The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies

by James Neill

This groundbreaking work draws on a vast range of research into human sexuality to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a phenomenon limited to a small minority of society, but is an aspect of a complex sexual harmony that the human race inherited from its animal ancestors. Through a survey of the patterns of sexual expression found among animals and among societies around the world, and an examination of the functional role homosexual behavior has played among animal species and human societies alike, the author arrives at some provocative conclusions: that a homosexual or bisexual phase is a normal part of sexual development, that same-sex relations play an important balancing role in regulating human reproduction, that many societies have institutionalized homosexual traditions in the past, and that the harsh condemnation of homosexuality in Western society is a relatively recent phenomenon, unique among world societies throughout history. This well researched and meticulously documented book is the first that integrates into a coherent picture the startling revelations about human sexuality coming from the recent work of sexual researchers, psychologists, anthropologists and historians. The view that emerges, of an ambisexual human species whose complex sexual harmony is being thwarted by the imposition of an artificial understanding of nature, represents a new way of thinking about sex.

Genres: Nonfiction, Queer, History, LGBT, Gay

478 pages, Hardcover

First published July 30, 2008

Reviews

[Iset]

This is slightly odd I know but this is not actually so much a review, as a correction of a major error that author James Neill made in this book. I'm an academic with two degrees worth of study on the ancient Near East, and it came to my attention that this book is the source used by Wikipedia's article on the History of Homosexuality and other websites which are stating that Hammurabi was homosexual. I am sorry if anyone out there is disappointed, but I did some digging and it turns out this isn't true.

Neill claims that Zimri-Lim’s wife mentions in a letter that both Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi had male lovers, and then sticks a reference in there which leads to “Ibid. page 126” the reference above being “Greenberg, pages 124 – 126”. In the bibliography I chased this down to David F. Greenberg, a book entitled The Construction of Homosexuality, published 1988. When I eventually found that book and turned to pages 124 to 126, he states almost the same line again, mentioning letters authored by Zimri-Lim’s wife, and sticks in a reference “Moran, 1969”. Bibliography tells me this is W. L. Moran, 1969, “New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy” in the journal Biblica, volume 50, pages 15 – 56. After much searching for this very old journal entry, I found a copy in one of the online academic archive resources I sometimes use, gated past either payment or making an account. What Moran presents is a translation of and commentary upon several ancient texts between King Zimri-Lim of Mari and his wife, discussing the takings of omens by divination. Many of the letters are simply concerning signs from the gods on whether this or that political or military move is a good idea. I suspect that Greenberg got his notion of the ‘male lovers’ of Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi from page 29 – 31 of Moran’s article, in which he translates letter ARM X 7:

“Speak to my lord: Thus Shibtu [Zimri-Lim’s wife] your maid-servant. The palace is safe and sound. In the temple of Annunitum, on the third day of the month, Shelebum went into a trance. Thus spoke Annunitum: ‘O Zimri-Lim, with a revolt they would put you to the test. Guard yourself. Put at your side servants, your controllers whom you love. Station them so they can guard you. Do not go about by yourself. And as for the men who would put you to the test, I shall deliver these men into your hand.’ I have now hereby dispatched to my lord the hair and fringe of the cultist.”

In his commentary on this letter, Moran writes: “The men Zimri-Lim “loves” are the objects not only of his affection but of the favors and benefactions which “love” implies; cf. the Esangila which Hammurabi “loves” (CH xxivb 93-94). Hence their loyalty could be counted on.”

It is fairly clear that ‘love’ in this case means Zimri-Lim’s most trusted court officials, not a romantic or sexual love. Moran himself certainly never implies that this is anything but a friendly relationship, and his commentary has been misinterpreted by Greenberg who thought that Moran was confirming in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way that Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi both enjoyed homosexual love. But I can prove that Greenberg was mistaken, because he clearly didn’t check Moran’s references. Moran tells the reader to compare [cf.] Zimri-Lim’s ‘love’ for his most trusted advisors to the ‘love’ Hammurabi bears for ‘Esangila’ and then gives us a string of letters and numbers in parentheses. That string of letters and numbers is a reference to the famous law Code of Hammurabi, which, if you go and look it up for yourself, contains several instances in which Hammurabi proclaims his love and dedication to the Esagila, which was a sacred temple to the god Marduk. Moran is saying that the untranslated word used in Queen Shibtu’s letter to Zimri-Lim about the advisors he ‘loves’ is the same as Hammurabi’s ‘love’ for the temple of Marduk.

In conclusion, 30 years ago a careless misinterpretation by David Greenberg subsequently spawned and perpetuated a myth that simply isn’t true. I am sorry to anyone reading this who may be upset that it turns out that Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim didn’t have male lovers. But rejecting the evidence in front of us to construct a more comforting narrative is a disservice to the education we’re all entitled to and our ability to critically analyse events of the past, identify the successes and failures, admirable and abominable moments, and decide where we go from here. Peace.

