Archaeologists Find 'gay Caveman' Near Prague

[Guest]

Archaeologists Find 'Gay Caveman' Near Prague

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/07/archaeologists-find-worlds-first-gay-caveman-near-prague/

[Carolyn Marie]

Hmmmm, interesting article, Laura. Thanks for posting it.

It would take more than body position and funerary objects to convince me that their interpretation is correct. I mean, its just as likely that the "funeral director" had a bad day or was drunk at the time. But I'll give them the BoD anyway. No proof that he/she wasn't gay or trans.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Elizabeth K]

This person was probably 'two spirit' as occurs in Native American history - 'he' was just better suited to live 'his' life in pursuit of female values and life experience. Usually, because these people were born with a male body and a female nature, they were considered a third gender, often assuming a sacred position in the group. It would be a form of gender dysphoria, perhaps equal to today's definition of transsexuality, taken to the only limits available for the time - to live as the preferred gender.

To call this person 'gay' and say 'he' was 'outed' by the discovery is a travesty These newspaper accounts are putting a modern spin on the situation, and projecting a prejudice against a person whom was obviously respected in 'her' day. This person was buried honorably, probably as 'she' would have wished.

The added comments? Half are sick bigotry, and I tried twice to respond. Apparently if you don't agree to accept junk email, they won't approve your remarks.

I hated this article's mockery.

Lizzy

[Guest April63]

One of the comments on the site contains the following: "This article is evidence of two things only: 1) how low academic standards have fallen, and 2) how making-things-up-as-we-go-along has become a profession unto itself".

I agree. Whoever discovered this jumped to a conclusion. We have no idea if this person was gay and transgender. The funeral rites could have been modified for any number of reasons. This article was probably written just to get attention.

[Carolyn Marie]

April, I tend to agree with you. While my earlier reply was on the flippant side, I was really making the same point.

It's an interesting conclusion, but it isn't scientific. It is at best conjecture, and I'm disappointed that archeologists touted it as truth.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Mrs Brisby]

Interesting, but that's about it.

There are an incredibly large number of explanations for why this is why it is. To speculate on specifics is foolish and unscientific.

[Guest ~Brenda~]

I would say that this person was transgendered. She was buried in the manner that reflected how she lived (as a woman). Interesting that even caveman society had more tolerance and acceptance of transgendered people than does our "modern" culture.

Brenda

[Guest April63]

I would say that this person was transgendered. She was buried in the manner that reflected how she lived (as a woman). Interesting that even caveman society had more tolerance and acceptance of transgendered people than does our "modern" culture.

Brenda

We can't assume that. We don't know very much about that culture at all. The way this person was buried could have been an insult. Or maybe the person was transgendered and a close friend or family member ensured the burial was performed for a woman. The rest of society could have treated this person as a man from birth until death.

[Guest John Chiv]

In the article, the researchers/discoverers mention that funeral rites were taken seriously in that culture and their interpretation was that this person was buried in a manner that a woman would be buried. Two-Spirit people are still a belief now when it comes to Native American culture and the true interpretation is sometimes different than when used by many non-Natives in context.

There are other cultures that also have references to people who fit more into transgender than gay. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same and this article does make that clear.

Certain periods of Western culture and Western society have done a lot in shaping attitudes towards the LGBT community and we are looking at things through the lens of how we are viewed now. Even in the Bible there are references to transsexuals and they are not derogatory.

Interpretation is relative and we all know how either science or religion can be used to justify ignorance and discrimination.

Archeologists, sociologists and anthropologists do this for a living. While they are not perfect, their opinion about this discovery is a valid theory.

Science has no bearing on this discussion other than to authenticate the approximate age of when this "caveman" was buried. We think we are more spiritually evolved now but people in ancient times may just be more tuned in than we think we are. They consider us sacred.

Burying someone with artifacts of the opposite gender is not an insult and positioning the head according to what they thought the true gender is rather telling. There is no indication of disrespect in the information given in this one article. People in those days took rituals seriously and had a faith in God that was far more humble and respectful.

