What Can Skeletons Teach Us About Academic Responsibility?

“With great power comes great responsibility.” - Voltaire / Uncle Ben

If you have taken any social science course at Havergal, it is likely that you have been taught about the essential parts of academic research—using credible sources from trustworthy, peer-reviewed journals, assessing the biases in sources, and identifying and avoiding personal biases in the paper. But have you ever wondered why is it so important to practice these skills, besides getting that 4+ in Application? What are the results and dangers of presenting false facts in academia?

Three months ago, researchers from the Universities of Bologna and Modena revealed that the two skeletons of the infamous “Lovers of Modena”, buried hand-in-hand at a war cemetery, were both males rather than male and female, as was previously assumed. This recent discovery raised new hypotheses regarding the relationship between the two—were they brothers, cousins, relatives, friends… or lovers? I read the report that revealed this exciting discovery. The sex determination process was impressive and convincing, but the discussion section was not as well researched or reputable. Federico Lugli, the lead author of the paper, stated that it was highly unlikely that the two were lovers due to “historical context”, and that “there are no other burials of this type at present”. 

Normally, I would have trusted the source without a doubt, as the article was published in a highly reputable open-source journal, and the members of the team all received doctorate degrees in their specializations. However, having done some prior research on the origins of homophobia in the Roman Empire, I immediately found Lugli’s conclusion questionable. 

The DNA testing showed that the skeletons were from the late Roman Empire, around 4th to 6th century AD. It wasn’t until the late 4th century that laws were enacted against homosexuality. Before then, ancient societies did not even have the distinction or labels for “gay” or “straight” individuals. In ancient Athens, same-sex relationships were common, represented by a good number of characters in literature, plays, and philosophers. Later, the Romans adopted the Greek ideas, and it was said that among the first fifteen emperors, Claudius was the only emperor that was not part of a same-sex relationship. The public at the time did not even bat an eye at their emperors’ private affairs.

The change in legal attitudes towards homosexuality aligned with the rising popularity of Christianity and the reign of Christian emperors. Beginning from 390 AD, punishments for homosexuals were included in the Theodosian Code, a Christian reworking of the Roman law. Soon after, new laws levied taxes on male prostitution and declared the punishment of public burning as the way of executing an “effeminate male.” However, legal changes do not necessarily equate changes in social attitudes—these laws were never strictly enforced, and offenders were at most banished or denied participation in politics (though these harsher punishments usually happened in cases involving extortion of wealth, or when the subject happened to be a politician’s rival.) Even the first instances of persecution, recorded in 528 CE during the reign of Emperor Justinian (an instance Lugli et al.’s paper referred to), were primarily politically motivated and were targeted towards religious officials, the wealthy, and members of political opposition. Even the empress made false claims of sodomy against individuals in order to eliminate political opponents. In other words, homophobia in the Western world began as a mere instrument of manipulation concealed in the name of religion.

To give Lugli some credit, it was true that there were few to no records of queer literature or marriage records at the time, though it was plausible that primary artifacts were destroyed by the later religious communities in order to secure the claims about the “bizarre”, “unnatural”, or “socially harmful character of gay sexuality.” However, to claim that “homosexuality did not exist due to legal restrictions” is in itself a disrespectful and misleading oversimplification. Making this claim threatens to erase the LGBT+ community from the time period, especially when the researcher has been interviewed and quoted on multiple popular news sources (such as the BBC, the Guardian, and The Washington Post). While it would also be rash and irresponsible to jump to the conclusion thatthose skeletons were gay, given the historical context, it is very important to consider it as an equally possible explanation of the burial, rather than brushing the possibility aside due to the cloud of personal biases and incomprehensive research.

Why are professional scholars so well respected? Why are they given so much credit for what they do? Because scholars are viewed as the voice of reason and, by default, are usually correct—as they should be, since it is their job to present well-researched facts and suggestions. We see them at conferences, in the news during debates on current issues, and in our reading packages. We are taught to carefully assess biases because there can, there are, and there will be times where a small piece of false information goes undetected and used in another piece of research, and another, until the initial information is taken as gospel because “that’s what everyone else is saying, so it must be true.” It is much more difficult to change a presumed belief than to propose a correct one in the first place. Knowledge is power. We should be more responsible with the power we have been given.