'A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics'; new open access article by Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson et al :) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full …pic.twitter.com/OjUgguQZzq
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
> a brief discussion of the burial & attempts to lay to rest concerns that the skeletal remains analysed might not have come from Bj 581. >
> Second, authors argue that shouldn't assume weapons buried in female graves=symbolic but those in male=indicative of warriors. However, >
> worth noting too that that this need not mean that all weapons burials, irrespective of whether male or female, were those of warriors; >
> compare here the situation in Anglo-Saxon England, e.g. https://www.academia.edu/468160/Warrior_graves_The_background_of_the_Anglo-Saxon_weapon_burial_rite._Past_and_Present_126_February_1990._22-43 … & https://www.academia.edu/482461/Changing_symbols_in_a_changing_society_the_Anglo-Saxon_weapon_burial_rite_in_the_seventh_century._In_M._Carver_ed._._The_age_of_Sutton_Hoo._Woodbridge_Boydell_Press_1992._149-165 … Third, worth noting that study >
> tells us about genetics of person in Bj 581, but not necessarily their identity in life. All told, however, is def a fascinating study :)
Some similar & additional caveats here, fwiw, by Judith Jesch :)https://twitter.com/RTGoodman/status/906587395616899073 …
(Only fair to note, btw, that Jesch a sceptic re: possibility of female warriors+considers them legendary eg. http://blog.britishmuseum.org/viking-women-warriors-and-valkyries/ …, 2014)
Incidentally, needs to be emphasized here that is possible to be too sceptical, & some criticisms not necessarily wholly fair. Definitely >
> potential for caveats+cautions that aren't fully developed in paper, but strikes me we're long way from 'debunking', contrary to some… >
> My take, fwiw, is that seems reasonable to believe remains *are* those of Bj 581, reading supp data, & scepticism not really justified. >
> Likewise, authors do a valuable service in removing the traditional 'the osteologists must be wrong' objection to female weapons burials.>
> And finally, authors make important point that 'Male individuals in burials w/ a similar material record are not questioned in the same >
> way' & 'interpretation should be made in a similar manner regardless of the biological sex of the interred individual'. >
> In my view, it's a fascinating paper; caveats possible+important to note re: exact interpretation (see above), but it is worth defending.
In sum, I don't have major issue w/ paper, I don't think you should either, & some critiques go too far; see alsohttps://twitter.com/preshitorian/status/907186879656873986 …
Essentially, amount of scepticism we exhibit over interpreting 581 as a warrior should be similar to that which we'd show if they were XY :)
Appears incumbent was elite, her burial gender blind. Death/burial an opportunity for elite to express dominant values, ideals, beliefs...
Latter true in general+needs bearing in mind, but not sure burial truly gender blind: a statement being made, as such burials seem unusual >
> both here & England, + not only weapons etc but also apparently 'male' costume. Caveats def important, but still most intriguing burial :)
Are there more Viking warrior graves? Can they not sample those and sequence their DNA to see if there are more females buried in that way?
The study lists a further two likely instances :)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.