Search the Blog
Latest Comments
Was it a woman warrior?
There are always issues with gender stuff and archaeology. One of them is the fact that yes, for a long time, if someone was buried with a spindle and beads, it was obviously a woman, and if someone had weapons, it was obviously a man. While this is probably the truth in most graves, in some cases, later anthropological study has shown that there is the occasional exception to this archaeologist's "rule", and has led both archaeologists and anthropologists to the firm conviction that it would be a good thing to take in-depth anthropological data for every skeleton found, and if possible, maybe even DNA checks, instead of just assuming things. That's a pipe dream, though, with the scarcity of both funding and personnel in these disciplines, so we'll have to keep on going as best as possible and be delighted about the occasional opportunity to go deeper.
So, what about the Viking warrior woman? I'm not completely convinced that the person buried in this grave was "a powerful military leader". For that, I'd personally expect definite traces of hard military labour, and possibly also evidence for some healed wounds from battle. We may have an unusual woman there, and possibly also one who fought - but it might also be a woman buried with weapons out of some honorary reason. We actually don't know. History on a whole, after all, was not cut-and-dried at all, but just as colourful and as varied and capricious as human beings are.
And as usual when there's an interesting find, there is discussion, by people who offer very interesting thoughts. One of them is Martin Rundkvist who writes in Aardvarcheology. There's also a critical response to the original article written by Judith Jesch, which you can read on her blog.
It remains... interesting.
Comments 2
Having met a number of boxers, both amateur and professional, I can vouch that while some show the obvious signs of having spent time getting hit in the face, some do not. It all comes down to how skilful they were, how skilful their opponents were, who they actually met in fights and how the fights went - something that cannot be predicted in advance throughout a whole career. So although it would be unlikely that a warrior would reach the end of their life without any obvious battle trauma, depending on their role and history, it would be theoretically possible.
That's just talking about physical signs. Attitude, psychological and psychiatric responses also differ and may not be visible on the skeleton, but would affect the choice of gravegoods.
Of course there's no such thing as a must-have catalogue of war and fight signs that someone has to have to prove they've fought. But someone who fights in a leading position would also train fighting, and that should definitely leave some traces on the skeleton - the fighter's equivalent to squatting facets maybe.
Things like these are such interesting topics that it's only half-sad we will never know for sure. I like that it makes me think about rituals, facts, social standing, symbols, and the possible explanations for something rather unexpected. And getting to look at something from a different angle is always nice!