So the blog prompt for this week is to look up the "gay caveman" and respond to what we find. Well the first thing I found was an article discussing the media reaction to the gay caveman, specifically those focused on the gay part. The points I found most interesting were the value of the "caveman's" sexual identity to those attempting to establish an understanding of human sexuality over our entire existence, thereby blowing the anti-gay movement out of the water. Now, my title for this blog post is a little facetious in that, as an anthropologist I am naturally inclined to make it my business to know as much about any archaeological find as possible. But realistically, can we transpose our understanding of masculinity and femininity or sexual orientation on prehistoric people? It would be excellent for the gay rights movement if we could find evidence that non-standard sexuality was a biological norm, but maybe we're putting a little too much pressure on this one poor "caveman". The title 'gay caveman' is also an issue as the 'caveman' part is not just questionable like the 'gay' part but flat out wrong. He is most likely a pre-Bronze Age Corded Ware farmer; thanks again, mainstream media, for completely effing up the potential layman's view of the guy. Its frustrating when things like this title mixup happen, but at the same time they can be helpful in some ways, as "gay caveman" is a more catchy title than "ambiguous-gendered-Corded-Ware-dude" so more people are likely to read about it and become interested in archaeology.
Finally, as an anthropologist I am compelled to make my own suggestions regarding this burial, farfetched and unfounded as they may be. Have we considered his potential role as a co-head of household, assuming the feminine role when no female was present? What about obesity, representing the abundance, fertility, and nourishment usually provided by a females? Or perhaps an abnormal manner of death, requiring an opposite manner of burial. Maybe he was a sacrifice in an attempt to save a female member of the group and burial as a female signified this or was a means of confusing the spirits into thinking they had the female they wanted.


This blog post. Love it.
ReplyDeleteI think you make some interesting points. I always considered the idea of the individual taking on both roles of a household as well.
And that photo at the end, probably actually laughed for a good couple minutes.