Not who, but how

Ancient societies did not share a single idea of “homosexuality” in the modern sense. Among Greeks, Romans, Etruscans and Egyptians, the main questions were roles, power relations, age, freedom or unfreedom (i.e. slave-status), and social status. What mattered was less whom a person desired than what position they occupied within the social order.

In the Greek world, relationships between men could be accepted in certain forms, especially between an adult citizen and a younger man. These relationships were linked to age, education, status and self-control. A free adult man was not supposed to appear subordinate, dependent or “female”. The passive or feminised role became especially problematic when it was attributed to a free adult man.

In Rome, this order was even more strongly shaped by status. A Roman man could have sexual contact with women or men without losing his social standing, as long as he appeared active, dominant and free. The passive partner, by contrast, was associated with femininity, dependence or slavery. This was considered particularly shameful for free adult men. Slaves, prostitutes and people of lower social status were judged differently, because their bodies were already regarded as available.

We know far less about Etruscan sexuality, because very few written sources from the Etruscans themselves have survived. Greek and Roman authors often described the Etruscans as especially permissive, particularly in relation to women, banquets, physicality and eroticism. Such accounts, however, were written from the outside looking in and were often polemical. What can be stated with more certainty is that Etruscan visual culture made bodies, couples and social spaces visible, without allowing simple conclusions about rules for same-sex relationships.

For ancient Egypt, the source situation is different again. Depictions of closeness between men, such as those of Nianchchnum and Chnumhotep, have been interpreted in very different ways by scholars: as brothers, twins, close companions or a possible couple. Egyptian sources also contain stories of same-sex acts among gods, for example between Seth and Horus. These texts, however, do not speak of identity, but of power, humiliation, rank and divine order.

Same-sex relationships in antiquity were therefore not necessarily taboo, as long as they did not threaten established patriarchal social standards. The “giving”, physically active partner was considered less problematic, provided that he did not call his masculine, free and socially superior role into question. The “receiving”, physically passive partner, by contrast, was feminised and therefore exposed to much greater social disapproval, especially if he was a free adult man.

Other ancient and premodern societies also knew gendered roles beyond a simple binary division. In Mesopotamian texts connected with the goddess Inanna or Ishtar, cultic figures such as gala, assinnu or kurgarru appear. They could be associated with gender ambiguity, ritual, lamentation, disguise and divine power. Their position was framed by religion and socially distinctive, but not automatically equal or free from devaluation.

In South Asia, too, Hijras or Khawaja Sira have long been known as communities often described as a “third gender”. They perform ritual roles, for example at births, weddings and blessings, while at the same time often standing at the margins of the social order.
 

Eroctic scnee between male youths. Coloured print plate after an Attic red-figure bell krater by the Dinos Painter, around 420 BC, found in Capua. From the collection of William Hamilton, now in the British Museum.
From: Collection of Etruscan, Greek and Roman Antiquities from the Cabinet of William Hamilton, Bd. 2, Naples, 1767.
Scan: Internet Archive / Boston Public Librar