Archaeologists Discover First ‘Gay Caveman’

800px-Squat_Burial

Example of a 'Squat Burial'. Photo: Hamed Saber (CC)

Researchers have found the remains of a skeleton that may be an early homosexual man. This conclusion did not come from the findings of any ‘gay gene,’ but rather the burial placement and its social implication. The man was given the burial of a woman which prompted archaeologists to believe that his social role reflected his sexual orientation. Via TIME:

Kamila Remisova Vesinova and her team of researchers from the Czech Archeological Society believe they have unearthed the remains of an early homosexual man. The remains date from around 2900-2500 B.C., on the outskirts of Prague.

That claim stems from the fact the 5,000-year old skeleton was buried in a manner reserved for women in the Corded Ware culture: its head was pointed east rather than west, and its remains were surrounded by domestic jugs rather than by hammers, flint knives and weapons that typically accompany male remains.

“From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake,” Vesinova said at a press conference.  “Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transsexual.”

[Continues at TIME]

30 Comments on "Archaeologists Discover First ‘Gay Caveman’"

  1. Anonymous | Apr 7, 2011 at 10:52 pm |

    “…bitch that I be and all”

    —Broke-back Caveman

  2. GoodDoktorBad | Apr 7, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    “…bitch that I be and all”

    —Broke-back Caveman

  3. justagirl | Apr 7, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

    “squat burial”. (lol)
    so, did they name him “gay gene”? i don’t get it.

  4. justagirl | Apr 7, 2011 at 7:07 pm |

    “squat burial”. (lol)
    so, did they name him “gay gene”? i don’t get it.

  5. Hermaphrodite

  6. Hermaphrodite

  7. They’re really just guessing here. No evidence is given that sexual orientation was an important category in that culture–not every society makes such a bi-polar distinction between “gay” and “straight.” His role in society might just as easily have been the operative factor in his burial, as suggested by the fact that he was buried with domestic jugs, rather than tools and weapons (you can have a homosexual warrior, right?), and if his role in society was a traditionally feminine one, then that hardly demonstrates that he was a “transsexual” in the sense of the term we would use it.

    We don’t know enough about stone age conceptions of gender and sexuality to interpret this with certainty.The fact of this being announced through a press conference rather than a peer-reviewed journal suggests to me that the researchers are trying to grab headlines by offering up an interpretation that the media will quickly latch onto, but really their finding is subject to much interpretation.

  8. Haystack | Apr 7, 2011 at 8:06 pm |

    They’re really just guessing here. No evidence is given that sexual orientation was an important category in that culture–not every society makes such a bi-polar distinction between “gay” and “straight.” His role in society might just as easily have been the operative factor in his burial, as suggested by the fact that he was buried with domestic jugs, rather than tools and weapons (you can have a homosexual warrior, right?), and if his role in society was a traditionally feminine one, then that hardly demonstrates that he was a “transsexual” in the sense of the term we would use it.

    We don’t know enough about stone age conceptions of gender and sexuality to interpret this with certainty.The fact of this being announced through a press conference rather than a peer-reviewed journal suggests to me that the researchers are trying to grab headlines by offering up an interpretation that the media will quickly latch onto, but really their finding is subject to much interpretation.

    • smooth_operator | Apr 7, 2011 at 11:25 pm |

      Guessing is right. That’s how our ancient history is put together and then sold as truth in the mainstream. Our supposed ancient history is made up of a few of bricks (physical evidence) and lots of filler cement (theories, speculations, etc.) which combine to make our ancient history wall. And soon as someone dares to come and challenge the construction of this ancient history wall, mainstream archaeology throws a fit.

      • I wouldn’t go that far. With ancient history we have written records, among other things, so we can assemble a general narrative of what took place.

    • Drinky McGee | Apr 8, 2011 at 9:47 am |

      Couldn’t agree more. I hope they didn’t sprain an ankle after jumping to that conclusion.

    • TwoSpiritMan | Apr 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

      The Advocate also covered this story and someone posted the following comment…found it to be thought-provoking and worth sharing:

      “If you studied pre-columbian indigenous cultures, you’d know that many of them had a construct around what we would think of as effeminate gay men and transgendered people. Unlike our politically correct mindset, femininity in males wasn’t looked down upon. Gay men in those cultures didn’t get squeamish because people saw them as feminine. They embraced their femininity because, in those cultures such men were seen as two-spirited and therefore more spiritual than masculine men. Masculine gay men in those cultures often married or partnered with the two-spirited men. Further, while not all gay men of today are feminine, research shows that between 35-50% of gay men are gender non-conforming, so it is not a stretch to presume that a feminine male is gay. Neither The Advocate, nor the archeologists they cite are off base because they assume that this man was either gay or transgendered.”