John

One article is not sufficient but to me this shows that we always existed; attitudes are what changed or needs to change.

John

[Guest Wulfhere]

To those saying that the archaeologists had no business writing what they've written, that it isn't "scientific," and generally unjustified:

Of course it isn't "scientific." There is no hard science on this planet that can tell us for sure what the reasonings behind the La Tène culture's burial practices were or that Swedish Bronze Age peoples did worship a hemaphrodite god and this is why. Social and cultural anthropology can only make suggestions and conjectures based on the evidence presented, and nowhere in the article did I see researchers saying "yes! We know the truth! For sure this is a transexual of the Corded Ware culture!" No, they didn't say that. They presented their findings, and the suggested that according to those findings, it was possible that this man was a transexual or homosexual man.

What could possibly lead them to such an apparently "horrifying" conclusion? Well, I cannot speak for them as I haven't read the entire study, though I'd certainly love to read more. First of all, the reality is that they found a male skeleton buried in a position congruent with how females of that culture were buried, which as trivial as that may seem to people, is not trivial at all within the spectrum of cultural anthropology. With any passing glance at early burial rites, and even burial rites up to today (actually had a few "cemetary" assignments of my own examining soldiers' graves from WWI and WWII and contemporary burial trends back in archaeology), the positioning of the body is very important and evidence unto itself. The items surrounding the body, and how the individual died are all evidence as to who the person was. How would anthropologists and archaeologists know anything about the Sutton Hoo ship burial if they had not made connections between items like swords, drinking horns and helmets and the congruent remains, or social status of the person buried there?

As for placing modern day perceptions on the remains in question. Well, again, what we know is that a male, in a society where males were buried with weaponry of some kind and facing west, was buried with domestic jugs and facing east like female burials found up to date. No matter what you want to call it, this male appears to have been, for whatever reason, moreso associated with a female social status than a male social status.

If we look at later pre-Christian European cultures that we know more about, there are, in fact, quite a few instances of males or females being assigned opposite gender roles. Clothing, personal items and overall symbolism were very important in northern European cultures with primitive writing systems. In northern and central Europe there are instances of male shamans who crossed dressed or who changed gender entirely (think of Loki and Odin in Germanic mythology), or practiced forms of magic associated with the opposite sex (again, see Germanic mythology, Finnish mythology and Sami mythology). Or sagas like Heidreks saga where female warriors lived entirely as male. Or the suggestion of Tiu/Nerthus the ever-changing hermaphrodite deity who would eventually transform into the divine twins: Frey and Freya.

No matter what you want to call it these people existed, and where fictitious they obviously represented some aspect of the host culture or else they wouldn't be present in myths and folklore, and the same folklore wouldn't continue to be mutated according to Judeo-Christian values today. These kinds of burials could very well present greater physical evidence for the existence of XY females and XX males, homosexuals and other similar groups. I don't understand why this is so shameful to some people. Ok, don't call them trans, or gay or third gender. But they were people born one sex, associating themselves and being associated by others as the opposite sex. Call that what you'd like.

Anyways, I find the article very interesting and would be interested in reading more about their findings, since it has to do with my area of study as well as general interests. From a modern perspective, we might actually be on track to finding some kind of history for transgender people that isn't steaped in the usual bias.

Sorry if this post sounds peed off...that's probably because it is a bit peed off. I find it irritating that even in our community people meet these kind of findings with scorn, rather than interest.

[Guest April63]

The thing is that there is not enough information to say that this person was transgendered. Yes, it is interesting, but it is way to early to start coming to conclusions. We have one piece of evidence: what we believe to have been a female burial. That's it. We know that this person is presently in what looks like a female burial. Was this person buried this way? Not necessarily. The burial could have been changed.

