Talk:Caveman

Suggested Addition to page

There is now an academic book called THE CAVEMAN MYSTIQUE: POP-DARWINISM AND THE DEBATES OVER SEX, VIOLENCE, AND SCIENCE by Martha McCaughey (2008, Routledge). This book addresses the popular circulation of the "caveman" story today. There is a wiki page on this scholar, and that page mentions the book. Shouldn't this be a link under the category of, say, NONFICTION BOOKS ABOUT THE CAVEMAN ? ~ Moj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojomartini (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many words in the English language are there a level of disagreement on whether they are masculine or generic?? 66.245.5.89 19:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to bring that up at all. They should mostly talk about how not all "cavemen" lived in caves instead... Besides, as a comment it's completely useless and tells us nothing. OF friggen course there's going to be females with them, do you think that people will start thinking they reproduced asexually or were hermaphrodites?

There is no disagreement from an etymological standpoint. Caveman refers to mankind in a cave, not the male half of our species. In old english, for example, man was gender nuetral. I don't know the exact history of caveman, but I think it's more common use mirrors the etymology of women.

Request for protection

In response to repeated edits to this page that deleted large sections of the article and the frequently recurring months-long problems with random personal attacks being inserted into the article, a request for protection was put in place tonight. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Bla.7CCaveman.7D.7D MrZaius^talk 04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) hey[reply]

Kudos for putting this in a pop culture frame referring to the science. I wasn't quite expecting that when I typed it in, but it fits well while still providing an avenue for getting to learn about actual cavemen. At some point, I'll propose some language more solidly guiding a link there. ~Robert

Requesting unprotection so that you can be bold and edit the page yourself. It's been three months - hopefully the vandals have moved on. MrZaius^talk 10:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding anaglyph image

From the [revision history] "discussion":

2008-02-08T23:16:49 Styrofoam1994 added "computer generated" in description of image.

2008-02-08T23:20:02 Gwernol: Do you have any evidence this is computer generated? The image description doesn't say one way or the other and this could be hand painted

2008-02-09T16:00:57 AdrianLozano: Actually, it's computer *modified*. See Wikipedia_talk:No_3D_illustrations.

2008-02-09T16:03:36 Gwernol: Sorry, but unless you have some evidence to show that this particular illustration is computer modified, your description is surely original research

In theory, you could create a medium-quality color anaglyph without computer assistance, but it really that's not practical. But I have no problem with conceding that point. How about just removing the "computer-generated" part? I suppose that the "anaglyph" part isn't in question and could be reinstated? – Adrian Lozano (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one objects, I'll do just that in a while then. – Adrian Lozano (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, that seems reasonable. Gwernol 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many prehistoric humans did in fact live in caves

Ever hear of Les Eyzies, or Mt. Carmel? The article as it stands gives the misleading impression the very idea of 'cavemen' is a myth. Dlabtot (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding More

Please add more to this article, its mainly about the media's disambaguation on cavemen. please suggest what they really were and how they lived and how they evolved etc. History Lessons (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your criticism. Do you have any sources in mind that could be used to improve the article? Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be nice to have a paragraph or two that examines cave-dwelling paleolithic man in more detail, please don't allow it to dominate the article. The notion of a "Caveman" is much more important as a part of popular myth and popular culture than it is as a legitimate grouping of early man (from what I've been able to gather) - Is the word used at all by anthropologists and archaeologists, outside of attempts to catch a reader's interest with references to popular culture? MrZaius^talk 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it is ever used in scientific language. It's important as a archeotype or sterotype in culture, only. We do need to say a little about the image vs. reality, but it's really about the history of a literary and pop cultural character, and perhaps as an "Jungian archeotype", if you will, something that reflects how people in general think about things. Chrisrus (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste from Reference Desk Discussion

(The entire thread between horizontal rules below) -- SGBailey (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavemen in literature

When did the present stereotype of a caveman first appear? (By that I mean a group of people living in caves, wearing furs, carrying clubs and saying "Ug". Not meaning 'modern people' who choose to live as hermits in a cave.) In particular, would folk emigrating in the 1840s on the Oregon trail be familiar with the stereotype? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they'd be aware of the sdtereotype because it doesn't fit at all well with Biblical beliefs - as practised by almost everyone on the trail, and probably to the characters to which you refer. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal remains were the first real discovery of fossils significantly different from modern humans, but significantly more connected to modern humans than to apes; however, this wasn't really understood until 1856-1857 (and even then, some claimed that the Neanderthal skeleton was that of a "deformed Cossack" soldier from the preceding century!). Remains of fully modern humans from before the origins of agriculture (ca. 10,000 B.C.) weren't discovered until 1868 (Cro-Magnon). -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have any idea when / where the stereotype evolved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Doyle's The Lost World was published in 1912 with ape-men fighting humans; Edgar Rice Burroughs copied this idea for The Land That Time Forgot in 1915. I can't find any references before about 1912.

IMDb seems to point to a genre of caveman movies in the 1910s, listing D. W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912)[1] and Charles Chaplin's His Prehistoric Past (1914)[2]as well as Brute Force (1914)[3], The Cave Man (1912)[4], and later Cave Man (1934)[5]. From the descriptions, Griffiths's characters can't talk (handy for a silent film), and use sticks and stones for weapons, while the hero of Cave Man acts like Tarzan, another source for primitive life, and fights dinosaurs. Stills from Man's Genesis[6] and His Prehistoric Past[7] show the wearing of furs and grass, although Chaplin still has his bowler hat.

