http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full
The science is thorough and detailed......its groundbreaking really
Looks like another win for original source material over academic dismissal ...
"No pathological or traumatic injuries were observed."
Would that not be unusual for a skeleton of an active warrior over the age of 30?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 08, 2017, 06:37:08 PM
Looks like another win for original source material over academic dismissal ...
Yes and no. I think there is probably a lack of solid historical record of female Vikings. Lots of pre-Viking ones, some evidence that women could defend hearth and home in sagas so some scepticism is not surprising (coupled with a healthy dose of sexism). But here we have a high status individual with a full warrior burial set. What part did this woman play in society? How common were women like her? Its not the only burial with weapons with an ambiguous or female determination from skeletal remains. Interesting stuff.
It appears there is a bit more to this than we knew. This lady seems well qualified to comment being a professor of Viking stuff. Do read the comments too.
https://norseandviking.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html
Very interesting. Here is the Guardian's take (https://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2017/sep/12/does-new-dna-evidence-prove-that-there-were-female-viking-warlords), with another set of academics providing an opinion.
The danger I think Judith Jesch blog addresses quite well is that we make the leap from female buried in high-status weapon grave to hordes of shieldmaidens in the style of popular TV shows. Was the occupant of the grave "socially male"? Or is that another construct? I'm not convinced by ideas that if you have a gaming set you are good at strategy. I'm also dubious of the "she can't have been a real warrior because she doesn't have any wounds" idea. We'd need a better analysis of what proportion of warrior graves have an occupant showing osteological evidence of wounds to even suggest that.
From memory it's quite common for the bones in warrior graves to show trauma though I don't know if anyone has done any analysis, anywhere, to show how typical it is.
That apart it seems we don't know where these bones were in relation to the weapons in the grave which I think might be quite important.
Being, or becoming socially male is an interesting concept but what are the mechanisms to enable this?
Alternatively maybe aristocratic women who showed interest and aptitude were allowed to fight?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 13, 2017, 06:39:55 PM
I'm also dubious of the "she can't have been a real warrior because she doesn't have any wounds" idea. We'd need a better analysis of what proportion of warrior graves have an occupant showing osteological evidence of wounds to even suggest that.
"She can't have been a real warrior because she doesn't show osteological traces of a highly active livestyle" seems a much better argument, if it's indeed true the bones do not indicate a high activity lifestyle.
I'm not really surprised by the comment to the effect we unquestioningly interpret male graves with weapons as those of warriors, but I don't think it's entirely fair. It's been argued, frex, that in early Anglo-Saxon England, being buried with weapons was a mark of being a free man, and while they might all have been warriors in terms of social status, it's hardly plausible all had actually fought (think of, if not exactly the children, then the teenagers).
Which, I guess, is a long-winded way of saying it'd be nice if people were a little more precise about what they mean by "warrior".
The supplementary information mentions two Norwegian weapon burials where the deceased have been osteologically identified as female. In these cases there seems to be no question but that the skeletons and the grave goods belong together, tho I guess it's conceivable teenage boys have been misidentified as women (cf our Kazakh "Golden Boy"). Interestingly, the archaeologist of one of them concluded the sword was two large to actually have been wielded by the (petite) occupant in life: our authors are skeptical but as I general thing don't think grave goods being impractical is much grounds for surprise. The important thing was surely that she was buried with a sword, with whatever social signaling or afterlife utility may have been intended, not whether she could have wielded it effectively if she hadn't been in need of burial.
Quote from: Anton on September 13, 2017, 05:59:44 PM
It appears there is a bit more to this than we knew. This lady seems well qualified to comment being a professor of Viking stuff. Do read the comments too.
https://norseandviking.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html
interesting indeed....thanks for the link
This story continues to reverberate :
https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/viking-warrior-women-an-archaeodeath-response-part-1/
http://norseandviking.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/some-further-discussion-of-article-on.html
These are more about how the story has resonated, how it has been reported and the academic responses. There is some good stuff in Judith Jesch's piece on how academic debate works in an era of open-access publishing and the limits of peer review which have wider implications than just this article.
agreed....one man's meat etc.....
I am Curious as to how a mother of famous warriors would have been honoured in death.
Quote from: Mark G on September 27, 2017, 04:02:43 PM
I am Curious as to how a mother of famous warriors would have been honoured in death.
To be a mother of multiple famous warriors she'd have to be a fair age for her era.
assuming you're recognised as a famous warrior in your thirties, your oldest brother is probably about 40, your mother is probably a minimum of 55.