    • Not to mention…Copper Age is not ‘caveman’ territory. That was ‘functional culture complete with pottery in addition to more complex tools’ turf. The press has made a field day of this by using the same buzz-phrase.

      I don’t disagree with the premise though. There may be other explanations for it…but the most likely reason for an adult male to be buried in the tradition of a female…would be having lived as one…with all that that implies. Attaching our biases to the discovery and characterizing the implications as negative and unfounded seems just as noxious as the excess rush to attribute it to homosexuality.

      • Haystack | Apr 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

        I certainly don’t view it as “negative” if this person was gay or transgendered. That conclusion just struck me overly speculative, given what little information is given in the article.

  9. Hamsanath437 | Apr 8, 2011 at 2:10 am |

    score!

  10. Hamsanath437 | Apr 7, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

    score!

  11. ArgosyJones | Apr 8, 2011 at 2:35 am |

    They found him clutching an early Macintosh.

  12. ArgosyJones | Apr 7, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

    They found him clutching an early Macintosh.

  13. Anonymous | Apr 8, 2011 at 3:25 am |

    Guessing is right. That’s how our ancient history is put together and then sold as truth in the mainstream. Our supposed ancient history is made up of a few of bricks (physical evidence) and lots of filler cement (theories, speculations, etc.) which combine to make our ancient history wall. And soon as someone dares to come and challenge the construction of this ancient history wall, mainstream archaeology throws a fit.

  14. Haystack | Apr 8, 2011 at 4:18 am |

    I wouldn’t go that far. With ancient history we have written records, among other things, so we can assemble a general narrative of what took place.

  15. Drinky McGee | Apr 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

    Couldn’t agree more. I hope they didn’t sprain an ankle after jumping to that conclusion.

  16. BananaFamine | Apr 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

    the original HOMO sapien.

  17. BananaFamine | Apr 8, 2011 at 10:16 am |

    the original HOMO sapien.

  18. TwoSpiritMan | Apr 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm |

    The Advocate also covered this story and someone posted the following comment…found it to be thought-provoking and worth sharing:

    “If you studied pre-columbian indigenous cultures, you’d know that many of them had a construct around what we would think of as effeminate gay men and transgendered people. Unlike our politically correct mindset, femininity in males wasn’t looked down upon. Gay men in those cultures didn’t get squeamish because people saw them as feminine. They embraced their femininity because, in those cultures such men were seen as two-spirited and therefore more spiritual than masculine men. Masculine gay men in those cultures often married or partnered with the two-spirited men. Further, while not all gay men of today are feminine, research shows that between 35-50% of gay men are gender non-conforming, so it is not a stretch to presume that a feminine male is gay. Neither The Advocate, nor the archeologists they cite are off base because they assume that this man was either gay or transgendered.”

  19. Not to mention…Copper Age is not ‘caveman’ territory. That was ‘functional culture complete with pottery in addition to more complex tools’ turf. The press has made a field day of this by using the same buzz-phrase.

    I don’t disagree with the premise though. There may be other explanations for it…but the most likely reason for an adult male to be buried in the tradition of a female…would be having lived as one…with all that that implies. Attaching our biases to the discovery and characterizing the implications as negative and unfounded seems just as noxious as the excess rush to attribute it to homosexuality.

  20. If the Caveman was gay… Shouldn’t he have ‘come out’ of the cave?

  21. If the Caveman was gay… Shouldn’t he have ‘come out’ of the cave?

  22. I certainly don’t view it as “negative” if this person was gay or transgendered. That conclusion just struck me overly speculative, given what little information is given in the article.

  23. The other hand | Apr 26, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

    Well it is equally as possible that this MAN was interred in a female position as a punishment/degradation. Perhaps he was the 1st rapist and the punishment was to have a female burial. There is way too much speculation and VERY little fact.

  24. The other hand | Apr 26, 2011 at 8:48 am |

    Well it is equally as possible that this MAN was interred in a female position as a punishment/degradation. Perhaps he was the 1st rapist and the punishment was to have a female burial. There is way too much speculation and VERY little fact.

Comments are closed.