I follow archeology closely. I find the common reference to “common sense” interpretations to be pretty off base.
There probably were queer Vikings, borders probably were diffuse, conquest was complicated and probably didn’t affect the lives of most people most of the time. The archeology of that is really clear.
I think academias job is to find accurate answers and that requires challenging “common sense”. If that means asking if there were queer Vikings seems like the type of consensus defying questions worth asking!
This person sounds like a revanchist, looking to go back to a past that no longer exists.
The article does not blame archeologists for challenging common sense, it simply explains that the mainstream in archeology is far removed from common sense, because otherwise, a story about archeologists needing the protection of anonymity to discuss seemingly common sense ideas would not make any sense.
It's valuable for young people to realize that Christian lies about the Eternity of heterosexuality Are in fact just lies. It actually is valuable for young people to know that there were people like them in history
Yes it's really positive about homosexuality and also there's no academic ambiguity about if it was really referring to homosexuality or if that's actually a translation artifact of the middle ages
I don’t think so. When you look at the historical record. Work either in the modern or agricultural sense has only existed for at most 5% of human existence.
Dividing things into intrinsically human and not is a false dichotomy. Our experience is always a mix of what comes from our biology and what comes from culture. Finding enjoyment in a craft or a puzzle may well have existed for thousands of years. And relationships are definitely effected by culture. The expectations around marriage for example have changed a lot.
I'd still consider hunting/gathering a form of work. And who knows, maybe the disposition for individuals to hyperfocus on that form of work led to more genetic success and desirability for reproduction, since it meant there would be more security of resources. I have no idea if these tendencies have a genetic component, totally spitballing here.
Sure but rock art is extremely extremely hard to interpret. The foremost world experts in it. Do not make such claims. Unless there was a mushroom literally found at the site how can a serious person make such a bold claim.
(Even if a mushroom or proof of its usage was found nearby. Rock art specialists have found that dating rock art by the surrounding context is not the correct technique. As newer methodology has found that the surrounding context can lead to dating thousands of years off. It’s best to date the art directly)
It's not like we can find fossilized shrooms that easily. They decompose things as part of their food source just as they in turn decompose things. I grow shrooms, and they don't have a shelf life for more than 3-12 days depending upon the variety of edible if they're not dried out. Reishi notwithstanding.
I'm not saying that this should be thought of as the only interpretation, only that it seems more likely than "aliens". And in the pictures provided by the article, one of them clearly depicts mushrooms
TL;DR you cannot attribute this rock art to mushrooms.
Rock art specialists will say that interpreting rock art is extremely hard and should be done with caution.
When even the foremost experts have been completely wrong when taking their interpretations of rock art to the indigenous peoples that had their meanings passed down.
There probably were queer Vikings, borders probably were diffuse, conquest was complicated and probably didn’t affect the lives of most people most of the time. The archeology of that is really clear.
I think academias job is to find accurate answers and that requires challenging “common sense”. If that means asking if there were queer Vikings seems like the type of consensus defying questions worth asking!
This person sounds like a revanchist, looking to go back to a past that no longer exists.