According to the Telegraph, in
this article, archeologist may have found the very first evidence of a cross-gendered individual.
Apparently, there were very specific ways to lay the different genders, male and female, to rest in this ancient culture.
Males were laid out with their heads facing one way, females the other. Both sexes had different grave goods interred with them.
Except this guy breaks that mold. Though male, he is facing the female direction, and has the female associated grave goods buried with him.
So, obviously, this man was homosexual. (At least, it appears to be obvious to the archeologists working the dig.)
So, here's one of my big issues with formal archeology rearing it's ugly head again. (Hm, perhaps considering this story that metaphor is in bad taste?)
Why do so many archeologists proclaim that the evidence says specifically "this" or "that", when even a layman can tell the evidence says no such thing?
All that can actually be told from this unique burial is that it is unique. We have no idea for sure what motivated his survivors to entomb him in this unusual manner.
Perhaps they were unaware of his sex, indeed, and he had led a hidden life as a woman.
Even if true, that says nothing of his sexual orientation.
Perhaps he wanted to enter the afterlife as a woman, having been a man in this one.
Maybe he was being shamed for some reason, possibly for how he treated women in his lifetime.
All we have left behind is a unique burial that does not fit the routine patterns found in this culture.
Assuming anything not directly revealed by the dig is resorting to the old adage about assuming: "When one assumes, they make an
ass of
yo
u and
me."
Stating categorically what ancient peoples felt, thought or believed is unwise, at best.
Unless we have a written record to tell us how the people thought, and what their motivations are, we are simply guessing. Often those guesses are biased by our own cultural prejudices, which can be very deceptive.
For instance, when ancients are said to have worshiped their leader as a god (Pharaoh, Caesar), was this an actual worship, or just lip service payed to the national religion, because it was expected?
Contemporary accounts are problematic in answering these questions, as folks then as today were likely to say what was expected of them.
Ancient peoples surely had all of the desires, wants, and needs of modern peoples. However, assuming that they looked at the world the same way we do is dangerous, because it might place modern motives into actions taken for entirely different reasons.
Saying this recent "caveman" was gay makes as much sense as saying that Alexander the Great was gay. Yes, he may have indeed have had a male lover, Hephaestion. However, equating that to being gay in the modern sense of the term may well be a mistake, as in their culture, there was no stigma against male to male sexual intercourse, especially between an older mentor and a younger protégé, which applies to these two men. Both had female wives, for instance.
All we can tell for sure from the historical record is that the two men loved one another deeply. That could have been as much what we would consider a platonic love, as an erotic attraction to the other's body.
I do feel strongly that stories of such strong male bonding occurring throughout history probably does indeed show a history of what we would modernly term homosexual relationships, but the truth may simply be that their relationships may have indeed been much more complex than that.
I apologize if this seems a bit long-winded, but reading the above mentioned article really got my goat, for many reasons, but I suppose the simplest one is this: what does it matter whether or not this man was gay?
or perhaps a better question to ask, is "Why do we care?"
Namaste.
