Slog
News & ArtsMonday, April 11, 2011
Homo GAY CAVEMAN!
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:06 AM
That gay caveman story that we pretty much ignored on Slog last week, much to the consternation of Slog tippers and my officemate Bethany Clement? Definitely not a caveman, may not have been a man, and there's really no way of knowing if those are gay bones.
1
I'm sure there were gay cavemen; not so sure that we can tell by this not-even-caveman skeleton.
Dan, you're up early!
Dan, you're up early!
2
Oh, so you guys were actually being really cagey, waiting for further scientific evidence, not just kicking your base (5280) on purpose? Sheesh. May I just say that scientists are a pain in the ass (I know this because I spent Sunday getting a virus off my computer that I got when searching questionable sites when Mr. Canuck would not accept anecdotal evidence for winning an argument, but I digress...) Okay, so not a caveman, Bronze-Age, but still, as we say in the non-science community, "Really Fucking Old." And maybe not gay, but maybe intersex, maybe gender-non-typical? That's still totally cool!
8
@4, I'm quite sure I couldn't tell you the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity either. I'm also quite sure I really don't give a shit.
9
I was just amazed by how many people sent Slog tips about it, and that then for some reason it never got posted. (I was too busy, suspicious of the science/gender assumptions, and also figured maybe someone gay and/or a caveman might have more trenchant commentary.) But lookâthe late bird gets the factual worm! The triumph of inaction once again.
10
@9, it's been my crisis-management technique for decades. The reinforcement has been almost entirely of a positive nature.
11
Dan,
Here's the article via Arts & Letters Daily:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi…
Not so sure how they deduced they were "gay cavemen" but interesting nonetheless.
Here's the article via Arts & Letters Daily:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi…
Not so sure how they deduced they were "gay cavemen" but interesting nonetheless.
12
I'm glad the Slog didn't get caught up in the idiocy of it all. I found the coverage deeply offensive and the conclusions the archaeologists had drawn painfully stupid. It turns out 10% of the graves found for that culture are cross-sex buried (meaning, the skeleton is the opposite sex of what you'd expect with those grave goods). So why didn't the other ones ever get attention? Because they were females.
Yep. Bury a woman with a bunch of weapons and you have a proud lady warrior. Bury a man with a pot and he must be gay or transsexual. Truly stunning science.
Yep. Bury a woman with a bunch of weapons and you have a proud lady warrior. Bury a man with a pot and he must be gay or transsexual. Truly stunning science.
13
@12, that right there, what you said, is the reason i was sure they would post it, rather than the reason not to.
how many times have they linked to something ridiculous and said, "hey look at these jackasses over here and what they said!"?
how many times have they linked to something ridiculous and said, "hey look at these jackasses over here and what they said!"?
14
@13 True, but it was definitely better to wait a bit and let some more facts come out and experts get a chance to explain before jumping on it.
15
Got this through Facebook in the form of this article (Bettina Arnold is a friend of mine here at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee). The claim that this person (not a caveman, as Dan said) was 'gay' is a matter of cultural projection: 'gay' is an identity category that is specific to a particular culture and historical period (Western cultures beginning around industrialization). The gender (from the burial certainly feminized 'third gender' or feminine) really has nothing to do with whether this guy fucked other guys, women, goats, or anything else. Also, this isn't particularly revolutionary: there are countless examples of persons who are not gendered male/masculine nor female/feminine across most cultures and spanning the historical record. The only reason this is getting any attention at all is that it's an older grave than any of the other non-binary-gendered-person graves, and also probably the poorly chosen wording of the statement by the lead archaeologist indicating that this person might have been 'gay'.
What's most offensive about this is the unacceptable frequency of copy errors in the The Telegraph piece.
@12: I think the hoopla around this has mostly to do with the poor word choice that projects contemporary Western cultural norms onto an ancient society. Vesinova really really really should have known better. Also, this is an older grave than the other sites, and older is always worth some prestige in archaeology/physical anthropology. The media circus is wholly unwarranted.
What's most offensive about this is the unacceptable frequency of copy errors in the The Telegraph piece.
@12: I think the hoopla around this has mostly to do with the poor word choice that projects contemporary Western cultural norms onto an ancient society. Vesinova really really really should have known better. Also, this is an older grave than the other sites, and older is always worth some prestige in archaeology/physical anthropology. The media circus is wholly unwarranted.
16
@6 I love it. "The takeaway from all this? Don't talk to british tabloids," in quoting one of the original scientists who was misrepresented in all this.
17
@15 The media and the decision to change "third gender" to "gay or transsexual" by reporters was definitely not the fault of the team working on this. It sounds like they hadn't expected this sort of huge response and so, clearly, a lot of stuff was taken out of context or treated as concrete before it was properly researched.
This grave should not be considered as third gendered at this time, because there's far more to identifying a third gendered individual than finding a body buried with pots. Rosemary Joyce wrote a very nice piece on this story: http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/…
Third gender graves aren't simply cross-sexed and it's only our cultural biases that makes us assume they are. Again, biologically female skeletons found in "masculine" graves are not automatically categorized as third genders. It's only because of our culture's ideas about gender that the assumption is made a biologically male skeleton (and that pelvis looks awfully female to a lot of eyes) in a "feminine" grave would be a third gender.
This grave should not be considered as third gendered at this time, because there's far more to identifying a third gendered individual than finding a body buried with pots. Rosemary Joyce wrote a very nice piece on this story: http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/…
Third gender graves aren't simply cross-sexed and it's only our cultural biases that makes us assume they are. Again, biologically female skeletons found in "masculine" graves are not automatically categorized as third genders. It's only because of our culture's ideas about gender that the assumption is made a biologically male skeleton (and that pelvis looks awfully female to a lot of eyes) in a "feminine" grave would be a third gender.
18
how do we know the skeleton ID'ed that way? Could be that whomever buried him/her, was bulling them right into their grave?
back then it might not have gotten better after all.
hope not, though.
back then it might not have gotten better after all.
hope not, though.
19
Native Americans used to have a 'third sex'. In fact I think Eskimos/Innuit had several. So if this story turned out to be as it was reported, I don't think this would re-write the field, so much as confirm what's already believed.
20
@ 16, yes, that was my favorite quote too. From what little I read of the statements from the archeologists, they weren't being as inaccurate as the news reports managed to be - they were in fact distinguishing between "identifies as female" and "has sex with their own gender" - a confusion that also drives me crazy when applied to our own contemporaries.
@ Zulabelle - interesting point. I hadn't heard about the other cross-sexed burials, thanks for adding that info! (I agree the double standard is infuriating, although not surprising.)
@ Zulabelle - interesting point. I hadn't heard about the other cross-sexed burials, thanks for adding that info! (I agree the double standard is infuriating, although not surprising.)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS