Certainly fascinating. But why - in the context of science - do they have to make unsubstantiated statements like this? It's unnecessary. It dilutes the standard expectation of what actually constitutes science. Is it any wonder the general public oscillates between no trust and confused?
Leave the TMZ'ing to TMZ. Leave the BuzzFeed'ing to BuzzFeed. Please.
Unless there is evidence the two grave sites overlapped (in time) then the "theory" proposed is bad science. Again, it sets an unreasonable expectation. Science has enough problems right now. Using faux storylines isn't going to help.
In taking two things (two pieces of clayware, or two people) uncovered with similar features, you are usually able to extrapolate more information than by holding each one in perfect isolation.
What's more, there's not a whole lot riding on this. The office said "Isn't this interesting, that two archaeological sites are so close in place and time". That usually doesn't happen, particularly that far back in time. If the Office had editorialized that they were lovers, or best friends, I would agree with you, but this is just saying "We can date them to a very similar time, and to a very similar place. They are intrinsically linked, and should be treated as being more close together than separate."
You see this all the time when doing guided tours, museums or otherwise.
That said, in the name of viewers and profits, they are drawn to the mundane and the minutia. Yes, the model works for them. But that doesn't mean every media source has to be so disposable in terms of actual quality/value of the message delivered.
Then the bisexual (/poly?) suggestion and hedonistic remark. Citations or substantiation? Very unprofessional but I suppose these are online authors from no specific literary tradition. It was a Roman source that recorded a consort to a Celtic king that supposedly told Emperor Augustus's wife, “we consort openly with the best of men. You allow yourselves to be debauched in secret by the vilest.” Which is the hedonist? I'm American, of now-distant European Celtic & Germanic tribal extraction and while a non-expert, am knowledgeable enough in the subject to see when someone is interjecting their personal nonsense into an article.
Could you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested to know, it could fundamentally change my view on homosexuality.
As with a lot of human traits that sprung from evolution, today it's not as clear as it would've been. In tribal structure, we needed more caregivers to children. Having a few homosexuals uninterested in breeding assisted with survival of the group. Everyone around the world needs additional caregivers, members of the tribe died early often. Someone had to raise the next generation, and the risks of dying were plentiful. Beyond famines and death from conflicts, shamanistic medicine only, no scientific medical care and definitely no vaccinations or antibiotics. Basically, people dropping like flies. The unpredictable death rate required a proportionally larger quantity of caregivers than breeders.
Further, any trait that exists in ~5%+ of the population over time is regarded as having an evolutionary purpose. Which homosexuality meets the definition of. For example, I'm color-blind, while no longer very useful (other than map spotting, which the US military does use color-blind folks for), it was an advantage for hunting in a snowcovered environment by removing unnecessary data for the brain to process, resulting in spotting prey faster and increasing reaction times. It's difficult to provide hard evidence for evolutionary traits, folks that want to dismiss it due to discomfort always will, but this trait was shown to appear in Ice Age Spain and spread from there. Caregiving for the tribe goes much further back in time, hence homosexuality being far wider reaching. Neither gay folks or color-blind folks are deserving of disdain though, simply because we're the products of hundreds of thousands of year of human survival and those traits are not as relevant today. All humans have traits that aren't perfectly suited for sitting behind a computer all day, or the modern age. It's a shame we haven't evolved to consume glyphosate, or breathing the air we're polluting without dying of cancer.
An addendum that I feel is necessary. You could seek out a scientist who has dedicated their entire life to studying this topic to confirm/deny my claims, or a professor at a local university who has essentially done the same and dedicated their professional lives to this topic to learn more. That's what I would do if genuinely curious and wanted to know more, not hit up DuckDuckGo. The ability of those folks to cut through the noise in their field is something a search engine doesn't offer. No different from an experienced programmer searching on software. There's an alarming trend of people today dismissing expertise and credibility as traits without merit. Experts on topics like this are still the go-to source. I'm just a layman in comparison. While I did not and will not spend more time digging up citations for my claims here, it is logical and based on prior readings. Neither is it my prerogative to convince every homophobe among us that being homosexual is more than OK, I do hope everyone who reads this chooses to embrace our gay brothers and sisters. It's illogical not to.
"...turn the bodies into about two wheelbarrows of soil within a month. Loved ones and families can keep the new material to spread or even use it to plant vegetables or a tree."
There was a report of a discovered boat burial on doggerland, on land (before doggerland flooded. That would have been at the end of the last ice age). I can't find it now.
I know about the neolithic villages currently under silt in the english channel, but that's about it.
It's more or less anachronistic to talk about 'witches' in the Iron Age, certainly in the modern sense that connotes "naughty bad not-christian women spellcasters".
I don't really think it's a stretch to use the modern word "witch" to refer to this universal concept.
we don’t know anything about this grave find except that the deceased was high status, of course, so this could just as well be nothing to do with such things.
We tend to use more precise words in these cases, such as doxxing or cyber-bullying, or gang-stalking, etc.
La Tiene celts were ~animist in 200BC, so shaman seemed a reasonable modern word here. I suppose "druid" would also be OK, but I don't think scholarship has much to say about continental druidism, and what the consensus is generally is "they were probably called that and beyond that we really have no idea". (because we've long since lost anything close to a primary source, among other things)
i can imagine though, that a shaman in old times Europe, could have been identified by the church as a witch. (as confused we are about the definitions today, they probably were even more so back then.)
Africa and Europe had a lot of cultural exchange, but Australian Aborigines and Native Americans had wildly different views. That’s not to say similarities did not exist, but the more universal the idea the more vague it must be.
Aka, Evil people with power is more universal than the ability to cast a persistent curse.
Source: my godmother is a Maya shaman.
Could you liberally expand on this if possible? Stuff like, what does she do, what is notable about her worldview, what's her view of other worlds (in christian terms, hell/heaven, in norse terms valhalla and the world tree etc), what can we on HN learn from her. Anything else you'd wish to add.
(I've got the popol vuh, just wish I could find time to read it).
is fun listening.
Probably more Christian-age Germanic (?) rather than modern. Witches weren't/aren't necessarily female in most cultures, nor they are naughty/bad in many.
They seem to also use tree trunk
The Italic language Vulgar Latin displaced Celtic languages everywhere except the British Isles and Brittany. But it may not have been a hard language for the native Gauls to learn.