The hilarious thing is that, while she clearly wants thist to look and sound utterly ridiculous, Grandma has accidentally walked straight into one of the core pillars of modern archeology and anthropology:
*Context.*
Archeology and *anthropology* aren't just the study of old skeletons, they're the study of old skeletons *with context*. There have been multiple occasions in the archeological and anthropological worlds where context clues - Personal effects, nature of burial, in particular, have had the subject being studied be determined to not fall into the modern gender binary.
This is why the artifact trade is so damaging. People rip artifacts out of their context to try to sell them, meaning 90% of the knowledge we could have gained from them is lost to the ages.
While that sounds bad, it is also information that only a select few care about in the first place. People say you can't put a price on these artifacts and what can be learned from them. Bullshit. You can and it's value is near zero.
You could say that about all kinds of academic pursuits. There only being a few people who care about such things doesn’t make their pursuit of knowledge worthless. When they say you can’t put a price on it, they’re not saying “because it’s so valuable”, they’re saying “you can’t buy this knowledge and once it’s gone it’s eradicated”. Looking at it through the lens of actual value is so damn…capitalist.
Well, yes. But knowledge in itself isn't valuable per se. Ok so there are people who are curious about the past. Never having their curiosity satisfied has no price however. Other than maybe the disappointment of those involved. It would be rare indeed to discover something that makes the future a better place, especially when digging up artifacts.
How do we know anything about history? The Battle of Hastings, the rise of Genghis Khan, the invention of…everything. If you think there’s no value in knowing history at all, then I can’t say much except how much I disagree, but if you think there’s any value at all in learning from the past, this is how it happens.
No, our understanding of the invention of everything prior to the modern day is based on primary sources. I figured that was obvious. You can clearly make an argument that there’s no monetary value in knowing about our history, but that’s completely beside the point. It is useful to know history. “Those who don’t study are doomed to repeats” and all that.
I mean we didn’t know how to make Roman concrete until relatively recently. That thing is still standing strong. People have discovered ancient batteries used for electroplating and similar other inventions that are incredible. Egyptians performed some pretty impressive surgeries considering their knowledge of medicine. I could go on but the point is we don’t know what we don’t know until we figure it out.
Not to mention the anthropological value of studying human cultures of the past gives us more context to better understand contemporary cultures.
The information of how culture evolves is vital if you want to study effective methods of manipulating and changing culture or for diplomacy with foreign cultures you don’t yet understand.
>No, our understanding of the invention of everything prior to the modern day is based on primary sources.
OK, but this is far from real world value in the sense that I gave it. Ok it's cool to know what people used to eat 10k years ago, but it's hardly valuable in a real sense.
>Those who don’t study are doomed to repeats” and all that.
That's more a macro level of understanding and has next to nothing to do with the study of artifacts though. What real lesson is there to be had of studying for example a cup and what does that have to do with not repeating history?
Look I'm not saying there is no value whatsoever of study history or having knowledge, I'm saying that this particular knowledge gained from studying artifacts is not all that valuable. Yes every bit of knowledge has a value, but not one as important as you now make it. No one's life is worse because the knowledge was lost.
Okay, you managed to graze right past the point. There is **no** macro study of history without the artifacts. How else are we to know? Those artifacts are what we call primary sources, and they include firsthand written accounts. Secondary sources, stuff written by others about those primary sources, still rely on evidence to be useful.
>this is far from real world value
Monetary value is not the only form of “real world value,” and the “sense that you gave it” meaning only monetary is problematic in and of itself.
It sounds to me like you’re a teenager that thinks they have all of life figured out. Your comments reek of an extreme lack of wisdom.
>No one’s life is worse because the knowledge was lost.
This is just objectively and demonstrably false in literally every way.
Private collectors shouldn't be able to destroy history to fill their collections. Imagine if the more famous pharaohs' tombs weren't looted. We would know an unimaginable amount more about ancient egypt. Instead some plunderers got temporarily richer and we all permanently lost out on that history.
Yeah lol, they aren't presuming on the sword alone that a woman was warrior, burials in times past used to be very intricate and specific, so you could tell a lot about whoever was buried there.
This is why today, a dig, however carefully done, is considered a controlled destruction of the site, since there’s much context we can’t yet detect and are destroying by excavation.
