Archaeologists discover "gay caveman" in Czech Republic

[Zuul]

First of all...

That's how all of the headlines are putting it, though, so there you go. Here's one of the many articles on this.

The cave-dweller was placed in his grave with his head pointing eastward, along with several domestic pots and jugs, scientists said.

Men of this era were typically buried pointing westward, surrounded by weapons such as battle axes and knives, and other tools.

There couldn't be any other possible explanation. Not any medical conditions that could have made a female skeleton virilized, not an intersex person who lived as a woman, not a male shaman buried in an atypical way, not a male who was part of the domestic sphere for one reason or another instead of a hunter. Nope, must be gay, despite the fact that "gay" is a modern social description that would have been meaningless to that culture.

[RabbitMage]

[Oliveloaf]

If only we knew how well he could color coordinate.

[Sarahfeena]

But did he like showtunes?

[Zuul]

With as much evidence as they had in that article, I am confident in asserting he obviously used the pots he was buried with as bongos and was an active participant in the Copper Age musical theatre community.

[Marsilia]

When I was taking a Native Americans of the Gulf Coast class, the instructor mentioned men who dressed like women, who were taken out with the other men to hunt. Because they otherwise lived as women, they did the "women's work" on the hunt. As Zuul said, though, that had little to do with our modern idea of what it is to be gay.

[Sarahfeena]

With as much evidence as they had in that article, I am confident in asserting he obviously used the pots he was buried with as bongos and was an active participant in the Copper Age musical theatre community.

See? It all adds up.

[Zuul]

When I was taking a Native Americans of the Gulf Coast class, the instructor mentioned men who dressed like women, who were taken out with the other men to hunt. Because they otherwise lived as women, they did the "women's work" on the hunt. As Zuul said, though, that had little to do with our modern idea of what it is to be gay.

Right. It couldn't even exactly be described as being transgendered in the same way our culture recognizes it, because the concept of gender and sexuality in American Indian tribes at that time was not the same as it is in western society today. Even between tribes that recognize Two-Spirit people they don't view them the same way. We can't say how this culture viewed these things. This person was buried in an atypical way for someone with a masculinized skeleton, and that's really all we know. But of course telling reporters, "We found a body that is buried in an atypical way and this is interesting" doesn't get articles like, "THIS WAS A GAY MAN OR A TRANS WOMAN. NO OTHER EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE."

[What Exit?]

Any chance of all of just a sloppy burial? Maybe someone that either barely cared or perhaps did not know?

Here's an alternate scenario, small family group. "When mother died, this is how Dad buried her, so we will now do the same for Dad" said eldest child Grog the 12 year old now in charge of small family group.

Or any of dozens of other possibilities.

[Zuul]

I hadn't thought of that, Jim, but depending on the other evidence in the area it could be plausible. The team discussing the find state that because burials were done so carefully there had to be a reason for it, but that's assuming the burial was done by someone who knew or cared about the customs. A child, a foreign-born spouse, or someone contemptuous of the person who died could have messed up the burial.

[CatInASuit]

Maybe he was the tribe's chef and wanted to stay with his pots and pans.

[Oliveloaf]

Of course if the dude was gay, it was nice (and progressive?) of his people to bury him in accordance with his gay-agenda wishes.

[Oliveloaf]

Was there any Barbara Streisand 8-tracks in the tomb, or was this before that?

[The Original An Gadaí]

I was talking to my sister and her husband about this lately. Our need to assign meaning to ancient practice. We visited this thing.


Religious significance is usually attached to it, and indeed it seems some people still do quasi-pagan stuff around it. Loads of coins were left at its base.
However because we've no written record of what exactly it is, nor how it was viewed it's possible that it had no religious significance at all.

[Peeta Mellark]

You can make fun of me if you like, Fox News seriously had the best article on this I've seen outside of science blogs.