How do we know that the people were spiritual and respected burial practices? Three quarters of Americans are Christians. Does that mean they all go to church every week? Do they say their prayers every night? We can't assume that whoever buried this person honored the burial rites. We can't assume that someone didn't go back and change them. Maybe this person was given a male burial and the family went back and changed it to a female one. Or maybe a bunch of punks changed it to a female one as an insult.

The problem with ancient history is that all of it is our interpretation of various pieces of evidence. It's our perspective. We really don't know anything about the past.

[Guest Wulfhere]

The thing is that there is not enough information to say that this person was transgendered.

No there isn't, and I haven't seen any of the archaeologists involved claiming that they are 100% certain this individual was the equivalent of a trans person. What they are saying, is that because burial sites of the Corded Ware culture found in the Czech Republic so far (and there have been many) follow fairly strict sex distinction within burial practices, there is reason to believe that a biological male buried on the left side (as a female would be, rather than a male) was buried that way for a reason. In the article presented in this thread, it was explained why they did not believe this person to be a shaman (not buried with the personal items typically associated with shaman graves). So the individual was buried in the same position as females of that culture, and was not buried with congruent items. So evidently there is something else going on that we aren't aware of. Given how strict the sex distinction was in burial rites, they are not making a gigantic leap of faith by suggesting(note, they are not claiming that this is 100% true or accurate, but merely presenting a theory) that this individual might not have lived like other biological males. That doesn't mean there aren't any reasons to be skeptical, but the evidence is certainly interesting and I don't think it should be met with jibes about how academic standards are "failing" or supposedly being lowered.

I think the biggest problem has been the media, who printed sensationalist articles the world over, instead of basing it on what the archaeologists in question actually said. The archaeologists here have done nothing wrong, and even researchers questioning the theory have said the same.

From John Hawk's blog on the media storm:

The story is based on a press conference with archaeologists in Prague, who are involved in excavating and analyzing a series of burials found at a site in the city. PressTV has put a televised report online (HT Eric Michael Johnson). The work is newsworthy, but there is no publication immediately forthcoming. The burial in question, one of many, is interesting because the archaeologists have perceived a mismatch between the sex of the skeleton (they assess as male) and the grave goods and positioning of the skeleton (they assess as female).

I have few comments, and really none at all about the archaeology in question. All they did was outreach for their ongoing work, talking about its possible scientific importance. Good for them!

My criticism is limited to the Telegraph and the (at this count) hundreds of press outlets all over the world who have breathlessly repeated the "gay caveman" story.

Source: Blog

Yes, it is interesting, but it is way to early to start coming to conclusions. We have one piece of evidence: what we believe to have been a female burial. That's it. We know that this person is presently in what looks like a female burial. Was this person buried this way? Not necessarily. The burial could have been changed.

How do we know that the people were spiritual and respected burial practices? Three quarters of Americans are Christians. Does that mean they all go to church every week? Do they say their prayers every night? We can't assume that whoever buried this person honored the burial rites. We can't assume that someone didn't go back and change them. Maybe this person was given a male burial and the family went back and changed it to a female one. Or maybe a bunch of punks changed it to a female one as an insult.

First of all, they haven't claimed that they have come to definitive conclusion, and as with any anthropological study...as with any study period, it's always up to be challenged. And it is being challenged by some researchers right now. I don't see the problem.

Second of all, if you're going to challenge this for any reason, claiming that somebody snuck in and changed the burial site is a pretty weak argument, very "unscientific" and I haven't read any evidence of this being a point of contention in any of the articles. There are a few valid reasons to be skeptical about the suggestion, no doubt, but that someone snuck in and changed the position of the body, plopped a bunch of domestic jugs in there and removed all male personal or symbolic items that might have been buried with the individual just sounds like a borderline conspiracy theory.

As far as your suggestion that "a bunch of punks changed it to a female one as an insult," you're assuming that a 4000 - 5000 year old central European culture had the same modern Judeo-Christian beliefs that we do today. Talking about jumping to conclusions, what evidence do you have to suggest that the Corded Ware culture believed females were inferior or that feminising males was an insult that would cause "a bunch of punks" to go dig up a burial site and change the entire makeup of it?

