While there has long been an archaeological interest in diverse gender identities and sexualities, queer theory was first introduced into archaeological discourse only in 2000 with the publication of ‘Queer Archaeologies’, a special edition of World Archaeology. Growing out of the exciting work being done by queer archaeologists and the increasing interest in queer theory and the archaeologies of sexuality, the National Parks Service (United States), led by Megan E. Springate, digitally published LGBTQ America: a theme study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer history in 2016 as part of the LGBTQ Heritage Initiative. The goal of the LGBTQ Heritage Initiative and LGBTQ America was to explore the nuances of LGBTQ+ heritage and history in the USA. Two recently published volumes, Identities and place and Preservation and place, edited by Katherine Crawford-Lackey and Megan E. Springate, are collections of a selection of the chapters originally published as part of LGBTQ America. Identities and place and Preservation and place collectively cover many issues affecting LGBTQ+ identity, history and cultural heritage.

Early in their book A story of us, the evolutionary psychologists Leslie Newson and Peter Richerson remark of very early hominins that “we can't know what it is like to experience life with a brain so very different from our own” (p. 34). These words neatly encapsulate an unfortunate reality that confronts anyone who tries to understand or reconstruct the evolution of human cognition: we humans are so completely imprisoned within our own cognitive style as to be incapable of fully imagining what was going on in the minds of extinct hominins who were behaviourally highly sophisticated, but who nonetheless did not think like us—which basically includes all of them. The reason for this difficulty is that we modern Homo sapiens are entirely unique in the living world in the way in which we manipulate information about our exterior and internal worlds. We do this symbolically, which is to say that we deconstruct those worlds into vocabularies of mental symbols that we can then combine and recombine in our minds, according to rules, to make statements not only about the world as it is, but as it might be. And evidence in the archaeological record for the routinely symbolic behaviours that are our best proxies for the apprehension of the world in this fashion is at best very sparse indeed prior—and even for some time subsequent—to the initial appearance of Homo sapiens.