First homosexual caveman found

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

Archaeologists have unearthed the 5,000-year-old remains of what they believe may have been the world's oldest known gay caveman.

[Sasha]

GAY CAVEMAN! (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/04/11/gay-caveman)

Posted by Dan Savage (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ArticleArchives?author=259) on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:06 AM

That gay caveman story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html) that we pretty much ignored on Slog last week, much to the consternation of Slog tippers and my officemate Bethany Clement? Definitely not a caveman, may not have been a man, and there's really no way of knowing if those are gay bones (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/communication/gay-caveman-prague-2011.html).

[Bandito]

Due to the fact that they found pottery and not weapons next to him? Some archaeologists are pretty damn absurd, not to mention how homophobic that is.

[Thirsty Crow]

Due to the fact that they found pottery and not weapons next to him? Some archaeologists are pretty damn absurd, not to mention how homophobic that is.
Burial customs were pretty much gender defined. This is the first known example of a biological male ritually buried as a woman or man-fulfilling-the-role-of-woman. I fail to see what's so homophobic about that.

[ChrisK]

Burial customs were pretty much gender defined. This is the first known example of a biological male ritually buried as a woman or man-fulfilling-the-role-of-woman. I fail to see what's so homophobic about that.

Probably because the theory of "man the hunter; woman the gather" was disproved and rejected a while ago. Burial customs were labor defined, not gender defined.

[Thirsty Crow]

Probably because the theory of "man the hunter; woman the gather" was disproved and rejected a while ago. Burial customs were labor defined, not gender defined.
OK, criticism accepted (although I would like to know more about this...care to recommend a source?) Hope I didn't come off as prejudiced :/

[Tim Finnegan]

http://www.careminds.com/images/thumb-up-c-16x16.png Potential further evidence that the rigid gender binary declared as innate and universal by Western patriarchal ideologues is, in fact, a load of old cobblers.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/BobloKid/thumb-down-c-16x16.png Predictably cissexist, heterosexist and essentialist reporting of evidence.


Probably because the theory of "man the hunter; woman the gather" was disproved and rejected a while ago. Burial customs were labor defined, not gender defined.
That's true of palaeolithic cultures, but this is a neolithic culture, and one which appears to have a fairly strict approach to gender roles. That suggest that there is a possibility that this burial reflects some sort of formal third gender, something for which there is not inconsiderable precedent.

[Manic Impressive]

Now I feel like a bigot for thanking Isuel's post thanks a lot peeps :(

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Article posted in Kasama

5,000-year-old ‘transgender’ skeleton discovered

by Jessica Geen
Archaeologists have discovered a 5,000-year-old skeleton which they believe may be the remains of a transgender person.
The male skeleton was found in a suburb of Prague and is buried in a manner previously only seen for female burials.
The body is believed to date from between 2900 and 2500BC and is from the Corded Ware culture of the Copper Age.
Men’s bodies from that age and culture are usually found buried with their heads towards the west and with weapons.
But this skeleton was found with its head towards the east and was surrounded by domestic jugs – as women’s bodies from the time are usually found.
At a press conference in Prague yesterday, archaeologists theorised that the person may have been transgender or ‘third sex’.
Kamila Remišová, the head of the research team, said: “From history and ethnology, we know that when a culture had strict burial rules they never made mistakes with these sort of things.”
Archaeologist Kateřina Semrádová told Czech Position: “We believe this is one of the earliest cases of what could be described as a ‘transsexual’ or ‘third gender grave’ in the Czech Republic.”
This is not the first time a skeleton has been found buried as a member of the opposite sex. One woman from the Mesolithic period, who was assumed to be a warrior, was found buried with weapons.



http://kasamaproject.org/2011/04/08/gender-bending-in-stone-age-funerals/


Interesting but I still think we should be a bit cautious about imposing "modern" categories on prehistoric people. They may have had their own categories and interpretations much different than today.

[ChrisK]

OK, criticism accepted (although I would like to know more about this...care to recommend a source?) Hope I didn't come off as prejudiced :/

Not any source I know. My source was conversations with my anthropology professor who specializes in the history of tribes, bands and chiefdoms.

[Queercommie Girl]

Due to the fact that they found pottery and not weapons next to him? Some archaeologists are pretty damn absurd, not to mention how homophobic that is.

It's more likely that this person was actually transgendered rather than just gay.

BTW, how is it necessarily "homophobic" though? It might be an inconclusive hypothesis, but why is it "discriminatory" or "demeaning" in any way to say that "a gay man is a man who is effeminate"? Such a statement is objectively incorrect, but hardly discriminatory, unless one thinks that the "feminine" is somehow intrinsically less worthy than the "masculine".

