Stone Age Gender Bender: Was 5,000-Year-Old Skeleton Gay?

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by markosity1973

4) There were no doubt homosexual cavemen about. If they were so accepted why is this the first grave of it's type ever found?

For all we know cavemen may have been accepting of such differences.
For all we know the absence of such graves is because gay cavemen were buried just like any other males.

Perhaps gay males tended to do something for their tribes, such as tutor the children or invent / create clothing, which gave their tribes advantages over the other tribes. Without religion to teach hatred of those who were different, these guys may have highly valued by their societies.

If we follow the Darwinian theory of evolution and entertain your theory for just a second, then what changed?

If Gay people were so highly valued, does it not make more sense that religion would have been inclusive of them and perhaps even given them some special status as it evolved? After all, if one is a believer in Darwinian evolution, then it follows that religion was invented by mankind and not the external divine source that it claims to be. This also infers that society went from acceptance to hatred of gay people. A hatred so powerful and so strong that for thousands upon thousands of years even though man evolved technologically and socially homosexuality remained a taboo.

Being gay myself, I would love to think that cavemen were more accepting than in other times in human society but when I apply logic and reason to the situation it just doesn't seem to fit.

As a fan of Jean Auel's Clan of the Cavebear novels, the first thing I thought was that the deceased may have been a shaman/healer or a brewer, ergo the pots which would represent the "tools" of his trade. The position in the tribal heirarchy may have determined the positioning in the grave in recognition of that standing.

Gay = maybe
High ranking deserving of especial placement = maybe
Low ranking deserving of especial placement = maybe
Intentional placement to deter entry into an after-death existance = maybe
Buried by non-tribal members who were unaware of local interrment practices = maybe

Knowing for sure = unlikely

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


My humble apologies to any archaeologists that I may have offended.

The point that I was, albeit badly, making, is that all to often archaeologists rush to offer an explanation of a site or artifact. The first one to call it often becomes the "Authority". They can never just admit, "we don't know!"

One example from personal experience.

I was on a dig at the castle grounds in my local town. We uncovered a red brick wall. "That is obviously from the Victorian landscape gardens" the head Archaeologist declared. A few days later I was talking to my grandmother and told her about this wall. She explained that it was the entrance to the cattle market which used to be in the castle grounds until the 50's. I told this to our lead Archaeologist the next day. He did not know about the Cattle Market. (Good research there.) And he had already told the local newspaper of his findings.

Today "officially" the wall is Victorian landscape garden and the older locals think it a joke and still complain that their tax money paid for the dig

There are ramifications for jumping to conclusions.

reply to post by markosity1973


You are getting confused by the modern term "gay". Homosexuality has always had, and even has today in the most restrictive of societies a "place". There is a "place" for homosexual behaviour amongst the Taliban, for example, in a discreet and socially accepted manner, while at the same time "homosexuality" per se is illegal and punishable by death.

Today we have created an artificial category called "gay" and demand equal rights and total acceptance of it. In more traditional societies homosexuality did not have a label that demanded recognition, but the behaviour was woven into the very fabric of society -- albeit with a healthy dose of discretion.

People who call themselves gay in the western sense, myself included, are stuck with a label that bears many connotations; some of which go beyond the reality of who I or we really are. Sometimes the label can be as much a burden as it is a good thing. Personally I prefer not having to hide things, but I would never suggest that our system is any better than the traditional one. My suspicion is that most of those men and women who were attracted to their own sex back during early or pre-history fit into their society just fine without the need for the label we use today, or the "rights" we hold so dear.

I have no doubt that the gender bender cave man had at least as good a life as any other member of the community back then. The church or religious institutions in general has always been a place that differently oriented people were drawn to for the simple fact that they were "special".

Originally posted by markosity1973

If we follow the Darwinian theory of evolution and entertain your theory for just a second, then what changed?

If Gay people were so highly valued, does it not make more sense that religion would have been inclusive of them and perhaps even given them some special status as it evolved? After all, if one is a believer in Darwinian evolution, then it follows that religion was invented by mankind and not the external divine source that it claims to be. This also infers that society went from acceptance to hatred of gay people. A hatred so powerful and so strong that for thousands upon thousands of years even though man evolved technologically and socially homosexuality remained a taboo.

