"The "typical" buried viking officer turns out to be female" Topic

"This burial was excavated in the 1880ies and has served as a model of a professional Viking warrior ever since. Especially, the grave-goods cemented an interpretation for over a century". It was just assumed she was a man through all these years

link

Also, "The gaming set indicates that she was an officer" which of course is what they will say about me when they dig me up a thousand years from now.

"I want to make babies with the large woman."
---Tormund

I think Tormund said "large babies", maybe even giant babies.

Dan
EDIT-
YouTube link

At Eastwatch, he asked if they brought the large woman on their madcap expedition. He looked disappointed.

I have a fondness for chess and the like, and had during my brief military service, but that didn't make me an officer (or a woman).

"Giant comet vaporizes planet earth, women and minorities hardest hit"

Dan

Hard in especulation, short in data. As usual.

"They" want the occupant to be a woman, sooo bad. You go looking for what you want, you'll see it and interpret evidence accordingly.

Nothing is more fun than kicking over an apple cart.

I guess they made up the bone morphology and lack of Y chromosome in the DNA then Great War Ace?

Although the significance of the gaming set is somewhat speculative, the scientific results of the gender determination are not – this comes from a solid team of researchers that are part of a well established research project.

Some of you evidently didn't read the American Journal of Physical Anthropology article that was linked from the Stockholm University report posted by Lupulus. The scientific evidence quoted in the AJPA article very definitely supports the fact that the skeleton was female. That she was an "officer" is probably speculation but she definitely was a high ranking, military oriented woman.

Lupulus -- Thanks for the links.

Jim

Reminds me of a line from Wagner's opera Siegfried, Act 3.

Siegfried removes Brünnhilde's breastplate and says:

"Das ist kein Mann!"

YouTube link

@Great War Ace;
Seems to me you want that you want the occupant to be a man so bad you ignore the actual evidence present.
Items in the grave indicate an officer. DNA tests show she was female. Therefore, the grave probably contained a female officer, no matter what your cultural bias tells you.

Or a very smart female battle leader who kept trophies of her conquests and her "conquests"!

Dan
"Dear Diary,
And when the lucious maidens come to take me off to Valhalla, I want to be buried with the ivory game pieces I took from Helga's lusty husband, so that I can rub it in her face every day until Ragnarok!"

Right. That's what I get for being in a hurry and not reading the link carefully first.

I would say it this way instead: "They" want to see viking women warriors so bad that they will leap to all manner of conclusions based on finding a female skeleton in what was assumed to be a high ranking warrior's grave.

We have no evidence that women commanding men in battle was an accepted or normal part of viking culture. But one grave find is being used to overturn generations of scholarship. If that is not the proverbial "apple cart" what is?

Must step in to support GWA here. Though the Vikings are not a personal area of expertise, anybody involved in historical research today knows there is tremendous – and I say again, tremendous – pressure in certain sectors of academia to "prove" women were as active (and just as "good") as men in battle. Current trends in Hollywood are partly to blame.

I have no idea what the story of this particular woman is (nor does anyone else, of course), but as Ace says, unless I've missed something there isn't an ounce of evidence regarding female Vikings leading or even joining men in battle. Can women not be appreciated in other areas than that of aping men? Right, I've said my piece. Fire away…

She was obviously someone's lost little "Valkyrie". To Kim him warm in the afterlife. He died, but got better.

Dan

The knowledge that there have been quite a lot of female warriors down the ages is no shock to anyone who enjoys reading. Nor are shieldmaidens front page news. This article is interesting, and should be valued as extra data, but the apple cart is still carrying a pretty stable load.

What's interesting in this case is that the grave in question has long been the canon to compare other (assumed) male warrior graves against. The fact that it contains a female hints that we might want to re-examine and mmmmaybe re-evaluate other, similar graves.

Besides, what fun is a stable apple cart?
"This grave contained precisely what we exepected it to. Film at eleven"

They found "A" grave with a female figure. There was only one Boudiccea,too.