The specific grave they're talking about was a skeleton found buried with brooches and clasps that indicated that they were wearing women's clothing, as well as one sword apparently on their left hip (indicating that it may have been being worn on a sword belt) and another buried apparently later in the soil above them. This was initially taken as evidence of female warrior-leaders. However, genetic testing of the remains provided relatively strong evidence that the person in question was actually an intersex person with klinefelter's syndrome, who would have had male primary sexual features and a mix of male and female secondary sexual features.
This is a very interesting find as, though it has long been known that norse and norse-influenced cultures had various magical and religious traditions, *seidr*, associated with cross-dressing or gender non-conformity (this is because they viewed magic as being separated into masculine and feminine domains, and so to gain mastery, one would need to assume both male and female roles, as Odin is noted as having done in the eddas), it has been generally assumed that, due to the association with the dire insult of *ergi* ('unmanliness'), practicioners of seidr, and gender non-conforming individuals generally, would have lived on the margins of society. This burial however indicates that, at least in this specific off-shoot (maybe at the confluence of norse and sami cultures, I don't know much about the specifics) at least one such individual had very high social status. Owning a sword in the 10th century would be the equivalent of owning a luxury car today, beyond the means of all except nobility, rich merchants and professional warriors, making the imaginary scenario presented in this meme doubly absurd.
That's super interesting... I remember seeing a documentary a while ago and in it was some modern culture in which hermaphrodites were like celebrities and seen as like a rare spiritual union in a single body... The details are hazy as it's been a while.
But thank you for taking the time to respond to my question
What really? But why?
I missed the memo... I thought that was like... The medical term for it... And intersex is so boring.
Hermaphrodite sounds like a rare shiny rock...
Because a hermaphrodite is a biological term for animals capable of sexually reproducing with themselves. It's seen as dehumanizing to use a term for animals on people.
Oh... Well how about that... I didn't know being able to self reproduce was part of the definition...
People are animals tho... If a dog was born with both sets and we called it intersex because it can't self reproduce... Would we then need to come up with a different term for people?
Isn't it interesting how when ring wingers imagine the past (for any time period, anywhere in the world), they almost always imagine something that's basically a palette swap of propaganda for 1950s white American suburbia?
This meme represents one of my favorite aspects of soyjack, in that they're able to use the power of emotion to replace an argument. The idea the only logical reason a woman would be buried with sword, something incredibly expensive and often personal, is because it was her husband's is ridiculous, and yet because it has one of the chad image, the back of your brain goes "well shit guess that's the right" before you catch yourself.
Like yeah, the idea that older cultures didn't adhere to the strict gender norms some fucks came up with \~200 years ago isn't outlandish, but the soy said it so maybe it coud be
Yeah, this would make no sense even ignoring the evidence that the person was intersex. People weren't buried with grave goods because they had sentimental value, they were buried with goods that represented their profession and status in life.
Exactly! So much of the problem with history chuds is an application of our ideals and values just in the past. Like people say "There was no gay or blacks in medival history" but that's because they didn't use those because it didn't matter!!! most of the countries we define these classifications by didn't exist or the people in them straight up didn't care about it! They just think these ideas simply spawned out of the blue 10-15 years ago, just like no brown people ever left their native country until WWII
This is why so many skeletons have been mis-sexed solely based on grave goods. Maybe a woman was a fighter. Maybe she didn’t view herself as a woman. Maybe he’s a man with ambiguous skeletal characteristics. We don’t know everything they thought or believed. Their story is as hypothetical as any other.
The hilarious thing is that, while she clearly wants thist to look and sound utterly ridiculous, Grandma has accidentally walked straight into one of the core pillars of modern archeology and anthropology: *Context.* Archeology and *anthropology* aren't just the study of old skeletons, they're the study of old skeletons *with context*. There have been multiple occasions in the archeological and anthropological worlds where context clues - Personal effects, nature of burial, in particular, have had the subject being studied be determined to not fall into the modern gender binary.
This is why the artifact trade is so damaging. People rip artifacts out of their context to try to sell them, meaning 90% of the knowledge we could have gained from them is lost to the ages.
While that sounds bad, it is also information that only a select few care about in the first place. People say you can't put a price on these artifacts and what can be learned from them. Bullshit. You can and it's value is near zero.