Being gay myself, I would love to think that cavemen were more accepting than in other times in human society but when I apply logic and reason to the situation it just doesn't seem to fit.

It's only the Abrahamic religions that teach hatred for homosexuality, and, even in the basis for these three religions, the old testament, there is the love story of David and Jonathon, tenderly recorded. Neither were punished by god or society for their love of each other, which "surpassed the love of women".

The Hebrew religion was about power; power for the elite, the priests, in a tribal society. They were always greedy for more power, and could only do this is the tribe kept growing and displacing other tribes. To this end they wiped out rival tribes, forbade relationships which did not produce children, and made it mandatory that the men each sire at least one child. This tradition is still strong amongst Jews.

This fight to increase power made Judaism and its offshoots powerful forces, which continued to thrive by spreading the old messages like viruses. Today, in the western world, we live with the results.

Originally posted by guohua
markosity1973, First thank you for contributing.
As far as this statement is concerned:

1) I am gay myself and would love to think that cavemen enjoyed the same human rights as we did. But I also realise that they were far more likely to have been bashed over the head with a rock.

I tend to believe these persons were actually more revered than we may think, The alternate sexually lifestyle was not considered unacceptable until after Religion Took Hold of Our Primitive Brains.
Look at the Romans, Greeks and many other cultures of old.
I think the Blame Lays Squarely on the shoulders of the people who wrote the Bible

People choose which parts of the bible they will zealously promote, and which parts they will ignore as being inconvenient, outdated, absurd or irrelevant.

No-one has to follow every prescription of hatred they are taught.

Let the debunking being ...

Was the "gay caveman" actually gay? Or even a caveman?

“Gay Caveman”: Wrecking a perfectly good story

... IMH(f)O, probably real dig site, most coverage exaggerated, in many cases unrelated images included in coverage, "conclusions" made by spin-doctors not real scientists.

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

The point that I was, albeit badly, making, is that all to often archaeologists rush to offer an explanation of a site or artifact. The first one to call it often becomes the "Authority". They can never just admit, "we don't know!"

On the other hand, one knucklehead or egotist (none of them in academe) does not define the field. My experience in dealing with professionals, (and I am not) is that if an unknown quantity arises, I am quickly kicked up the ladder to the expert in that particular topic. I did that yesterday, and I'll be doing that later this week. And even then, they're not shy about admitting their ignorance. As one was known to say..."I don't know what it is, but it's the nicest one of those I've seen all day".

Originally posted by markosity1973
1) I am gay myself and would love to think that cavemen enjoyed the same human rights as we did. But I also realise that they were far more likely to have been bashed over the head with a rock.

2) This skeleton could have been buried in this fashion for many reasons.

3) Yes rituals were important, but has anyone not considered that this man may have been of some importance and then had a fall from grace? - Hence being buried like a woman was meant to be an eternal insult in caveman terms.

4) There were no doubt homosexual cavemen about. If they were so accepted why is this the first grave of it's type ever found?

1. . . . likely they were bashed over the head - - - is probably a modern day belief - - - as in many past cultures they were revered as very spiritual.

2.. . . . how many reasons could this skeleton have been buried in celebration of female qualities? Really?

3. . . . It is not the first grave to be discovered where a specific gender was ceremoniously buried as opposing gender.

Update, Update, Update,,, I have been watching for more information on this thread and this is what I found today.
Now I must add, I don't know if this will make a lot of difference to most of you, the idea of a third-gender grave,
What is that all about, Does the 3rd. Gender statement mean, this person if he was a male, had feminine characteristic's and stayed in the cave to cook and clean?
Did this cave person not have sex with anyone and if he or she did, was it not accepted and part of their life style and this person was buried in the way they acted in life. OR I'm I Missing The Hole Point Here

Any-way, I'd like to know more and I'm not Bashing this Person of Old for their Life Style, I'd just like to think we were better form of humans back then and accept a person for what they appeared to be and not change them to make us or our society Happy.

Scientists speak out to discredit 'gay caveman' media reports

But Hawks and others say the news media misinterpreted the findings. First, cavemen lived about 30,000 to 20,000 years ago. The remains found last week were from the Neolithic Age, about 5,000 years ago, Hawks told CNN. And while acknowledging the "unusual" circumstances of the burial, Hawks said there is no way you can tell someone is homosexual by examining a skeleton. Instead, the possibility of a third-gender grave -- as outlined by the archaeologists -- is more plausible, he said, noting that some cultures have a third category where, in some cases, men may have feminine characteristics or roles. "In anthropology, you can't equate third gender with homosexuality," he said.