@Gone Fishing
"Can women not be appreciated in other areas than that of aping men?"
What kind of culture makes a person produce a sentence like that? Genuinely curious.
(Swedish male here. My predjudices are probably not the same as yours)

@Lupulus: My kind of culture, which traditionally has "assigned" roles for men and women. Granted, this tradition is under massive attack. But MOST women and men still adhere to the ideal that women are the best nurturers and therefore are the first choice of a constant parental presence in the home. Which assumes, of course, that there even is a constant parental presence in the home to begin with. Two parents: man and woman, father and mother (biological as first choice, naturally). And they stay married for the duration of mortality. This was the culture of monogamous Europeans in the Dark Ages, your culture in fact. Just because moderns want to reinvent everything, and then go looking for ways to upset "history" with our current or latest trends, does not make the preferred differences between men and women go away, especially historical men and women.

Have to love the title – 'An Officer and Gentlewoman.'

Considering the culture of Dark Age Scandinavia and the nature of much of its inhabitants military exploits, she may indeed have been an officer but wasn't likely a gentlewoman.

It is noted in the analysis that she appears to have traveled extensively leading to a conclusion that she very probably went a Viking. At which point we are dealing with rape, wanton butchery, torture, looting, and slave taking. Not exactly the traditional pursuits of a 'gentlewoman.'

Rather interesting in view of the furor in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK at least over Confederates or others associated with the slave trade to see an embrace of a person who likely not only held slaves, but likely participated in or even led raids to take others as slaves.

But she was a woman warrior…

Some of you evidently didn't read the American Journal of Physical Anthropology article that was linked from the Stockholm University report posted by Lupulus. The scientific evidence quoted in the AJPA article very definitely supports the fact that the skeleton was female. That she was an "officer" is probably speculation but she definitely was a high ranking, military oriented woman.

I did. And I stand by my earlier affirmation: hard in especulation, short in data. Or, in other words, typical from archaeologists. They like to think of themselves as scientists, while they are like the sybilles of old, but instead foreseeing the future trying to interpret the past.

Besides that the skeleton is of a female, the rest is pure and simple especulation. Nice especulation, though, and one that fits perfectly with modern culture. I am not saying that it is not plausible, but when they start with the "officer" part… uff! I cringed! I know, I know: archaeologists. What can you expect from them but a lot of when they don't stick to what they actually know how to do well, right?

I know, I know… I am being too harsh with archaeologists. There are some that are actually great scientists. But you notice them. They don't especulate. They stick to the known facts and simply suggests possible interpretations, but recognizing the possibility of other potential truths. These people that had carried the study are not one of them.

Look at the following statement:

"Do weapons necessarily determine a warrior? The interpretation of grave goods is not straight forward, but it must be stressed that the interpretation should be made in a similar manner regardless of the biological sex of the interred individual."

Or, in other words, how to impose upon the past the prejudices of the present. It is relevant if we have evidence that it was relevant to the culture that interred the individual in question. It is not if we have no evidence. We don't know anything about the woman interred beyond her sex and the potential places she lived in. She could be a warrior, as the presence of weapons suggest, but also a queen and then the weapons are intended to reflect her status rather than her function. Or not; maybe she was indeed a shield-maiden -although no information about trauma in her bones is provided in the article, which is curious to say the least. And why would have been an "officer"? Maybe the play set was a cherished possession, and her friends interred her with it because the significance it had for her. How many soldiers are not interred with something that only makes sense to them and their families/friends?

Yes, I stand for what I wrote: a lot of especulation and just a little bit of science.

Basileus66,
The "officer" part is taken directly from the old interpretation of the grave made when the skeleton was thought to be that of a man. Oddly enough noone was complaining about it then but rather it was repeated by a number of authors.

Sharp force trauma or the lack of it does not necissarily identify the individual as a warrior or not as a lots of injuries would not have left any trauma on the bones that were visible over a 1000 years later. Other wear and tear patterns visible on the bones tend to be inconclusive due to the hard lives led by just everyone in the period. You only get distinctive bone trauma related to weapons in special cases like English archers with their heavy bows which left very clear traces on certain parts of the skeleton. Of course the signs could be there, we just don't know what to look for.

Oh, we do know one thing about the woman that you don't list, she was buried in a very unusual way without any of the typical grave goods found in other female grave. And why would a "queen" be buried with a ton of weaponry but not one of the distinctive female items found in other high status graves?

