The sword of the female Viking warrior in grave Bj 581 at Birka, Sweden: http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=263195&g=1 …pic.twitter.com/NWnFAEDzY3
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
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 :)
Someone pointed out that even if she was in military service, she likely never saw combat because the male graves have weapon wounds (1/2)
Not according to the authors, fwiw.... 'However, contrary to what could be expected, weapon related wounds (and trauma in general) >
> are not common in the inhumation burials at Birka (e.g., 2 out of 49 confirmed males showed signs of sharp force trauma)' (p.6)...
Well not all of the males had weapon wounds no, but none of the females did, and Birka was also an international site.
My point was simply that I don't think a lack of injuries is a game-changer :) What I would like to have seen in paper is some discussion >
> of evidence re: muscle development etc (iirc, Harke discusses this when arguing for symbolic weapons burials in Anglo-Saxon England)...
I agree. One Sarmato-Alanic woman who we know was a front-line lancer from the Pontic Sphere had distended bones.
Interesting! Yes, def could have been usefully discussed.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.