[Queercommie Girl]

Not any source I know. My source was conversations with my anthropology professor who specializes in the history of tribes, bands and chiefdoms.

It's quite certain that Neolithic tribes possessed a certain kind of "gender roles", even though they were not as rigid as the gender differential that existed under class society.

[Queercommie Girl]

GAY CAVEMAN! (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/04/11/gay-caveman)

Posted by Dan Savage (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/ArticleArchives?author=259) on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:06 AM

That gay caveman story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html) that we pretty much ignored on Slog last week, much to the consternation of Slog tippers and my officemate Bethany Clement? Definitely not a caveman, may not have been a man, and there's really no way of knowing if those are gay bones (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/communication/gay-caveman-prague-2011.html).

For the sake of scientific accuracy, maybe you can change the title of this thread to:

Possible First Transgendered Copper Age Remains Found in Europe

[Queercommie Girl]

Now I feel like a bigot for thanking Isuel's post thanks a lot peeps :(

The title isn't very scientifically accurate, I agree. (After all, it's a Telegraph article, what do you expect)

But this archaeological discovery itself is still very interesting.

A better title for the article would be:

Possible First Transgendered Copper Age Remains Found in Europe

[Bandito]

BTW, how is it necessarily "homophobic" though? It might be an inconclusive hypothesis, but why is it "discriminatory" or "demeaning" in any way to say that "a gay man is a man who is effeminate"? Such a statement is objectively incorrect, but hardly discriminatory, unless one thinks that the "feminine" is somehow intrinsically less worthy than the "masculine".

Determining male sexuality by using his gender role, while trying to "prove" that he was buried "as a woman" because he was gay is homophobic.

[Queercommie Girl]

Determining male sexuality by using his gender role, while trying to "prove" that he was buried "as a woman" because he was gay is homophobic


Do you think it's homophobic for one to have the assumption that a gay man is also effeminate?

I think such an assumption is objectively incorrect, but not really discriminatory, because in principle there is nothing wrong with being "effeminate" anyway. Gay men don't need to prove their "manliness" by rejecting anything that is associated with the "feminine". (Incidentally some gay men probably do feel this way, which partly explains their transphobia)

As for this particular issue, I think it is inaccurate to assume that the remains in question belong to a gay man since one cannot directly infer sexual behaviour from the nature of the burial goods. However, assuming that the skeleton is indeed male, then the nature of the burial goods would be quite good evidence to infer that the individual was transgendered.

[Tim Finnegan]

As for this particular issue, I think it is inaccurate to assume that the remains in question belong to a gay man since one cannot directly infer sexual behaviour from the nature of the burial goods.
And aside from anything, his cultures understanding of sexual behaviour and preferences are unlikely to translate into mainstream terminology in the first place. The Western model of straight/bi/gay is pretty much an innovation of the last century or so, with very limited resonance in historical or non-European cultures.


However, assuming that the skeleton is indeed male, then the nature of the burial goods would be quite good evidence to infer that the individual was transgendered.Noting that the individual may well have occupied a third or intermediate gender role, rather than being "directly" transgender; while many societies, historically and contemporarily, do not assume the strict binary determinism that Westerners assume to be self-evidently universal, they still tended to entertain a high enough degree of biological determinism that trans individuals would occupy a particular social role or identity specific to their biological category (whether that be male bodied, female bodied or intersex), which although sometimes practically interchangeable with either (of what we would see as) cis genders, would be conceptually distinct.

Apparently, this is actually a point of active discussion within some traditional non-binary communities, such as the Indian hijra or Thai kathoey: whether they are trans men/trans women or constitute a distinct gender in themselves. It's further complicated by the fact that not every member of these communities approaches their identity in the same way, with some of them using it as a (relatively) socially tolerated means of expressing what would in the other societies be a "binary trans" identity, while others use it to express an identity more in line with the intermediate or androgynous traditions of these communities (what we would see as a genderqueer identity).

[GallowsBird]

Burial customs were pretty much gender defined. This is the first known example of a biological male ritually buried as a woman or man-fulfilling-the-role-of-woman. I fail to see what's so homophobic about that.


Yes and no. I can mostly speak for the Anglo-Saxon era of course, but certain things such as beads (usually found in female graves) could be found along with items that are traditionally viewed as masculine (swords*, armour) which doesn't tell us too much about the sexuality of the inhabitants of the grave.

That being said a gay caveman is not at all surprising as many (or most in fact) would have been bisexual as is the case in most animals (homosexuality and heterosexuality being mostly psychological and social) and most societies before the move towards the sexual roles we are still forced to "support" to this day. Look at the pre-Christian cultures of Europe and how many still had vestiges of bisexuality ingrained into their cultures.