I haven't seen what certainty the osteologist had that this was a male skeleton, or if there had even been an osteologist involved. The press just declares it must be a male. A perfect skeleton sexing would sound something like:

"The length of the humerus is within the range of male long bone measurements in this region. The ischiopubic ramus is short and wide, while the subpubic concavity is narrow, consistent with male remains. In the canium we see the nuchal region is well-developed with a voluminous mastoid process. There is a well-developed glabella with blunt orbital margins, consistent with male remains. The skeletal remains are most likely male with X degree of certainty and +/- X error range."

And it's still just an examination of statistical likelihood, with a margin of error. Looking at images of the skeleton, it looks as though there's damage to the pelvis. Depending on the criteria for sexing, a robust female might be identified as a male, especially if the pelvis can't be properly measured. There is also the possibility of intersex conditions, which will have an impact on the skeleton.

In this culture, we know that women were typically buried with necklaces, pets and earrings. Egg-shaped pots were placed near their feet. This skeleton was found with pots around the body, including the egg-shaped one at the feet, though no pets or jewelry were recovered. What are believed to have been male shamans were buried in a similar way, but they usually had more burial goods because of their high status. The fact that this burial involved so little in material goods reduces the likelihood of the individual being a shaman, but it could easily be a woman of low status.

Archaeologists used to use anomalous burials like this to identify "third gendered" members of a society, but this is too simplistic. The estimated age at death and the criteria used to sex the remains need to be known, and then you need to look deeper. What repetitive work did each gender do in this society? By examining deterioration, the presence of arthritis and where it occurs, and what evidence there is of injuries sustained in life we can gain an idea about what the person did while living. If this skeleton could be declared male with a high degree of certainty while also exhibiting wear on the skeleton rarely exhibited in males, then we could say this is likely to be a third gender. However, instead of showing a unique burial that would indicate anything unusual about this person, it's simply a cross-sex pattern which is not what is typically seen in a third gender. Projecting an imaginary progressiveness on the past, as though a male-bodied person would be seen as a woman with no social recognition of this not being the same as a female-bodied person is a mistake. There are examples of third genders seen in ancient cultures and some modern ones, but they are seen as something outside the binary, not just as ordinary members of one gender.

If the skeleton has been properly sexed, the burial is unusual for a male but tells us nothing about gender identity. It could be a very poor burial for a shaman or there may have been a feminized burial to proxy for a mate who couldn't be recovered or who knows what. If the skeleton isn't properly sexed, then we're just looking at a tall woman.

Of course, none of this matters one bit. People will remember the "transgender caveman" and probably bring it up in arguments for years to come.

[Oliveloaf]

The Transgender Cavemen are a kick-ass group.

[The Original An Gadaí]

I was talking to my sister and her husband about this lately. Our need to assign meaning to ancient practice. We visited this thing.


Religious significance is usually attached to it, and indeed it seems some people still do quasi-pagan stuff around it. Loads of coins were left at its base.
However because we've no written record of what exactly it is, nor how it was viewed it's possible that it had no religious significance at all.

[Zuul]

AG, along those same lines are the Sheela na Gig carvings in Ireland and Britain. A lot of theories abound about them, but since people don't really know what their significance was it's all guesswork, some of it possibly more accurate than others.

[The Original An Gadaí]

AG, along those same lines are the Sheela na Gig carvings in Ireland and Britain. A lot of theories abound about them, but since people don't really know what their significance was it's all guesswork, some of it possibly more accurate than others.

It's all guesswork, some educated, some not so but what annoys me is that meaning HAS to be assigned. Of course all human artefacts have some meaning but boredom or "just because" is rarely mooted for prehistoric carvings. It's always religious stuff, or a representation of a king/queen. Granted it's probably one of those things but I can imagine that in some epoches in some regions, food was accessible enough that there was a lot of free time for carving up stones to look kerazy or whatever. For example, that stone figure I linked to was found on an island in a lake. It's possible these people caught more fish than anyone could eat so this person ate fish, drank mead and carved funny heads for the laugh. It's like if a 20th century house somehow made it intact to the 30th century and people surmised that the wallpaper was to ward off demons. Of course we're literate, we can tell the future, more or less, what our shit is for so maybe that won't happen so much in the future.