From the articles and blogs of academics that have been written on the discovery, I don't think I've read (and if someone has, feel free to link us) one disagreeing academic opinion that states that the burial site might have been tampered with for whatever reason. A paleoanthropologist from the University of Wisconsin brought up the concern of whether or not the remains were actually male, since he has only seen a photo of the remains and says he'd rather see DNA testing done to confirm that the remains are male. That sounds like a legitimate concern to me. Evidently, if the remains aren't actually male, then there is nothing out of the ordinary about this grave site. Before anything can be said for certain, making sure the remains have been properly concluded as male is really a huge concern.

Another anthropologist, Rosemary Joyce of the University of California, has suggested that a third gender grave wouldn't have followed a female burial pattern. I have some questions about that, though, since the example she's given doesn't say anything about the positioning of the body itself, but only the items the presumed third gender remains were buried with (digging sticks and baskets). Also, they were Chumash and not related to the Corded Ware culture, evidently, so can we say beyond all doubt that a similar pattern was followed on the European continent that predates these Chumash burials?

But I agree with both these researchers, it would definitely be really interesting to see a break down of the remains (indicators of "profession," death and status that might be suggested by muscle attachments, breaks, injuries and so on) as well as DNA testing.

The problem with ancient history is that all of it is our interpretation of various pieces of evidence. It's our perspective. We really don't know anything about the past.

I disagree. There is a lot we can and have learned from the past from archaeological findings alone. It's not simply a matter of modern perspective. Researchers don't typically go throwing their personal opinions about every which way.

The issue I have here is not that people are questioning this, but that they are going so far as to insult the archaeologists for suggesting a theory, ignoring the importance of burial rites and symbolism in ancient cultures for no apparent reason (since not even the archaeologists challenging this are even questioning that importance), making offhand remarks about the "science" of the theory without actually refering to what exactly is "unscientific" about the theory (given that the hard sciences would not technically be involved in determining gender patterns in burial rites beyond determining biological sex), making up odd and farfetched theories that have no basis in past or present research. It all seems like people are taking this as a personal affront that the possiblity of transgender remains were even suggested (and yes, I'll emphasise it again...it was only a suggestion, barely even a theory yet), to the point where they are irrationally disagreeing with the findings or academics that seems almost a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on the "science" of it. It's as though you're personally offended by the mere suggestion, and I can't help but wonder why.

[Guest Elizabeth K]

I think it is more the title of this article. And all here understand it is not the archeologists or anthropologists who wrote this title, but rather the press:

Archaeologists Find 'gay Caveman' Near Prague

Therein is the complaint.

And then the little quip of how 'he was outed' - like it was a joke, 'Hiding all these years, but WE CAUGHT YOU!'

Most certainly the scientific community was professional about all this - but the supermarket tabloid mentality press rewrote the entire presentation.

"Stupid Gay Caveman!"

Lizzy

[Carolyn Marie]

...(and yes, I'll emphasise it again...it was only a suggestion, barely even a theory yet), to the point where they are irrationally disagreeing with the findings or academics that seems almost a knee-jerk reaction rather than based on the "science" of it. It's as though you're personally offended by the mere suggestion, and I can't help but wonder why.

Wulfhere, I think your response and analysis is very well thought out, very cogent, and I agree with you. I do think its the media frenzy, which is certainly not limited to archeology (I see the same "jumping to conclusions" reaction to medical research articles) that causes a lot of confusion and debate.

It is unfortunate that most media outlets no longer have science journalists assigned to cover science stories. When uninformed and uneducated "journalists" are hired, with qualifications that go no further than how they look on camera, this is the inevitable result.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest ~Brenda~]

In the history of human evolution, there was a time when being transgendered was revered and considered a gift from God. Many ancient texts refer to transgendered people as gifted or had a special level of spirituality. Ancient cultures were in many way far more humanistic and accepted human variances more readily than we do today.