How old was the dead woman in this case?
Not sure that holds true, Jim.
Think of the famous sportsmen in their early 20s.
A young mother could easily be in her 40s, and even late 30s if her first born did something spectacular on his first time out.
Quote from: Mark G on September 28, 2017, 08:18:56 AM
Not sure that holds true, Jim.
Think of the famous sportsmen in their early 20s.
A young mother could easily be in her 40s, and even late 30s if her first born did something spectacular on his first time out.
The thing about warriors is that within their society we're still in a place where age and experience are valued. Yes, in his twenties he might be a bonny fighter, but I'd say that it would be into his thirties before he got major command on his own
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 28, 2017, 07:19:41 AM
How old was the dead woman in this case?
That appears to be poorly constrained: the article summarizes the osteological age estimations as "In all, this suggests that the individual was at least above 30 years of age."
I've been listening to this guy on Viking beliefs and such while painting. I enjoyed it and learned quite a bit. There are 3 lectures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZBqmGLHQ8
on a related but slightly tangential topic, I was at a lecture tonight about university places for my son and the topic of Viking studies as a degree came up...... a lot of dads got very animated at that point!
It must be the thought of the field work Dave.
http://mashable.com/2017/09/12/female-viking-warrior-military-leader-doubts-debunk/#_tSSPw.kXmqh raises the possibility that the tested bones may not belong to the owner of the grave goods.
Quote from: Swampster on September 29, 2017, 07:40:21 PM
the possibility that the tested bones may not belong to the owner of the grave goods.
Its possible, though previous studies seem to have had some confidence that these were the right bones. Could only really tell if we look in detail at the "chain of custody" I suppose. For example, were the bones labelled on the bone, not just on the bag and, if so, when? Are they in their original container and is it still related to its original finds record. And so on.
However, even if this example showed the possibility of a mix up, there are other "anomalies" in the Viking burial record of "indeterminate" skeletons with weapons that the authors might go on to study. Can they all be finds labelling errors?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 30, 2017, 01:43:12 PM
Its possible, though previous studies seem to have had some confidence that these were the right bones. Could only really tell if we look in detail at the "chain of custody" I suppose. For example, were the bones labelled on the bone, not just on the bag and, if so, when? Are they in their original container and is it still related to its original finds record. And so on.
However, even if this example showed the possibility of a mix up, there are other "anomalies" in the Viking burial record of "indeterminate" skeletons with weapons that the authors might go on to study. Can they all be finds labelling errors?
As it happens, the (freely available) Supplementary Material on the original article address both of these. The bones are stained to mark them as coming from this grave, and there is supporting circumstantial evidence, but given the sloppiness (by modern standards) of the original excavation, one cannot be absolutely sure that it's the right bones. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are at least two Norwegian weapon burials where there seems to be no question about which bones belong to which grave and the occupant has been osteologically identified as female.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 30, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 30, 2017, 01:43:12 PM
Its possible, though previous studies seem to have had some confidence that these were the right bones. Could only really tell if we look in detail at the "chain of custody" I suppose. For example, were the bones labelled on the bone, not just on the bag and, if so, when? Are they in their original container and is it still related to its original finds record. And so on.
However, even if this example showed the possibility of a mix up, there are other "anomalies" in the Viking burial record of "indeterminate" skeletons with weapons that the authors might go on to study. Can they all be finds labelling errors?
As it happens, the (freely available) Supplementary Material on the original article address both of these. The bones are stained to mark them as coming from this grave, and there is supporting circumstantial evidence, but given the sloppiness (by modern standards) of the original excavation, one cannot be absolutely sure that it's the right bones. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are at least two Norwegian weapon burials where there seems to be no question about which bones belong to which grave and the occupant has been osteologically identified as female.
thanks Andreas, clears that up a bit and useful in the context of there being other similar burials
Quote from: Holly on October 01, 2017, 08:29:43 AM
thanks Andreas, clears that up a bit and useful in the context of there being other similar burials
Yes, thanks Andreas. It is quite common not to be able to categorically determine the sex of individual skeletons (partly because of condition but also because certain diagnostics are not 100% present in only one sex) and assigning sex by associated finds may be common in past excavations. It would be useful, as Andreas says, to test some of the more obvious cases and perhaps do some sampling of others to see how widespread a phenomenon we are looking at. Might lead to whole new avenues of interpretation.