Hi Lupulus,

Sorry, just seeing this. The easy answer to your question is, erm, just about every culture, including your own. You can look north, south, east and west and you will see the same. This doesn't make it right, it must be said, but that is the topic for another discussion.

Did those who buried her know that she was a woman? The utter lack of female articles in the grave raises that question for me. If they did not know, what could be the reason for that? If her gender was known, what could be the reason for no female articles in her grave?

This page goes into considerably more detail:

link

I don't understand the technical passages. But the "Discussion" is less into speculative assertions than the article in the OP.

And why would a "queen" be buried with a ton of weaponry but not one of the distinctive female items found in other high status graves?

Why wouldn't? Attributes of power were male-related. It wouldn't be the first time in history that a woman was interred with "male" artifacts, to represent her role in the structure of power, while "female" artifacts were scarce or non-existent. And besides, I am not saying that she was a queen or a warrior, but that the article is jumping to conclusions despite the limited information given by the burial.

Sharp force trauma or the lack of it does not necissarily identify the individual as a warrior or not as a lots of injuries would not have left any trauma on the bones that were visible over a 1000 years later. Other wear and tear patterns visible on the bones tend to be inconclusive due to the hard lives led by just everyone in the period. You only get distinctive bone trauma related to weapons in special cases like English archers with their heavy bows which left very clear traces on certain parts of the skeleton. Of course the signs could be there, we just don't know what to look for.

Yeah, I know… that is what it is called evidence. It would prove beyond reasonable doubt that the woman interred in that burial engaged in actual combat. Otherwise, to infere from the remains her role in the battleline is pure and simple especulation.

Was she a warrior? Maybe. We just don't know from the evidence presented… which is what I resent from the article: the cavalier assumptions reached by the researchers, presented as the truth instead as educated guesses, which is what an actual scientist would have done. Of course, in present day academia political agendas are more important than good science.

Look at this quote from the article:

As long as the sex is male, the weaponry in the grave not only belong to the interred but also reflects his status as warrior, whereas a female sex has raised doubts, not only regarding her ascribed role but also in her association to the grave goods.

Yes, of course. Why shouldn't we? We have more than enough non-archeological evidence that prove the role of males as warriors. It is logical to assume, lacking other evidence to the contrary, that weapons buried with a male were a reflection of his status as warriors. In the other hand, women association with warfare is more scarce and heavily surrounded by myth, therefore, and lacking evidence to the contrary -ie. osteological evidence of wounds or daily use of weaponry- it is safer to assume that the artifacts interred with her reflected her political status rather than her role in a battlefield… which is not the same, of course, that affirming that she WASN'T a warrior.

And the agenda of the researchers is stated in the abstract – they wished to confirm the previous identification of the remains as belonging to a female.

The wording is not neutral – i.e. that there was a controversy in the gender identification that they wished resolve using DNA.

With that they confirm what their hoped for result would be.

Which then raises questions the interpretation of the evidence and presentation of the results.

I am not suggesting that this is impossible but, have they examine the remains to see if she suffered any wounds. A couple of years ago IIRC a French knight was unearthed and during his life had suffered several nearly fatal wounds before his death. There should be broken figures, limbs and marks on the bones from past combat. Yes a young warrior might take an arrow to the heart which manages somehow not to hit ribs, but then that kid never lived long enough to be an "officer." I tend to agree with Merlin, they need more evidence.

I'm sure that, now that her sex is confirmed, there will be a lengthy, minute examination of every centimeter of that skeleton. If there are no broken bones or scored bones, then she was no warrior. Because even a warrior who never saw battle still sustains injuries in a lifetime of training. Broken bones are inevitable. Then there is the skeletal development from wielding weapons for hours a day or week: the thicker fingers and wrists, the asymmetrical formation of the bones, e.g. thicker wrist on the sword arm compared to the shield arm. If she was an archer, that will show up in the set of her shoulders, etc.

If she ends up being no "warrior", then the grave goods were emblematic of her social status………..

Reading the replies to this thread, I sense a certain resistance (to put it mildly) to the very idea of a female warrior and/or officer.