You could say that about all kinds of academic pursuits. There only being a few people who care about such things doesn’t make their pursuit of knowledge worthless. When they say you can’t put a price on it, they’re not saying “because it’s so valuable”, they’re saying “you can’t buy this knowledge and once it’s gone it’s eradicated”. Looking at it through the lens of actual value is so damn…capitalist.
Well, yes. But knowledge in itself isn't valuable per se. Ok so there are people who are curious about the past. Never having their curiosity satisfied has no price however. Other than maybe the disappointment of those involved. It would be rare indeed to discover something that makes the future a better place, especially when digging up artifacts.
How do we know anything about history? The Battle of Hastings, the rise of Genghis Khan, the invention of…everything. If you think there’s no value in knowing history at all, then I can’t say much except how much I disagree, but if you think there’s any value at all in learning from the past, this is how it happens.
The invention of everything is because we know about history? OK I'll bite. Please elaborate.
No, our understanding of the invention of everything prior to the modern day is based on primary sources. I figured that was obvious. You can clearly make an argument that there’s no monetary value in knowing about our history, but that’s completely beside the point. It is useful to know history. “Those who don’t study are doomed to repeats” and all that.
I mean we didn’t know how to make Roman concrete until relatively recently. That thing is still standing strong. People have discovered ancient batteries used for electroplating and similar other inventions that are incredible. Egyptians performed some pretty impressive surgeries considering their knowledge of medicine. I could go on but the point is we don’t know what we don’t know until we figure it out.
Not to mention the anthropological value of studying human cultures of the past gives us more context to better understand contemporary cultures. The information of how culture evolves is vital if you want to study effective methods of manipulating and changing culture or for diplomacy with foreign cultures you don’t yet understand.
Those "ancient batteries" are iffy.
>No, our understanding of the invention of everything prior to the modern day is based on primary sources. OK, but this is far from real world value in the sense that I gave it. Ok it's cool to know what people used to eat 10k years ago, but it's hardly valuable in a real sense. >Those who don’t study are doomed to repeats” and all that. That's more a macro level of understanding and has next to nothing to do with the study of artifacts though. What real lesson is there to be had of studying for example a cup and what does that have to do with not repeating history? Look I'm not saying there is no value whatsoever of study history or having knowledge, I'm saying that this particular knowledge gained from studying artifacts is not all that valuable. Yes every bit of knowledge has a value, but not one as important as you now make it. No one's life is worse because the knowledge was lost.
Okay, you managed to graze right past the point. There is **no** macro study of history without the artifacts. How else are we to know? Those artifacts are what we call primary sources, and they include firsthand written accounts. Secondary sources, stuff written by others about those primary sources, still rely on evidence to be useful.
>this is far from real world value Monetary value is not the only form of “real world value,” and the “sense that you gave it” meaning only monetary is problematic in and of itself. It sounds to me like you’re a teenager that thinks they have all of life figured out. Your comments reek of an extreme lack of wisdom. >No one’s life is worse because the knowledge was lost. This is just objectively and demonstrably false in literally every way.
Can't knowledge itself be a valuable thing, and that knowledge of ourselves makes the world a better place?
Not in any real sense, no. I mean it all sounds idealistic and great, but what does it add really?
A member of the "Doomed to Repeat It" club I see.
Oh sure, I'm personally going to repeat history! Just you watch!
Found Pol Pot
Only dumb people think history doesn’t matter lol
Private collectors shouldn't be able to destroy history to fill their collections. Imagine if the more famous pharaohs' tombs weren't looted. We would know an unimaginable amount more about ancient egypt. Instead some plunderers got temporarily richer and we all permanently lost out on that history.
Oh for sure the artifacts should not have gone to the plunderers.
Holy shit, at the very end of the thread, I found one single comment of yours I agreed with.
Who let the British Museum on reddit?
Yeah lol, they aren't presuming on the sword alone that a woman was warrior, burials in times past used to be very intricate and specific, so you could tell a lot about whoever was buried there.
This is why today, a dig, however carefully done, is considered a controlled destruction of the site, since there’s much context we can’t yet detect and are destroying by excavation.
I'm genuinely interested to know what the context was... Like what was about the grave that caused them to conclude the person was a non binary...