Caveman, Category:Fictional prehistoric characters and Category:Prehistoric people in popular culture may have some more information. There seems to have been a genre revival in the early 1960s: The Flintstones began in 1960, two years after B.C. (comic strip). One Million Years B.C. was made in 1966. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if caveman stereotypes might be influenced by circus strongman imagery, particularly as regards the brute strength and one-shouldered fur costume; but I can't find anything earlier than the early 20th century, e.g. Abe Boshes in an undated image[8], so the circus performers may have been influenced by caveman movies. The Circus Historical Society[9] would be the place for research. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been heraldic "wildmen" or "woodwoses" in European iconography for a long time, often shown as bearded and carrying huge clubs, but they're not uniformly depicted as brutishly subhuman (in fact, often they're shown as fine physical specimens influenced by classical depictions of Hercules), and they have no real association with caves, that I'm aware of... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, the idea of "cavemen" specifically dates from the mid-19th century, coinciding with the widely-reported discovery of Neanderthal remains in Europe. Europeans of that period were fascinated with the idea that even "civilized" people like themselves had a pre-civilized, "barbaric" stage of life where they were essentially brutes. Tracing the evolution (har har) of this particular trope would be quite interesting, as it is one of those things that everybody "knows" today but nobody really knows why they know it, but it was well-established by the time people like Darwin and Galton were writing on the evolution of men. Darwin in particular draws on this idea in Descent of Man as a way to counter the accusations that Europeans and "savages" from other parts of the world were not the same species (he shows that civilization is just a layer over the basic barbaric frame). I don't think Americans in the 1840s would have been aware of the idea, though. I imagine it made its way into cheap Victorian literature a lot earlier than the "classics" described above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited some of the fruitful thoughts above into Wikipedia's weak article Caveman. Anyone interested might want to improve it further. It needs your help--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wetman. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a stereotype - see Cerne Abbas giant 89.241.159.20 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes can be based on real difference, rather than just imagined ones. Just because some images show this type of 'caveman' does not mean it isn't a stereotype, because there are bound to be cavemen that don't ift into that group. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a piece of seventeenth century graffiti relevant here? Algebraist 10:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

Let me just ask you this: Are you saying that neanderthals were not sub-human? Chrisrus (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which synonym to use: archetype or stereotype?

Should this be called a "stereotype" or an "archetype"?

If we call it a "sterotype", are we implying that it's basically a false vision? Do we want to do that? If we call it an "archetype", would we be more conforming to the "non-point-of-view" so important to encyclopedias, as to whether life for real "cavemen" was, in fact, "nasty, brutish, and short" or or more "nobel savage"? Which is more accurate? Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't synonyms but they both apply and they are both accurate. No, "stereotype" doesn't imply false. Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "sterotype" may not always apply "false" in all contexts, but it often does and may in the mind of the reader as "false" is clearly implied in common usages such as "Don't sterotype people." Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refuting the sterotype

One of the problems with taking an approach involving clarifying any untruths of the sterotype lies in the fact that the concept of the caveman conflates the concepts of the early modern humans with that of the neanderthals. There are things you can say about how primitive men lived that are also true of neanderthals, but there are also things you can't. Neanderthals, for example, were super-human in some ways and sub-human in others. Early modern humans can be assumed to be just like you and me in many ways. Neanderthals are looking more and more alien these days, but we really can't say too much for sure. So you can't say "cavemen weren't really more X than we are", because it isn't clear which species "cavemen" refers to. Chrisrus (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

A caveman or troglodyte is a popular stock character based upon popular concepts of the way in which early prehistoric humans may have looked and behaved. The archetype of "cavemen" originates with the discovery of Neanderthal remains. The term caveman, sometimes used colloquially to refer to Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon people (Homo sapiens of the Paleolithic era), originates out of assumptions about the association between early humans and caves, most clearly demonstrated in cave painting.

Yes, the word "caveman" or "troglodyte" is popular stock character based on popular concepts of prehistoric life. But it isn't clear if the character is a fully human Cro-Magnon, or a neanderthal, which wasn't quite human, or at least the fully human nature of neanderthals isn't agreed upon by experts. So the "early prehistoric humans" phrase should be changed to reflect this.

But I've pointed this out earlier, above. Now, please focus with me on the next two sentences. The first say it originates with the discovery of Neanderthals, and the second say it originates from the discovery of Cro-Magnon cave paintings. So which is it?

Next, the text that follows this intro dates the concept back to the middle ages, to the "wildman" idea. So the body dates back further than the into says.

Therefore, I'd like to redo it with words to the effect of

"A caveman or troglodyte is a popular stock character based on popular concepts that conflate how stone age humans and homonids might have looked and behaved. The concept sometimes is used colloqually to refer to more Neanderthal-like characters, and at other times seems to refer to early modern humans (Cro-Mangon). They association with caves reflects the fact that much of the evidence of stone age people has been discoverd in caves, most clearly demonstrated in cave painting, which lead common folk to believe that they lived there all the time." Or something like that.

Please help with your thoughts, or feel free to edit the intro with my words or yours. Chrisrus (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets find what reliable sources say and base our intro/content/article on that. Active Banana (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your wording is an improvement. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting Confused Users

It has been pointed out that many users may arrive at this article not to find out about this referrent but rather to learn about early modern humans and other hominids, but instead find themselves a bit frustrated and lost. How can they best be helped? How about a hatnote or a "see also" section? Any ideas? Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Butty" animal hides?

I can't figure out what "butty" means in this context. Is there some meaning to "butty" that I'm not aware of?

Archangle0 (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been vandalism that was not properly identified and removed when it happened. Thank you for pointing it out! - it has been removed. Active Banana (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the original content was "shaggy animal hides" before the vandalism. I'll return it to the original content. Archangle0 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]