History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[JohannaK]

I'd like to read that. Bear in mind I'm not talking about men who have sex with men and meant who have sex with women, but homosexuals and heterosexuals, people whose identity is to some degree shaped by their sexual orientation.

 

[Traitorfish]

My impression is that the Ancient Greeks had distinct notions of homosexual and heterosexual attraction, or at least of the difference between male attraction to men and male attraction to women- the Greeks don't seem to have spent much time worrying what women thought, let alone about each other- but not notions of homosexual and heterosexual people, which is more what we've been driving at. The idea of "homosexual" as a noun rather than an adjective, if that makes sense.

 

[schlaufuchs]

My impression is that the Ancient Greeks had distinct notions of homosexual and heterosexual attraction, or at least of the difference between male attraction to men and male attraction to women- the Greeks don't seem to have spent much time worrying what women thought, let alone about each other- but not notions of homosexual and heterosexual people, which is more what we've been driving at. The idea of "homosexual" as a noun rather than an adjective, if that makes sense.

Speaking from the Roman side of things, my understanding is that the distinction wasn't between male and female, but between giver and receiver. Penetrating was viewed as masculine, whereas being penetrated was viewed as feminine, so it was acceptable for a man so sleep with other men, so long as he was, well, on top (as well as performing the other expected duties of one's religio).

 

[Lexicus]

My impression is that the Ancient Greeks had distinct notions of homosexual and heterosexual attraction, or at least of the difference between male attraction to men and male attraction to women- the Greeks don't seem to have spent much time worrying what women thought, let alone about each other- but not notions of homosexual and heterosexual people, which is more what we've been driving at. The idea of "homosexual" as a noun rather than an adjective, if that makes sense.

This is exactly what I at least was trying to say.

my understanding is that the distinction wasn't between male and female, but between giver and receiver.

Exactly.
The rumors about Caesar and Nicomedes weren't because he was 'gay' but because he allegedly took it up the bum.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, although i haven't studied the issue, it is worth noting that homosexuality is also practised by the god of beauty (and logic, order and other stuff) in greek theology, ie Apollo.

That said, it likely was not as common, nor as acceptable by and large as holywood movies or tv-level 'scholars' make it out to be. There is also the difference between accepting beautiful male form as something of worth and praise, and actually having homosexual relationship. For starters there were also negative ancient greek terms for homosexual, eg 'kinaidos', which literally means 'triggering shame'. (although i am not sure when it first appeared, it surely was there by early roman times, iirc it also is heavily used in Apuleus' travel story, "The golden ass" (as in donkey, you perverts ). I think in that story a community of homosexuals is banished and lives in a cave. The story is pretty funny, with a young person transformed into a donkey.

Later sources (eg Plutarch) present various things on this as well, but they are really many centuries after the peak of Athens/Sparta/Thebes/Macedonia. For example a story is about how (not sure if it happened; Plutarch was very openly pro-Athens) the king of early post-Alexander era Macedonia, Demetrios, tried to rape a good-looking youth in Athens, and the latter had to throw himself into a couldron with boiling water as they were in the baths.

 

[r16]

ı was skimping through an electronic book when ı saw a mention of the Kon Tiki expedition . Anything ı had read about it back 30 years ago when ı was really in a binge of "reading" any encyclopedia ı would find , implied it was such a noble act by a White man to prove "Coloreds" were capable of doing great feats like sailing across the oceans in stupid ships . Apparently Jared Diamond claims the exact opposite and Heyerdahl implied the South Americans reached the Easter Island because somehow they learned all the stuff they knew from some dubiously defined connection to Europe , presumably Vikings in Greenland . Or something . Which one is correct ? Kon Tiki for non-whites or against non-whites ?

 

[Lohrenswald]

Heyerdahl's theory was that polynesia was settled from south america rather than like south east asia. He didn't get much support for his theory, so he made a raft crafted without modern materials or methods to sail to easter island as a sort of proof.

Theory had many flaws in many ways, and has been disproven by gene mapping.

Since it turned out he was such a terrible scientist, he has instead been made into a sort of adventure type purely

 

[Arakhor]

I read some of his books at school and there was never any racial motive mentioned, other than the idea that the Polynesians were greater explorers than had been said before.

In the same vein, the explorer Tim Severin took a coracle across the Atlantic to 'prove' that St Brendan could have done the same thing in the 5th/6th Century.

 

[r16]

thanks for the answers ; ı might have "opinionated" with a higher rate of "wrongness" than usual here and elsewhere .