TexKristina Killgrove, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, raised similar concerns, saying that using the term "gay" to describe the man is "the application of a modern word to an ancient population." More research could possibly determine the gender role of the man, but not his sexual orientation, said Killgrove, who specializes in bioarchaeology. And whatever the man's sexual orientation, Hawks said the fact that he was buried with others is "a sign of cultural acceptance," suggesting that other graves could shed some light statistically on how people were buried in that time. t

edition.cnn.com...

Ok, Ok, Ok, This to me sounds like Political Double Talk

Originally posted by guohua
Ok, Ok, Ok, This to me sounds like Political Double Talk

No...it's called Anthro 101. References have been supplied in the thread...I suggest you check them out.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by guohua
Ok, Ok, Ok, This to me sounds like Political Double Talk

No...it's called Anthro 101. References have been supplied in the thread...I suggest you check them out.

JohnnyCanuck, I didn't see any link to your so called Anthro 101 and when I googled it and read what I wanted to read it still sounded like Double Talk, B S and some one wanting to play nice and P C on words.

Every culture has Shamans and Healing and Medicine Men.
But from what I've rad, this peoples burials are normally more elaborate and decorative.
It doesn't matter because, We don't want to offend any one and we'll change history to be P. C.

"In anthropology, you can't equate third gender with homosexuality"

Why not? And what the hell is third gender?

Ok Ok Ok - - I know - science is based in fact - - you can't speculate - - especially with "familiarity" - - that's totally all wrong and asking for trouble.

However - - - there is no reason the possibility of homosexuality should be excluded either IMO

Originally posted by guohua
JohnnyCanuck, I didn't see any link to your so called Anthro 101 and when I googled it and read what I wanted to read it still sounded like Double Talk, B S and some one wanting to play nice and P C on words.

Sorry to be obtuse...what I was referencing was that the so-called third gender is dealt with in the first year of university studies in anthropology. I'll give a wiki link to 'Two-spirited people' as it's a close modern day analolgue.en.wikipedia.org...

If there is any double talk involved in this discussion, it is that of a 'gay cavemen'. Aside from dumbing the issue down to a room temperature level of intelligence, it also superimposes a certain moral stamp that is anything but universal.

Burials are generally ritualistic, even today. In fact mortuary customs are among our most important societal rituals. Everything in a ritual has a purpose, and when circumstances are out of the ordinary, anthropologists question why. I'd say that in this case, from the material made available, they are likely right.

But Gay Caveman? What's that all about? News for the Stoopid?

I can guarantee you, without having been there, that there were what we today would label "gay" men and "lesbians" back 5,000 years ago. There have been such people ever since there have been people.

We have no idea what labels those people were saddled with (or chose for themselves, if they had a choice) back then. They probably had something tho. We really have little idea how their sexuality was expressed either. It might have been something like the way it is in modern day Afghanistan, or S.E. Asia, or something entirely different. It is interesting to speculate, but that is all we can do. It would make a fascinating field of study if enough evidence ever comes to surface.

We can't legitimately get away with calling this fellow gay; although we shouldn't shy away from thinking he may have been so oriented. The media whores slap on a label that holds interest to today's customers, but that is their job, isn't it?

I don't care about the label. What would be really interesting would be to try and learn how this feature of human nature was expressed way back then. It might help us understand and/or resolve the struggle so many seem to have today with it.

This idea that homosexuality was "invented" recently is laughable sometimes.

In chat another NDN and I were discussing tribal junk and a member asked if there were any "gay native americans". Uhm.. yeah. Theyre called 2-spirits or Two-Spirits now. There is no hard core anti gay sentiment in many tribes. In some tribes there are much more than tolerated, theyre seen as gifted... being born with the spirit of a male and female in one. With my tribe in Browning Montana there is a large organization of gays... its not a huge deal and no problems really. Who are the savages again? Gays fit into society perfectly well, the only problems arise when you have religion drawing lines and telling you who to hate. In several modern european cultures a woman can become a man in all ways to carry out family obligations. They are treated like men and seen as men in the village. They are also NOT hated. Why is it we only find the Christians and Islamists hating and harming gays and people who step outside of gender boundaries?

