Female Viking warriors: truth or fiction?

Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
Haha! Oh, yes... she liked games, ergo she was a military leader. Maybe all the Monopoly I've played in my lifetime would make me a great tactician. First conquer Board Walk as a stronghold and then move on to Park Place. ;)
She didn't like games. The person who put it in the grave liked games. Grave goods tell us little about the person who died. They tell us about the people who buried them.
 
Jan 2015
2,878
MD, USA
She didn't like games. The person who put it in the grave liked games. Grave goods tell us little about the person who died. They tell us about the people who buried them.
Be fair, now! Maybe she liked that game so much that everyone couldn't WAIT to bury it with her! "Oh, thank Odin, we won't have to play THAT again!" :winktongue:

Matthew
 
Feb 2019
435
Pennsylvania, US
@marlenelehmann - You're new here... trust me, this thread is rather pointless. There are a handful of people refusing to accept scientific data or entertain the plausibility of the reality that it would constitute (i.e. that a Viking warrior of great rank was DNA confirmed a woman). They 'straw man' every good argument! :lol:


objective data.jpg

BTW, while trying to read more about female warrior burials mentioned in this thread, I found this - a list of Women in Ancient Warfare. It has a lot of interesting accounts. Enjoy!
 
Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
@marlenelehmann - You're new here... trust me, this thread is rather pointless. There are a handful of people refusing to accept scientific data or entertain the plausibility of the reality that it would constitute (i.e. that a Viking warrior of great rank was DNA confirmed a woman). They 'straw man' every good argument! :lol:
You still haven't shown us any evidence of female viking warriors. A burial isn't sufficient for all the reasons already mentioned. You'd need to produce documentary evidence.
 
Feb 2019
435
Pennsylvania, US
You still haven't shown us any evidence of female viking warriors. A burial isn't sufficient for all the reasons already mentioned. You'd need to produce documentary evidence.
Using the logic already utilized in this conversation to refute the existence of Viking fem warriors (in spite of a grave containing weapons, of a warrior of note, containing DNA confirmed female remains), I can make this (ridiculous) argument:

Akhenaten was a woman - based on the images of his physique (rounded, curvaceous, large breasts, full lips, etc) - who ruled as lesbian Pharaoh with her consort Nefertiti. At the time of her burial, her body was displaced for that of a man and she was buried in a separate location, because she didn't choose how she was buried, the living Ancient Egyptians decided how she was buried. Perhaps the ones who buried her were "atheists" to their own superstitions / religion. Akhenaten was a woman. Now prove to me that this account *isn't* true.

Such a statement really comes down to what is *possible*, versus what is *likely*. It is possible that the living would misappropriate the body / grave goods of an individual - it is possible that they did not hold to their own cultural beliefs and myths concerning the importance of the body being placed with it's grave goods.... but it is likely?

Personally, my life remains unaltered whether there were women Viking warriors or not. I am more interested in Vikings (generally) than in women Vikings specifically - or female warriors that could be as rare as hens teeth...

What does really bother me... A LOT... is crappy arguments and poor debate of any topic. So far, the lousy arguments I've seen here have been numerous: 'straw man' arguments, ad hominem arguments, false causality, personal incredulity arguments, continuum fallacies, ... all crappy arguments.

But if I suppose that these crappy argument are all valid... Akhenaten was a butch, lesbian, woman Pharaoh, @Dan Howard - as per your own example, the burden of proof is on you to refute this... Change my mind.


P.S.: I have a lovely bit about aliens that I can work into my Akhenaten/woman theory if you'd like. It really spices it up. :ok:
 
Likes: Runa
Oct 2009
3,470
San Diego
You still haven't shown us any evidence of female viking warriors. A burial isn't sufficient for all the reasons already mentioned. You'd need to produce documentary evidence.
You are not the arbiter of what constitutes evidence in proof. "documents" are not considered great evidence as they are always subjective and can be pure fiction, and can purposely fail to mention truths that the document's authors intend to conceal to serve an agenda of belief or cultural identity.

In fact... one grave that EVERYONE just assumed to be a male BECAUSE it had weapons in it had proven to be female. This single event proves beyond doubt that MOST scholarship on the analysis of graves and the people found in them is predicated upon tacit assumptions that are NOT founded in fact, but on prejudice.

That is- If we could go back and re-analyze every grave assumed to be male because of weapons in the grave- what percentage might be exposed to actually be female?


I just finished watching a new Nova documentary about evidence of the Viking great army in England. They discussed a mass grave of viking age corpses just piled into a huge hole. A bed of solid human bones 32 inches thick.

These were all buried at once and a majority of the skeletons show evidence of violent deaths by medieval weapons. Clearly the result of a single massive battle.

Fully 20% of the skeletons are female.

They test as being from the same foreign origin as all the male skeletons, and were buried With the viking males BY other vikings... Were they simply camp followers or warrior's wives overrun by the anglo-saxon enemy and killed in camp? Or were they active participants in the battle?
The skeletons were discovered a long time ago... but only now, as a result of the Viking warrior grave proven to be female, are anthropologists deciding to take a closer look and do genetic testing to determine the definitive gender of every skeleton.

when originally discovered... how many skeletons were simply labeled Male because they had obvious battle wounds?


That is what documentary evidence gets you. A false narrative that leads you to believe that anyone killed by a sword has to have been a guy- coloring your interpretation of Actual evidence and the conversion of what might be objective fact into subjective narrative.
 
Feb 2019
435
Pennsylvania, US
In fact... one grave that EVERYONE just assumed to be a male BECAUSE it had weapons in it had proven to be female. This single event proves beyond doubt that MOST scholarship on the analysis of graves and the people found in them is predicated upon tacit assumptions that are NOT founded in fact, but on prejudice.

Just in reading some for this thread, it seems like there have been quite a few "armed female" graves from different eras/parts of the world that were assumed to be males ("princes", "heroes" were some of the terms used to describe the interred) and only recently were identified as female. It seems like it was common to assume gender based solely on grave goods - not ever sexing the skeletal remains - just determining male or female according to their funerary "swag". In future, I think there will be more of a push to scientifically identify gender (pelvis analysis, DNA, etc), simply because I would think these mix-up's are rather embarrassing for archaeologists trying to build a credible reputation. How do you come back from missing such a basic observation (assuming you have DNA or sufficient skeletal remains for analysis)?