* The occurence of swords however does seem to be down to wealth and social standing rather than gender or age in that era however as they were found in the burials of males and females from those too young to be warriors to those two old.

[El Chuncho]

Burial customs were pretty much gender defined. This is the first known example of a biological male ritually buried as a woman or man-fulfilling-the-role-of-woman. I fail to see what's so homophobic about that.

It does depend on the era though. In the early medieval era, men and women could be buried with jewelry and weapons. Deriving sexuality from burial customs might be a bit of a stretch too far.

Scandinavian and Japanese men liked to look pretty, with neatly washed and brushed hair, yet they are not seen as specifically ''gay'' because we know about the era. We do not know enough about the ''caveman era'' to make a guess on his sexuality, he could have been a primitive type of heterosexual or asexual holy man for all we know.

[El Chuncho]

Yes and no. I can mostly speak for the Anglo-Saxon era of course, but certain things such as beads (usually found in female graves) could be found along with items that are traditionally viewed as masculine (swords*, armour) which doesn't tell us too much about the sexuality of the inhabitants of the grave.

Some people in the early medieval era were buried with nothing at all, in fact.

I think that the caveman might be homosexual (though I believe his society would have been bisexual anyway), but not because of grave goods. It is just too bold a claim.

[Queercommie Girl]

Noting that the individual may well have occupied a third or intermediate gender role, rather than being "directly" transgender; while many societies, historically and contemporarily, do not assume the strict binary determinism that Westerners assume to be self-evidently universal, they still tended to entertain a high enough degree of biological determinism that trans individuals would occupy a particular social role or identity specific to their biological category (whether that be male bodied, female bodied or intersex), which although sometimes practically interchangeable with either (of what we would see as) cis genders, would be conceptually distinct.

Apparently, this is actually a point of active discussion within some traditional non-binary communities, such as the Indian hijra or Thai kathoey: whether they are trans men/trans women or constitute a distinct gender in themselves. It's further complicated by the fact that not every member of these communities approaches their identity in the same way, with some of them using it as a (relatively) socially tolerated means of expressing what would in the other societies be a "binary trans" identity, while others use it to express an identity more in line with the intermediate or androgynous traditions of these communities (what we would see as a genderqueer identity).

I have no problems with the gender identity of Third Sex and/or Genderqueer at all, but many trans people would still wish to be identified as "men" or "women", and the biological determinism that existed in pre-class tribal societies would not be the ideal standard to imitate in this situation.

[Queercommie Girl]

P.S. (a bit off-topic), some trans people have claimed that Dan Savage is somewhat transphobic. Is this true?

[Manic Impressive]

The title isn't very scientifically accurate, I agree. (After all, it's a Telegraph article, what do you expect)

But this archaeological discovery itself is still very interesting.

Don't worry I was only having a little joke at the people who were saying it was homophobic. I did find the article very interesting and reposted it elsewhere.

[Sasha]

P.S. (a bit off-topic), some trans people have claimed that Dan Savage is somewhat transphobic. Is this true?

here an critique of an employee of savage on the "joke" that's the base of those charges: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/26/state-attorney-general-rob-mckenna-is-not-transgender
The fact savage published this critique and reading his column for years gives me reason to assume that the writer of this critique is correct. Savage is not transphobic but can be an jerk.

[Tim Finnegan]

I have no problems with the gender identity of Third Sex and/or Genderqueer at all, but many trans people would still wish to be identified as "men" or "women", and the biological determinism that existed in pre-class tribal societies would not be the ideal standard to imitate in this situation.
True, but it's just as true to say that we cannot assume any particular identity on their part, and especially not when doing so imposes our particular construction of gender onto a society in which it may not be appropriate. All we can really attempt to infer from the limited circumstantial evidence like this is the social category into which any individual would have fallen.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

What if the pottery where put in the grave to be useful in the 'next life' like they tend to do in many ancient cultures, and has nothing to do with sexuality or gender?

[Queercommie Girl]

What if the pottery where put in the grave to be useful in the 'next life' like they tend to do in many ancient cultures, and has nothing to do with sexuality or gender?

The nature of burial goods reflect the gender identity of the buried person, in a society that possesses gender differential with respect to social roles. It is not common to see a neolithic male tomb filled with female jewelery, for instance.

[Tim Finnegan]

What if the pottery where put in the grave to be useful in the 'next life' like they tend to do in many ancient cultures, and has nothing to do with sexuality or gender?
That's exactly it: grave goods represent what would be useful to that individual in the hereafter, and that's something which is defined by, among other things, gender. In this case, it seems that a male-bodied individual was buried with goods associated in that culture with women, suggesting that he possessed a feminine gender identity, either as a trans woman, or as a third gender person.