Gay Caveman?

(sorry for the long post today!)

I would like to highlight the issues with this article, as well as others of its kind, concerning the excavation of a "gay caveman," a highly problematic interpretation of the find and a demonstration of the ways in which popular media and culture can misinterpret archaeology for the purpose of popular entertainment.

Skeletal remains of the excavated individual in question from Prague

I would like to make it clear that as someone with queer and transgender friends and as one who has had to grapple with gender discrimination my entire life, this type of topic is close to my heart. I encourage people within academia, regardless of discipline, and people outside of academe to broaden their understanding of the concepts that I will outline. I write this post from a particular viewpoint with certain beliefs in regards to sexual and gender diversity, and understand that not everyone shares these opinions.

*shrug*

On with the post...

First, it is important to understand the differences between the terms "sex," "gender" and "sexual orientation." The sex of an individual is the biological assignment of their bodies to male, female, and anything between (ie intersex). When osteological remains are recovered from a site and "sexed," they are sexed not on a binary basis of male or female, but rather on a scale of male, probably male, unknown, probably female, female (this does not involve the diagnosis of intersex conditions; if a body is labelled as unknown, that does not mean that the person was neither male nor female when they were alive, just that the specialist cannot adequately determine the sex from their skeleton).

This is Caster Semenya, and runner who's sex was continuously questioned during her athletic career, and a reminder that sex, not simply gender, is a diverse aspect of our identity.

An individual's gender is a culturally constructed identity usually perceived to have some basis in biology (ie the person's sex), but because it is not biologically inherent, it is much more fluid and variable than sex. It is a common misconception that there are only two genders, man and woman, but depending on the group in question, more may be recognized. What traits characterize these categories are also dependent on the group in question. So while we can sex skeletons to a certain degree based on skeletal features such as the pelvis and the skull, one cannot assume the gender of the individual simply by the osteological remains.

This movie had a bad influence on me.

Sexual orientation refers to the sexual preferences of an individual, who they deem to be attractive and to be appropriate sexual partners for themselves. Sexual orientations are also culturally bound, as different cultures view sexual activity in different ways. For example, in ancient Greek society, the idea of a "homosexual" would not be applicable, as sex was viewed as an activity between an active agent, usually a citizen male, and a passive receiver, which could include a woman, a slave, regardless of gender, etc.  Certain men may prefer to engage in sexual activity with certain genders, but it did not divide them into specific categories of sexual orientation.

This is a gay caveman (hawhaw)

To address the specific problems with titling this archaeological find as a "gay caveman," I will first quickly address the fact that this individual was not a caveman; they were not a Neanderthal, an early Anatomically Modern Human, or any other species of Homo that may be associated with the term "caveman." They lived during the Copper Age, which although was thousands of years ago, does not make him a caveman; this is a popular term used most likely to increase the suggested antiquity of the individual to create more excitement about the find in the public's eye. Secondly, what made this particular excavation so interesting was the context of the body; it was oriented in a manner normally reserved for women, with grave goods assumed to belong to women as well. There is no indication of sexual orientation in these finds; a body sexed male in a supposedly female context does not provide us with any information about the individual's sexual preferences. What is being discussed is sex and gender and whether or not they "match" in this case, not sexual orientation, making "gay" an inappropriate label for the individual, at least based on the material evidence. Finally, the news reports discussing this discovery do not indicate how certain the researchers are about the determination of the sex of the individual based on the skeleton. If, for example, the individual is categorized as "probably male" or something similar, we could have a case of just a female skeleton with some "masculine" features. (I myself am 5'11", and, although I'm aware that it's much more than height that is considered in the sex determination process, I've always wondered if I would be sexed as male if my skeleton was recovered in an archaeological context... I'd lol from the grave.)

Perhaps this is in poor taste...

This conflation of gender roles with sexual orientation is largely based on our own society's definition of what constitutes masculine and feminine. If a man is not perceived to be "masculine" enough, we often make assumptions about his sexual preferences and stigmatize him for certain behaviours. Perhaps there was a more fluid definition of different genders in the excavated individual's social environment; perhaps the sexing was not performed to absolute perfection. We can come up with many explanations as to why this individual seems to deviate with what we have identified as normal behaviour, but first we must recognize our own assumptions associated with such definitions as "man," "woman" and "gay." To paint the past with the brush of our own cultural biases is to ignore the very purpose of archaeology, which is to learn about how past human groups lived and behaved, regardless of how it corresponds with our own behaviours now.

We study diversity, so let's embrace it.

"Exploring the connection between Stonehenge and Madagascar's modern-day megaliths"

   This post is in response to the suggestion posed by Mike Parker Pearson and his colleague, Ramilisonina, and the blogger reply to their proposition that one could look at the use of stone monuments inn Madagascar to create an understanding of Stonehenge and similar structures found in the area dating to the Neolithic period. In response, the blogger expressed his disagreement with this type of methodology, accusing Parker Pearson of making claims "that there is some sort of universality to the belief system involving 'ancestor stones'" and of creating too fanciful and interpretation of Stonehenge based on irrelevant evidence.

   I think perhaps the responding blogger is misunderstanding the purpose of such comparative work that seeks to examine belief systems of other cultures in order to better understand behaviors in the distant past. It does not seem to me that Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina or arguing for some direct connection between the two cultures' belief systems and their use of rock formations, but rather attempting to create a wider of understanding of possible uses for stone beyond the simple idea of secular construction. In order to prevent our own culturally biased assumptions about the purpose of construction monuments, Parker Pearson thought it was valuable to explore different uses of stone in different parts of the world, and he found the uses in Madagascar to be especially  intriguing. He is not suggesting that he has discovered the purpose for Stonehenge, but has looked at similar behaviors in a different cultural and temporal context and suggested that there may be a similar reasoning behind them.

   I also question the source that the blogger utilizes; although he of course is not writing an academic piece of any sort, one must take into account that his source of knowledge about the people he is discussing is a "good friend" who visited the region for missionary work. This friend has their own biases, their own motivations for their visit, and their own agenda, whether conscious or not, concerning how he interprets his observations. So it seems inappropriate to use this type of source as evidence against a scholar who has done academic work in this field, not to say that the missionary was incorrect in his observations or not capable of objective understanding of the Madagascar people. But one must consider the value of one's sources before making use of them in an argument against another's evidence.

   While I do agree that there is no direct correlation between the Madagascar practices and the construction of Stonehenge, I do believe there is some value in this cross cultural comparison in order to broaden our range of possibilities for the motives behind this behavior. There is no evidence to disprove this possible explanation, nor is there any evidence to identify it as the ultimate truth. This is just one more possible reason for the construction of the site that we can consider, and perhaps never completely be able to affirm as accurate.

Hi, I'm Amina. I'm a third year anthropology major, originally from Victoria. I have a keen interest in archaeology, especially gender archaeology and classical archaeology, and I'm looking forward to another engaging and exciting class with Erin!