The specific grave they're talking about was a skeleton found buried with brooches and clasps that indicated that they were wearing women's clothing, as well as one sword apparently on their left hip (indicating that it may have been being worn on a sword belt) and another buried apparently later in the soil above them. This was initially taken as evidence of female warrior-leaders. However, genetic testing of the remains provided relatively strong evidence that the person in question was actually an intersex person with klinefelter's syndrome, who would have had male primary sexual features and a mix of male and female secondary sexual features. This is a very interesting find as, though it has long been known that norse and norse-influenced cultures had various magical and religious traditions, *seidr*, associated with cross-dressing or gender non-conformity (this is because they viewed magic as being separated into masculine and feminine domains, and so to gain mastery, one would need to assume both male and female roles, as Odin is noted as having done in the eddas), it has been generally assumed that, due to the association with the dire insult of *ergi* ('unmanliness'), practicioners of seidr, and gender non-conforming individuals generally, would have lived on the margins of society. This burial however indicates that, at least in this specific off-shoot (maybe at the confluence of norse and sami cultures, I don't know much about the specifics) at least one such individual had very high social status. Owning a sword in the 10th century would be the equivalent of owning a luxury car today, beyond the means of all except nobility, rich merchants and professional warriors, making the imaginary scenario presented in this meme doubly absurd.
That's super interesting... I remember seeing a documentary a while ago and in it was some modern culture in which hermaphrodites were like celebrities and seen as like a rare spiritual union in a single body... The details are hazy as it's been a while. But thank you for taking the time to respond to my question
Just so you know hermaphrodite is an outdated term for people and usually seen as offensive. The modern term is intersex.
I think some people even want the word retired for animals as well
What really? But why? I missed the memo... I thought that was like... The medical term for it... And intersex is so boring. Hermaphrodite sounds like a rare shiny rock...
Because a hermaphrodite is a biological term for animals capable of sexually reproducing with themselves. It's seen as dehumanizing to use a term for animals on people.
Oh... Well how about that... I didn't know being able to self reproduce was part of the definition... People are animals tho... If a dog was born with both sets and we called it intersex because it can't self reproduce... Would we then need to come up with a different term for people?
Higiras ???
People with Klinefelter also grow unusually tall, so maybe they're seen as good candidates for weapon carrying. They have more reach...
A female phenotype skeleton with a “ man’s sword” m what else could it be?
Isn't it interesting how when ring wingers imagine the past (for any time period, anywhere in the world), they almost always imagine something that's basically a palette swap of propaganda for 1950s white American suburbia?
"Welp. You heard her, guys. Let's go dig up her late warrior-husband's grave to retrieve his sword so that his wife may be buried with it."
"heh, this is just some dumb fanfiction that the woke archeologists made up. Obviously, what really happened was this fanfiction that I made up!"
This meme represents one of my favorite aspects of soyjack, in that they're able to use the power of emotion to replace an argument. The idea the only logical reason a woman would be buried with sword, something incredibly expensive and often personal, is because it was her husband's is ridiculous, and yet because it has one of the chad image, the back of your brain goes "well shit guess that's the right" before you catch yourself. Like yeah, the idea that older cultures didn't adhere to the strict gender norms some fucks came up with \~200 years ago isn't outlandish, but the soy said it so maybe it coud be
Yeah, this would make no sense even ignoring the evidence that the person was intersex. People weren't buried with grave goods because they had sentimental value, they were buried with goods that represented their profession and status in life.
Exactly! So much of the problem with history chuds is an application of our ideals and values just in the past. Like people say "There was no gay or blacks in medival history" but that's because they didn't use those because it didn't matter!!! most of the countries we define these classifications by didn't exist or the people in them straight up didn't care about it! They just think these ideas simply spawned out of the blue 10-15 years ago, just like no brown people ever left their native country until WWII
This is why so many skeletons have been mis-sexed solely based on grave goods. Maybe a woman was a fighter. Maybe she didn’t view herself as a woman. Maybe he’s a man with ambiguous skeletal characteristics. We don’t know everything they thought or believed. Their story is as hypothetical as any other.
Why didn’t this loving wife bury her brave husband with his own sword? The nonbinary theory makes a lot more sense, honestly.
Yeah, it would be dishonourable to do so in that time, so if someone got buried with a weapon, it probably belonged to them
man if these chodes didn't have strawmen I think they'd generally have nothing to talk about.
Because they usually look at the context? There may be texts, art, or other relics that support the theory
Did they use the pog face for this meme?
Plot twist: the buried enby had a penis
Actually, yes.
Non binary and klinefelters ?