How come?

(For reference, I know several women who are natural leaders and a few who are quite talented in violence. During martial arts practice, a middle-aged mother of three cracked my ribs, and I'm no weakling)

The resistance originates from the patently obvious agenda of the writers: making the woman "equal" to men because she can fight. She doesn't need to have engaged in battle to be equal. But that isn't admitted, in fact it is ignored.

I seem to have missed that part of the article. Do you have a quote?

They are implying that she was a warrior and a strategist "officer". Why go that far? Why not simply point out that the body is that of a woman, with weapons that put her in the warrior social class, and have done with it for now. But they don't stop and must instead speculate on how important as a "warrior" she was. That rubs people the wrong way, who object to the current trend in history revision, making women out to be equals to men because they did a man's job, probably as well if not better; that's what "they" would like to prove.

Reading the replies to this thread, I sense a certain resistance (to put it mildly) to the very idea of a female warrior and/or officer.

No, mate: what you sense is a certain resistance (to put it mildly) to bad science with a political agenda.

I have researched guerrilla warfare in Napoleonic Spain, and found archival evidence of women fighting in guerrilla bands. Usually, they were followers, but some exceptional individuals engaged in actual combat, apparently. One of them, the daughter of a guerrilla leader, was rewarded with a rank of officer by the government, for her actions in combat. In one ocassion, she saved a regular officer from being killed; she saw that the officer was surrounded by french soldiers and about to be bayoneted, and charged the French, wounding or killing one with the pistols she carried; then helped the officer in a horse and covered his retreat. She was six month pregnant at the time.

She was, however, the exception rather than the norm. I wouldn't dare to affirm that she was "typical" or "common" nor would try to insinuate more than the documentation tells. I would need other information to affirm she was or acted as an officer or that she engaged in combat as a matter of course, and not exceptionally. The same applies to the burial being discussed: bad science is bad science. Period.

I am probably missing something here. A complete skeleton was found? I'm sorry but even a rank amateur like myself would IMMEDIATELY recognise the difference between a male and a female one.

Not necessarily. Some women are shaped very masculine. And conversely some men are shaped very feminine. In such a case, speculation could only be resolved either way with modern tech analysis.

GWA

Regardless shape, what differentiates men from women bone remains are distinct morphological characteristics, like the lumbar curve, wider pelvis, ecc

However, in burials is not always that clear, either for the position of the remains, which difficult the analysis, or because bones have been damaged and become difficult to interpret.

As to cultural bias: men are warriors; women are not.

Consider the current discussion:

For years the grave was considered a male warrior/leader – based on artifacts etc.

Now we learn one new indisputable fact: the occupant was female.

First impulse: it can't be true and is just cultural bias in reverse (squished by science).

Second impulse: well we now can't say she was a warrior/leader because artifacts can be inconclusive (though when occupant was male we never doubted this evidence). Unless we can find wounds we can't conclude she was a warrior (though we never applied this criteria to the "male" occupant).

Cultural expectations die hard (we are product of Roman culture which they were not). Hence the need to lean the other way to make sure we don't make assumptions based on our beliefs not the grave makers.

TomT

(though we never applied this criteria to the "male" occupant).

Of course! But that is not "cultural bias", matey. That's to apply what we know from other sources -archival evidence, for instance- to the interpretation of archaeological findings.

What is "cultural bias" (OUR present-day cultural bias) is to presume that a woman buried with weapons MUST be a warrior AND an "officer" -although it is the first time I learn that Vikings had "officers" of either sex!-.

I truly don't understand why is so difficult to accept that assuming that remains interred with weapons will correspond, mostly, to men is not "cultural bias" but ing logic! It's like the old saying: Dog bites man is not news; Man bites dog is.

"Unless we can find wounds we can't conclude she was a warrior (though we never applied this criteria to the "male" occupant). "
Then that would be bad science, but do you know that to be true? Over a hundred years ago the Swedes found some mass graves from the battle of Visiby they did extensive forensic work on the remains cataloging wounds, it will be interesting to see what results when they try to do DNA testing on those remains.
"we are product of Roman culture which they were not" IMHO that simply wrong, by the date Germanic peoples had over a thousand years of contact with Rome Empire. Yes the Western Empire and ended long before then, but the European middle ages is really about German tribes trying to reinvent their own "roman" empire. But case in point men in this period are wearing essentially were togas modified for a colder climate. When Roman first encountered the German tribes people they were wearing skins and pelts.