The idea that being gay has always been a bad thing is a modern thought. Homosexuality has been around forever and I find it laughable that it's seen as a modern invention. Why couldnt a "cave man" or ancient farmer be gay? Because it blows the idea out of the water that its choice alone.

Originally posted by Advantage
The idea that being gay has always been a bad thing is a modern thought. Homosexuality has been around forever and I find it laughable that it's seen as a modern invention. Why couldn't a "cave man" or ancient farmer be gay? Because it blows the idea out of the water that its choice alone.

Let's just hope the funding for research doesn't come from a Christian dominate board.

I really hate that science has restrictions because of society pressure and belief systems.

reply to post by Advantage


Thank you for putting meat on these meager bones -- showing us an example of how a person who is not straight can be an integral and valued member of his/her community. I agree that for most of history prior to the rise of the modern religions, people we call gay were most likely integrated in some useful way with their tribe and not ostracated.

As others have noted, if it wasn't useful to have gay men and women around, there wouldn't be any today. The trait would have died out.

But here we are .... I would still love to know the life story of the guy whose bones they recently dug up in such a controversial position. Somehow I think it would be one of community, love and belonging. Now if only today's church people could get with that notion.

I don't know if this was posted yet but could the skeleton possibly have been a "woman" with Swyer syndrome WIKI page The disorder is basically would show as male yet, physically they appear female. That might explain why the "Male" Appears to be female.

Sorry just watched a documentary on various sexual disorders this was one of them, it kinda struck me when I saw the thread title . Along with XXY, XXX and XYY. However if this is evidence of homosexuals WOOT it just proves how perfectly acceptable it is...

Before I get flamed for some reason, yes this is a real disorder. Men can be born looking female as the female form is actually default, its one reason men have nipples. (just a fun fact)

Swyer syndrome link

Guys, I believe that we just arent as "civilized" as we pretend to be. We might have ipads, flushing toilets, and nukes, but we're still primitive in so many ways. To me, its primitive to view a person as completely useful to society and liked/admired even UNTIL you find their sexual preference. Its as bad as hanging witches because they have a funny birthmark or mole. We certainly dont seem to be evolving either, devolving perhaps.

Im straight.. and I dont care who anyone else is in love with, what gender they are, or what they do in their bedrooms. I am MUCH more concerned with character and achievement when looking for people to allow into my bubble or etc. I personally dont see sexual preference as a choice. The choice comes in with lifestyle, but certainly not who we/they choose to love or who we/they are attracted to. Lifestyle choices encompass heteros too.. but we heteros seem to forget this. Not all heteros are in pristine opposite sex relationships with one man or woman and puritan in sexual appetites. It just seems hypocritical to me that anything goes as long as its an opposite sex couple, but even mention a homosexual couple in a long term monogamous relationship and its automatically wrong and immoral. Personally Id rather see a solid homosexual couple raise kids than some of the heteros out there who shouldn't be in charge of raising gerbils but feel its their "God given right" to procreate at random.

The GAY DEBATE has been pretty popular on ATS recently. I got a new account a bit ago and decided to participate again here.. and wow. I somehow remember it as being more intelligent debate in previous years on ATS. Ive actually seen the anti-gay crowd on here defend their position saying that sex should only be for procreation and THATS why homosexuality is wrong. I like different views expressed, even by the anti-gay crowd as it is a learning experience.Some are against homosexuality for religious reasons yet they dont bash or shun.. which is a more civilized way IMO. The problem comes in when you have posts like the ones we see even on this thread concerning a "scientific discovery". Gay is bad.. they arent quite sure why.. but its bad and they will ridicule it. So much for social evolution. More like social de-evolution because we have seen time and time again in archaeology and sociological investigations that homosexuals not only maintain a normal position in societies, but are contributors and accepted by the whole of the society. As soon as you speak about homosexuality being accepted in Greece and Rome, pederasty gets thrown into there as if they are synonymous. Some have no real concept of the social issues in ancient societies and even if you draw it in crayon for them, their mind is already made up concerning it.

Given this subject, there will be no denying ignorance.

Off to do my women's work in my gender role based society.. good thing too, the husband cant cook worth squat.