It wasn't until human culture demanded conformity did this view of transgendered people begin to radically change.

The burial of the "male" as a woman could not have reflected ridicule for this was the time when all humans had to find their place in life, for everyone's survival. Death was always imminent. Death was always near. Life was very short. There was not the time for the luxury of discrimination, that will come later.

Fundamentally, the burial was not trivial. Everything regarding this burial had very important meaning to those that buried this person. There would be no reason for those who buried this person to do anything but to reflect what they knew about this person. Moreover, they would not have any motivation to misrepresent this person to what they all feared most... Death.

Brenda

[Guest Wulfhere]

Wulfhere, I think your response and analysis is very well thought out, very cogent, and I agree with you. I do think its the media frenzy, which is certainly not limited to archeology (I see the same "jumping to conclusions" reaction to medical research articles) that causes a lot of confusion and debate.

It is unfortunate that most media outlets no longer have science journalists assigned to cover science stories. When uninformed and uneducated "journalists" are hired, with qualifications that go no further than how they look on camera, this is the inevitable result.

Carolyn Marie

Carolyn, you're right about the media frenzy, of course. Although I'm not sure it's ever really been otherwise. The role of the media has always been to sell, sell, sell and in order to do that they make their unfounded sensationalist headlines like this "First Gay Cavement" thing...which is probably one of the worst headlines I've seen in a long time. And now with the internet it's about sites getting as many hits as possible, of course.

I think the only way to stop this kind of sensationalism in the future is to educate the public on trans and LGB issues because, honestly, a lot of people out there think transgender = homosexual and the media reflects that. Hopefully education will mean that one day when another headline like this appears there is heavy public (not just expert) criticism of the media for doing so. That's probably a long time coming, though.

In the meantime, I think it's important to make sure that these studies aren't undermined or lost in translation just because some sensationalist journalist wasn't able to actually quote what archaeologists/doctors/researchers said properly.

In the history of human evolution, there was a time when being transgendered was revered and considered a gift from God. Many ancient texts refer to transgendered people as gifted or had a special level of spirituality. Ancient cultures were in many way far more humanistic and accepted human variances more readily than we do today.

It wasn't until human culture demanded conformity did this view of transgendered people begin to radically change.

The burial of the "male" as a woman could not have reflected ridicule for this was the time when all humans had to find their place in life, for everyone's survival. Death was always imminent. Death was always near. Life was very short. There was not the time for the luxury of discrimination, that will come later.

Fundamentally, the burial was not trivial. Everything regarding this burial had very important meaning to those that buried this person. There would be no reason for those who buried this person to do anything but to reflect what they knew about this person. Moreover, they would not have any motivation to misrepresent this person to what they all feared most... Death.

Brenda

I just wanted to add that, on the other hand, we need to be careful not to romanticise the past beyond what we know. There's certainly evidence to suggest that many pre-Christian culture in Europe and elsewhere were accepting of transgender individuals and homosexuality. But we need to make sure not to overstep our bounds. We know that in some cultures in northern Europe and North America there is evidence of transgender individuals being connected with spirituality and magic, perhaps because they were seen as being inbetween genders and in between worlds. That much can be seen in early Scandinavian spirituality, for example. But we really don't know how transgender people were viewed in every single ancient culture around the world. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome went through various eras that saw different attitudes to women, homosexuality and transgender people. To say we were "gifts from the gods" or something like that, I think, is presuming more than we actually know. But like I said above, it does seem like there was more acceptance among some ancient cultures, that much we can't deny and should not deny, and we should be taking discoveries like this seriously, imo.

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora,

Ooooowoooo I like the what if games

Now what if this person's burial was one of 'disgrace' due to unmanly behaviour on the battle field? Example a feud between tribes or within the tribe...You never know...

Oh the possibilities..... It might be over and done with now, not it would seem dead and 'buried'

Metta Zenda