 

[Ajidica]

I was poking around on Wikipedia and found this bit on the Celts:

According to Aristotle, most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (Politics II 1269b).[99] H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."[100] In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused". Rankin argues that the ultimate source of these assertions is likely to be Poseidonius and speculates that these authors may be recording male "bonding rituals".[101]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Gender_and_sexual_norms

Is there any truth to this or is it just Roman ethnographers making stuff up to emphasize the "otherness" of non-Romans?
Or is whoever made the Wikipedia entry just being a massive troll?

 

[Agent327]

Copying earlier comments is a common feature among historiographers. It is interesting to note, however, that Caesar, who experienced Celts first hand for years in Gaul, makes no mention of this supposed peculiarity whatsoever.

Secondly, attributing quaint traits to other peoples than your own is also an ancient tradition.

I'm not quite sure hat referring to such comments in antiquity would have to do with Wikipedia trolling though.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not quite sure hat referring to such comments in antiquity would have to do with Wikipedia trolling though.

Wikipedia trolling would mean that the comments are likely made-up in the first place.

 

[timtofly]

Speaking from the Roman side of things, my understanding is that the distinction wasn't between male and female, but between giver and receiver. Penetrating was viewed as masculine, whereas being penetrated was viewed as feminine, so it was acceptable for a man so sleep with other men, so long as he was, well, on top (as well as performing the other expected duties of one's religio).

Does this indicate that historically sex was always ok for the one giving it, but any blame has always been on the receiving end? Prostitution is ok, because the receiver (the prostitute) was offering (for a charge) the ability for the giver to exercise their right? Rape is ok, because the giver is always right, and the receiver refused that right? Heck even exposing oneself is fine, because others have to endure their right of free sexual expression.

Seems like that would make sex pretty much one sided on an ethical basis.

 

[Lexicus]

Question: I know that terms like "Celts" and "Gauls" are problematic, but I know a lot less about Bronze/Iron Age Britain than the continent. How culturally unified was Britain in the Roman era? What were its politics like compared with Gaul?

 

[Agent327]

It wasn't. At all. Why would you assume there was anything unifying in the isle of Britain?

Wikipedia trolling would mean that the comments are likely made-up in the first place.

Why would you assume that?

 

[schlaufuchs]

It wasn't. At all. Why would you assume there was anything unifying in the isle of Britain?



Why would you assume that?

Do you always have to be such an enormous cock when you're answering questions?

 

[Lexicus]

Actually Owen do you know anything about my question? What does the linguistic evidence tell us, if anything?

 

[Flying Pig]

Question: I know that terms like "Celts" and "Gauls" are problematic, but I know a lot less about Bronze/Iron Age Britain than the continent. How culturally unified was Britain in the Roman era? What were its politics like compared with Gaul?

Not very - in fact, the idea that 'Britain' and 'Gaul' were united but separate ideas is basically a Roman one. Pre-Roman Gallic and British cultures were remarkably similar , if totally without political unity and regularly at more-or-less ritualised war with each other. The Druids, for example, seem to have been a fairly 'international' sort of group, and one of Caesar's main (stated) reasons for invading Britain was that the island of Anglesey was a major centre for their training, and would-be Druids from Gaul were travelling to Anglesey, learning their trade, and coming back to lead anti-Roman resistance.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Actually Owen do you know anything about my question? What does the linguistic evidence tell us, if anything?

I actually don't know much on this topic. Celtic linguistics is not really something I've studied with any sort of intensity and the only Republican-era demographic/ethnic descriptions I've read have come from Caesar, and he doesn't tend to do a very good job of describing nuance in the cultures he visited.

My assumption would be no, though?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Question: I know that terms like "Celts" and "Gauls" are problematic, but I know a lot less about Bronze/Iron Age Britain than the continent. How culturally unified was Britain in the Roman era? What were its politics like compared with Gaul?

The "Roman Era" is about a 400 year stretch of history, so you might need to be more specific about what you're asking.

In the early years, certainly many of the Britons would have rejected Rome, and the Roman settlers would have viewed themselves apart from the natives.

However, by the end of Roman Britain, likely most of the islanders had a Roman "identity" what was just one layer of their greater social identity. You can be more than one thing at the same time. That’s how identity works (as opposed to nationalism). For instance, I am an American, but I also consider myself a Southerner, from the East Coast, a Virginian, a Northern Virginian, and a member of my county community, all at the same time. It’s the situation that makes the difference.