The common denominator of all these figures appears to have been a concept of flawed manliness. But effeminacy was not necessarily the key factor, as some of these figures seem to have been rather masculine indeed. For example, two of the goddess Ištar’s male most prominent cult attendants were the assinnu (written phonetically or in logograms (lú) ur-munus, literally “man-woman”) and the warrior-like kurgarrû. Presumably, each was the mirror opposite of the other and represented one of Ištar’s attributes, erotic love and sexuality, and aggressiveness and war. In contrast, girseqû and tīru were childless males who worked in palace administration. But third gender individuals were not necessarily of low social status. For example, from the third millennium through the first, the gala/ kalû was a performer of lamentation songs in the Emesal dialect of Sumerian.

It was sufficient that these persons deviated enough from the customary model of ancient Near Eastern masculinity, in order to be considered as part of this third gender class. The standard model of masculinity in the ancient Near East was exemplified the idealized sexually active party in heterosexual relations; having the ability and intention to sire descendants.

These third gender men were by and large anonymous, known by title and not as private persons. The book does not, therefore, investigate the psychological characteristics of individuals, but rather the sociological phenomenon of title-holders within Mesopotamian society. Arguably, this third gender was a social construct, meant for delineating the social norms typical of the ruling men.

To my understanding, hegemonic masculine men in society used the concepts of “different,” “other”, and “strange” in order to demonstrate and highlight their own characteristics of conformity. These concepts of otherness are essential for demarcating social borders, which, in turn, define patterns of normative conduct.

Podcast: Listen to Crime and Sexual Offense in Hatti with Dr. Ilan Peled

Identity is defined by its limitations: where it begins and ends, and what exists beyond it. The strange, the extreme and the bizarre signify what common, hegemonic, people are not, and therefore mark who common, hegemonic, people actually are. These boundaries are constructed by using social mechanisms of norms and prohibitions. In this sense, the third gender figures served social needs of defining norms of conformity. Not only did they form an integral stratum within the structure of their society, in many respects their stratum was highly critical and contributed a great deal to social stability.

The very instability involved with these figures was the chief reason for their existence, and their most important contribution to maintaining order within the society in which they lived. We have to remember, of course, that these forced order and conformity were meant to serve first and foremost the androcentric interests of specific parts of society, the hegemonic masculine ones.

As such, the third gender class – and its formal articulation in Mesopotamian literature and religion – should be viewed as a social mechanism for the enforcement of control and the perpetuation of gender division and male superiority. This is an important lesson for any person living in the 21^st century who ponders about social structure and conformity. One wonders how different ancient Mesopotamia actually was in this respect from present-day societies. The similarities, it seems, are at times quite striking.

Ilan Peled is a Guest Lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.