I don't think anyone believes that female warriors were the norm or that there was a whole class or society of them. I have no problem believing in single occurrences – there are always outliers.

If I could, I would change the title of the post to "The grave long considered typical for warriors turns out to contain a female". The current phrasing is too easy to misunderstand.

Lupulus

The message is not the problem by itself. You were repeating what the original article implied. The problem lies in the original article. In the past decade has been a trend in all fields of research to "empower" women by equalling them to men, not in the sense of having the same legal and political rights and duties, which none can deny is only fair, but also to transforming them in a short of male with boobs!

Warrior women had always existed. In my own country there were a few that were actually famous. One of them, the so-called Monja Alférez (Ensing Nun) was a nun that flew from the convent and joined the Tercios, passing for a man. She rose through the ranks for her valor in combat, before being discovered she was a woman, and although forced to retire her officers rank was confirmed by the King, with all duties and privileges attached to it. Another woman participated in the battle of Pavía, attached to a arquebusier company, to which her fiance was attached -she married him in the battlefield, just before the combat was joined-; she fought in the ranks as any other soldier did. There was even one girl that fought -also as an arquebusier- in the battle of Lepanto!

As you see, my problem is not with accepting the idea of women as warriors. My problem is the article and how the authors jump to conclusions -the "officer" thing irks me most than anything else, by the way- based upon flimsy evidence. Instead prudent analysis and presenting provisional working hypothesis, they go direct to the jugular: she was a warrior and an "officer"! Damm! And they don't hide the fact that they are trying to construe a feminist interpretation of the archeological site, either. Say about cultural bias!

To me, all of that makes the research itself highly suspicious. Even though I provisionally accept the DNA research -researchers with such an open political agenda are not trustworthy- a good scientist would be more prudent; suggesting rather than afirming; looking for further proof that their interpretation of the facts is actually correct and that they are dealing indeed with the burial of a Norse woman that was both a warrior and a war-leader (I refuse to use the term "officer").

Well, now you've gone and done it: the Swedes will have your for asserting that their girl is a Norse!

Basileus – Thanks for your elaboration (and patience)

GWA – Norse means west scandinavian in general, not just norwegian. And it's not like there are any great differences between the norse peoples anyway, beside languages (Which are similar).

I have absolutely no problem in accepting female warriors or even commanders but the fact remains that the pelvic gap in a female is usually and very obviously about twice the size of the one in a male one. Or we might just have found the first politically correct gender neutral Scandinavian warrior.

Just to touch on the subject, as GWA pointed out, "they" want to justify having Cate Blanchet riding a horse to fight alongside Robin Hood, or Keira Knightly half naked besting fully armored, experienced Saxon warriors and not messing up her blue makeup, and so on. I loved the Vikings episode where Bjorn's girlfriend gets messed up in her first battle, which is what would have happened to a woman like her who wanted to be a shield maiden. Did you know the average size of a modern woman training for the United States Army Rangers is 5'3" and 130 pounds?

Women warriors were the exception, not the rule, but for modern feminists to achieve their goals, history must be made to match their views.

Have you seen the story about Vikings being black? link

What does Hollywood have to do with stupid movies? In Hollywood you can slice through a body in plate armor with a butter knife. Is it that also evidence of academia's cultural bias against armor?
Or do you think geologist and the procedures of Vulcano have much in common?

Just because some insecure males are threatened by the concept of female warriors doesn't make it a feminist conspiracy.

They aren't suddenly going to say George Washington really was Goergina Washington.

99.99% of warriors the past 10 000 years have been male. They just happened to find woman with strong evidence she was a warrior.
Females stood much more equal in Norse society then other societies back then (and even now)
We don't know if she actually fought. She might have been the brain. Standing in the 2nd rank or even further behind.

But claiming feminist conspiracies around every corner is very strong warrior like mentality.