[Alex Noya]

This book is one of the best studies you can find in the field of LGBTQ literature. It is absolutely breathtaking. I have read many books, but I've never met such a well-documented, argumented, clear, important and challenging study. A mandatory book for any LGBTQ scholar.
Based on the conclusions of numerous interdisciplinary studies, the author points out that the human species is, contrary to popular belief, ambisexual and follows the evidence for such a statement not only in the animal world but also on a path that crosses millenia of human history. The author asserts, with convincing evidence, that the ambisexual nature of the human species has a very important role, from supporting the heterosexual reproduction to catalyzing the cultural, economical and artistical development of human societies. Some sexual patterns (such as those between peers or hierarchical homosexual relationships) are observed in almost all human societies. And where there isn't a very powerful authoritarian religious influence (e.g. the Christian Church) they tend to be a very important feature of sexual behavior (if not prevalent). More to the point, the inhibition of this powerful ambisexual drive can have terrible consequences at both societal and personal level (e.g. anxious masculinity, religious paranoia, anti-homosexual violence). The author hints that our society needs a reconfiguration of the current sexual paradigm in order to correctly reflect the ambisexual nature of our species which is currently based on the heterosexual myth (heterosexuality is the only natural option and most people are heterosexual).
I think that this book is so important because, for the first time, I feel wholeheartedly that the full dignity of human sexuality (and particularly homosexuality) is finally (and convincingly) restored and brought into the daylight after so many centuries or brutal terror. The evolutionary reasons for homosexuality are clearly explained and illustrated with great eloquence. The bestial hate of the Church towards homosexuals and the visceral reactions of vast segments of society can finally be understood. In my opinion, this study could also provide a blueprint for a future sexual paradigm which is more healthy, inclusive and scientifically accurate. I would recommend reading this book together with "The Missing Myth" by Gilles Herrada, another amazing LGBTQ author.

[JRGlasoe]

Finally.

Personally a whole lot of masculinity was finally explained in concrete and discrete terms. I suddenly relaxed. My partner is 7 years ahead of me, we have 5 kids between us, and four grandsons. We are not the new normal. We are the norm. We've always been the normal. I recommend this for all parents.

[Christopher]

This is simultaneously a great compilation of facts and anecdotes, especially on the anthropological side, and a mediocre interpretation of history in some sections that can infer a bit too much from the most circumstantial cases. Very much a product of its time (late 2000s culture war) its opening and closing chapters are very much of their era but the core of the text remains useful in perpetuity.

One should be thankful it was written then and not now, however, as the shrinking violets of today would probably have diluted its examples and self-flaggellated over anything considered 'PrObLeMaTiC' to Current Year.

[James Neill]

This is the author's response to Iset's comments on a reference in Chapter 4 to Hammurabi having male lovers, which she says is used by some websites to say that Hammurabi was "homosexual". The assertion that Hammurabi had male lovers, as Iset notes, was based a statement in David Greenberg's book, The Construction of Homosexuality. Iset then shows that the source Greenberg used does not in fact state that the king had male lovers. I have no problem with accepting Iset's scholarship rebutting the meaning Greenberg draws from his evidence, and in fact I appreciate her research and the clarity she brought to the question.

I also appreciate Iset’s concern other websites using my book to say that Hammurabi was a homosexual. I’m concerned because whether or not there is any evidence from the period indicating the king in sexual relations with other males, my book does not state that Hammurabi was a homosexual. As many readers familiar with LBGT studies know, the terms “gay”, and “homosexual” are modern concepts. The term homosexual was coined by a German-Hungarian journalist, Károly Mária Kertbeny, in the late 19th century as a replacement for the negative terms, “sodomist” and “pederast”. Those terms had historically been used for any male who had sex with another male, not males with an exclusive preference for partners of the same sex, which is how the term gay is used today. The distinction is critical. Just because someone has sex with a member of the same sex does not make them gay or a homosexual in the way those terms are used today. In fact, my book makes the argument that the distinction drawn between gay and straight in modern society is artificial.

Regardless of the absence of specific evidence pointing to Hammurabi having relations with a male lover, I believe it can be safely assumed that Hammurabi would have been no stranger to sex with another male. Because of the evidence of the widespread acceptance of same-sex relations in Ancient Mesopotamia and the distinct lack of prohibitions against it, discussed in Chapter 4 of the book, and the substantial evidence of the strong same-sex potential in humans, discussed in Chapter 3, it would have been unusual if Hammurabi did not have sexual relations with other males at some point in his life, given the ability he had as king to have sexual relations of any sort with any type of partner he may desire. In fact it was widely appreciated in the ancient world that youths or attractive young men captured in battle or through conquest could be sold into sexual slavery which in many cases would have landed them in the harems of Eastern potentates like Hammurabi.

To sum up, I am grateful for Iset’s research and the closure she brought to the question. However, given the preponderance of evidence from the period, as well as research over the last 70 years pointing to the ambisexual nature of human sexuality, whether or not any direct evidence exists of Hammurabi in a sexual relationship with another male is, in the final analysis, immaterial to the broader picture.

[Sumio Mondo]

subversive trash.
very deceitful in its overuse of citing the well known liar david f greenberg.
overall nothing more than a post-modern propoganda piece.