Female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics

[Andreas Johansson]

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."

[Anton]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[Anton]

It must be the thought of the field work Dave.

[Swampster]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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.