, the (male) archeologists deducted that she must have been the Warrior's slave, not that she was the warrior.
They assumed the warrior and the slave had gotten burned together ...
No, they never found any male bones, but they stuck to their deduction.
* An assumed fisherman was found near the town of XX, and was displayed as "Fisherman of XX".
Somone pointed out that the bones were female .... whereby the "fisherman" was moved, both physically and in mentioned findingplace, and in profession!
She is now hidden away, as the "Seamstress of Q", and Q is several miles from XX ....
Now, these examples were from Iron-bronze age or later, but if such flaws can be happening from those times, how big is then not those from the earlier times, where even less info can be found?
I'm sorry for this slight off-topic, but i had to show what "common sense" may have resulted in, where archeology, and the look on "the caveman" is concerned.
I also point towards rmcdra's comment, it is well worth to read again.
