|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:57 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:33 am
thats really interesting. thanks for sharing
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:49 am
very interesting.
you learn things everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:12 am
heart heart heart heart heart oh mah god!!!! i love you for this!!! im an archaeologist so this is incredibly interesting to read!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:08 am
Very interesting! But how do they know the skeleton was a man? Obviously, looking at the genitals will not help because it's hundreds of thousands years old, so the skin is worn off for sure (and genitals are made just of skin and cartelage and fat; no bones). So how do we know the specimen was born a male?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:19 am
Sunshine Peach-Heart Very interesting! But how do they know the skeleton was a man? Obviously, looking at the genitals will not help because it's hundreds of thousands years old, so the skin is worn off for sure (and genitals are made just of skin and cartelage and fat; no bones). So how do we know the specimen was born a male? Facial Reconstruction and Forensic Anthropology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:55 am
Sunshine Peach-Heart Very interesting! But how do they know the skeleton was a man? Obviously, looking at the genitals will not help because it's hundreds of thousands years old, so the skin is worn off for sure (and genitals are made just of skin and cartelage and fat; no bones). So how do we know the specimen was born a male? The easiest way to tell human sex with bone remains is to look at the pelvis. Women have distinct pelvises that allow them to give birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:17 pm
Atrum_Anima Sunshine Peach-Heart Very interesting! But how do they know the skeleton was a man? Obviously, looking at the genitals will not help because it's hundreds of thousands years old, so the skin is worn off for sure (and genitals are made just of skin and cartelage and fat; no bones). So how do we know the specimen was born a male? The easiest way to tell human sex with bone remains is to look at the pelvis. Women have distinct pelvises that allow them to give birth. Agreed. if we got a chance to see the full skeleton, we can study the pelvis and realize, if it were a woman, the pelvis would be wider and other bone structures would be shaped alot more differently than the male's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:25 pm
Also there are significant differences in the femur and muscle attachments in areas from the sacral vertebrae down to the femur as well some in the skull around the jaw and zygomtic arch. Even though the muscles are long gone the shape, texture and density show how muscle were attached and even used
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:10 am
Sunshine Peach-Heart Very interesting! But how do they know the skeleton was a man? Obviously, looking at the genitals will not help because it's hundreds of thousands years old, so the skin is worn off for sure (and genitals are made just of skin and cartelage and fat; no bones). So how do we know the specimen was born a male? its pretty easy. men and women have very different looking bones. the hips are the easiest and most common way to tell if its a male or female, but even the skull and other types of bones are different too. never doubt the power of science lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2011 8:10 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:46 am
OMG This is so awesome!!! xDDD But I'm going to guess the reasons why the caveman was buried facing in the east direction instead of west.
Reason #1) He was STILL ALIVE!! AHHHH!!!! And he was turning his head and finally died facing east. (BUT BUT BUT! How do you explain the egg-pot! Mmmmhhh!!!?) Damn... okay...
Reason #2) He was buried as a woman as a JOKE! HAHAHAHAHA!!! (BUT BUT BUT! These caveman took their burial rituals VERY SERIOUSLY! That makes no sense!) Damn.... okay....
Reason #3) Er.... He was SO effeminate looking that the Caveman mistook him as a WOMAN!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! (BUT BUT BUT!!! That still makes him the first effeminate caveman/transvestite.... -ish. Sort of...) Damn.... okay....
Reason #4) He was gay or a transvestite. (BRAVOO!!!!!!)
^^ I'm so happy about this find!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:18 am
Oh my!
You know, the third-gender positions actually become more common in cultures where there are stricter male and female gender roles- for example, in indigenous cultures, where males were hunters, a weaker or more effeminate male often ended up as a shaman- and a shaman could be male or female, and thus, could take a male or female consort, regardless of the original gender.
Similarly, in italian families, it's the guy's job to smoke, get drunk, and beat up anyone who messes with the women in his family.
So what happens when there aren't any guys? Well, a girl takes up the role, starts smoking, getting drunk, and beating up anyone who messes with the women in her family.
It's quite curious really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
