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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Adding More

Please add more to this article, its2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Reference Desk Discussion

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

---

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 familiarSo do we have any idea when / where the stereotype evolved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) asrkjtgsh;vd orha;sid ufhsliudfhgysidfghsaiudfhga;oEIFUGHA;ODITY while the hero of Cave Man acts like Tarzan, another source for primitive life, and fights dinosaurs. Stills from Man's Genesis[1] and His Prehistoric Past[2] 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)

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[3], so the circus performers may have been influenced by caveman movies. The Circus Historical Society[4] would be the place for research. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

---

I'd like to contribute an additional thought: I've long wondered if the caveman stereotype might have been specifically be influenced by reports about Australian aborigines, especially those living in arid regions. They've always struck me as the closest modern analogue from whose observation ideas about prehistoric humans could have been derived from, and in fact I find them more similar to the stereotype than other "savage tribes" that people in the 19th and early 20th centuries were familiar with. It seems to me that stereotypical cavemen do not live in tropical (or any other form of) rainforests, they do not look like Asians or Native Americans or even San or African pygmies, for example (although they would to suggest themselves, being among the few remaining hunter-gatherers in that time), but their rough physique does resemble that of Australian aborigines. Even the stereotypical "oogah boogah" grunt approximates the typical sound of native Australian languages to me, of course in the form of a caricature, as everything here, naturally. Other "races" known to the public at the time seem a less good fit. I cannot exclude that Polynesians (especially Maori with their frightening war-dances) and "Negroes", who, after all, were often considered more or less ape-men in the racist climate of the time and well familiar to 19th century Europeans, suffering from the same hostility as the Australian aborigines did, contributed to the stereotype equally much or even more, it's just that other than the San, hunter-gatherers aren't very common in Africa anymore. Australian (and Tasmanian) aborigines, on the other hand, were at least as exotic as Africans, or rather more, and well known as exceptionally "primitive" and archaic in their ways (including the practice of rock painting), so they are a more plausible candidate to serve as model for prehistorical man, and the fact that they lived in a large and important colony of the British Empire was certainly helpful. The experience Europeans had with Africans was simply not quite the same. Even in North America I find it difficult to believe that as much as "the Negro" was seen as inferior by many, this could have been the obvious model for ideas of prehistorical man; let's not forgot that attitudes towards African Americans were not uniform in 19th century North America, and varied across locality and time. They were not universally regarded as primitive barbarians or even subhuman, and not necessarily as a leftover from prehistory. In the case of the Australian aborigines, it is much more likely that they were indeed regarded as a pristine relic of the Early Stone Age.

However, it is to be remembered that cavemen are not typically depicted as particularly dark-skinned (actually often rather light-skinned, even though early modern humans in Europe seem to have been rather brown-skinned), which of course speaks against both Australians and Africans (and Polynesians) as inspiration (though this could derive from the idea that they were the ancestors of Europeans specifically, which was widely believed to include even the Neanderthals, or if not, that they were light-skinned from adaption to a cold climate with less exposure to sun), and they are not depicted as having curly hair (like Africans, "negrito" populations and Papuans) or even wavy hair (like Australians), but rather straight, if shaggy, hair, and its colour is not usually dark but rather greyish. Also, they are portrayed as considerably more hirsute than conventional portrayals of indigenous people would suggest. Perhaps this is due to adopting rather the look of old hermits (as found in Europe, of course!) with long shaggy hair and untamed full beards. No doubt the older stereotype of the "wild man" has played a role here as well, but it was certainly augmented with (what was perceived as) remaining archaic human groupings. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Question:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

File:Kermanshah Neanderthal.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Kermanshah Neanderthal.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And what about the dinosaurs?

Odd omission in this article: cavemen are often portrayed living with or hunting dinosaurs -- despite the fact the latter species died out millions of years before the emergence of the human species. (You want sources? What about the cartoons "Alley Oop" & "The Flintstones"?) When did this scientific error first become embedded in popular culture? In the 1950s? Earlier? -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite this obvious fact, but it might fall under the WP:SKYISBLUE as it is not likely to be challenged. Do you have a good idea about exactly how to encorporate this into the article in a smooth way? If so, please be WP:BOLD and take care of this omission. I think there is a need as some people, unfortunately, may still need to be told that @65 million years separate humans from dinosaurs, despite the fact that movies and such show them living together. We can find a citation for it afterwards if anyone challenges it. This is of course my opinion. Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've been meaning to ask at the Help desk when this pop culture idea of cavemen & dinosaurs first started & how. With all of the projects I have on my plate, I'm not going to get around to researching this myself any time soon -- although I might just act on your suggestion & add a paragraph. (And in response to your second point, Chrisrus, I have this image of a low-information person wondering if cavemen & dinosaurs came before -- or after -- the Biblical flood. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a web page out there where someone shares his earnest thoughts on this serious subject.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be an improvement to the article. Something like "...often shown in the company of dinosaurs, even though the last dinosaur died at least sixty million years before the evolution of the first homonid..." or somesuch. Let's check the number and err on the safe side. If someone challenges we can just point out the dinosaurs in the flintstones, B.C., and on and on until they stop being unreasonable and allow it as obviously established fact. I predict no one will challenge, anyway. Only statements not likely to be reasonably challenged need citations anyway. Go ahead and do it, it's not taking on a big project. Chrisrus (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Alley Oop Dlabtot (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I added a paragraph after the lead admitting to the fact, so I guess the issue should be resolved. However, I find it embarrassing that dinosaurs are mentioned in this article -- as the first sentence in the section "Depictions of the Paleolithic in the media" -- & the three of us missed that passage. (As well as everyonewho read the thread & apparently never thought to verify my assertion. You lurkers missed an easy shot to put us Wikipedians in our place. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all cavemen are mean aggresive, some of them are kind and gentle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.79 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)