An almost female-only village? What crazy PC crap is this, it's historically untrue.
Shieldmaidens were mythical, still doubted by modern historians. Obviously doesn't stop modern PC pandering to lobby groups?
Why not cast a few Chinese disabled people as Kings and have done with it?
There have been several female Viking graves discovered that have been debated whether or not belonged to warriors.
The one was proven to be that of a shield maiden in 2019. Not many historians doubt their existence anymore. Maybe 5-10 years ago, yes. As of today though, no.
I DO like that you mentioned "PC crap/pandering". Just in case the first one went unnoticed. Doubling down, very effective.
They probably haven't done with casting disabled Chinese people as kings because the show isn't about disabled Chinese kings...my guess, anyway.
No, it hasn't been proven.
These graves with a female body and weapons are very wealthy ones. There's a much simpler explanation than bringing some mythological shield-maidens: the weapons were a symbol of wealth, status and political power.
I'm sure in many cases, that's a very correct assertion.
It would seem odd for a woman to express status, wealth and power by being buried with used weapons and shield(s), though.
I didn't say female warriors were everywhere, not even common. What I did say was there has been evidence unearthed that they existed.
I'm not entirely sure why you say "No. It hasn't been proven." in such a definitive manner without having first read up on the subject and/or recent discoveries.
Nothing is proven...until it is. Is all I'm saying.
The first one:
https://www.livescience.com/amp/Viking-shield-maiden-facial-reconstruction.html
Another:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-reaffirm-famed-ancient-viking-warrior-was-biologically-female-180971541/
I'm only including two links, for two separate women.
There are more websites, papers, articles and the like to look into if you (or anyone) are curious.
• "It would seem odd for a woman to express status, wealth and power by being buried with used weapons and shield(s), though."
They weren't 'buried with used weapons'. There was one case, the one in Solor, where one weapon showed "signs of sword damage", which for all we know could be one hit.
• "What I did say was there has been evidence unearthed that they existed."
I know, and I answered that was not true.
• "I'm not entirely sure why you say "No. It hasn't been proven.""
Tricky question! I guess that the most likely reason is because it hasn't been proven. You're welcome. :-)
• "I'm only including two links, for two separate women."
None of them proves shit. Both are graves belonging to wealthy people. In the one from the 2017 article you linked, it was one of the two wealthiest graves from 1100. We're talking about local leaders, so weapons make perfect sense from a ceremonial point of view as symbols of status.
Don't you find a bit strange that all these 'shield-maiden' graves happen to belong to very wealthy people? In the 2017 case, we're talking about the top 1% wealthiest. Occam's blade, why looking for mythological explanations when wealth and status explain it without problems?
"One case", exactly what I started in my comment. A sword that has been hit is a sword that has been used, though. Otherwise, it would be new. Same principle for shields.
I'm aware you answered that it was not true that any female warrior graves had been discovered. That's what prompted my reply.
Had you not said it, I wouldn't have replied with links to evidence suggesting otherwise.
Neither article states they were wealthy though. Stating "they prove shit" only reinforces the idea you either didn't read them, didn't look into it, or simply refuse to believe that it's possible. I agree that neither proves shit, though. They prove to be the first cases of evidence depicting female warrior burials.
There's a difference between "wealthy 1% citizen", and "high class warrior". One is a very wealthy person, the other is a high ranking warrior.
I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that they were buried as warriors with all the same style trinkets and weapons as male warrior graves. The one being next to the garrison of a hill fort.
Occams razor, indeed.
"Looks like a warrior, buried like a warrior, physical evidence of scarring/healing.
(like a warrior)... Couldn't possibly be a warrior, MUST be something else."
I'm sure you're probably right though. Contrary to physical, tangible evidence, I'm sure it's COMPLETELY unfathomable for a woman to engage in combat.
ESPECIALLY in a combat-centric society.
• " Stating "they prove shit" only reinforces the idea you either didn't read them, didn't look into it"
I've read them and I read a couple more back in the day when the Sorlo one appeared.
• "They prove to be the first cases of evidence depicting female warrior burials."
Nope. Just repeating it doesn't prove it.
This is getting boring, so I will sum up: what you have is some graves, very wealthy graves, with female bodies and weapons. In one case, one of the weapons (a shield) showed some sword damage (and that means that the other weapons and the weapons is the other graves didn't). In one case, too, the skeleton showed marks of having been hit (again, which means the other didn't).
There's a very simple explanation for it: local leaders buried with ceremonial weapons. It's like burying Margaret Thatcher with a rifle to show she was the 'Iron Lady': that doesn't mean she was wielding the sword, or the rifle in the Facklands.
Occam's blade.
• "I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that they were buried as warriors"
Nope, they weren't. Again, they were buried with weapons, that's it. With very rich weapons, highly over average rich weapons, by the way. Let's remember that iron weapons were extremely expensive and used to be a symbol of status.
• "Occams razor, indeed. "Looks like a warrior, buried like a warrior, physical evidence of scarring/healing."
1. Nope, it doesn't look like a warrior. It's a fucking naked skeleton, for god's sake.
2. Nope, it wasn't buried like a warrior. Check what I said above.
3. Isolated physical evidence of scarring isn't any evidence. Middle Ages wasn't like the movies. It was an extremely violent period. Having one single weapon showing marks (among the several cases) or one single evidence of scarring (among several cases) actually supports the non-mythological explanation of them being wealthy local leaders.
There was talk in ancient Greece of tribes of outcast women who became warriors known as "Amazons," but nobody has been able to find any evidence of them. I'm not sure if the Vikings tried anything like that, but I do know their women were treated a lot better than women in the rest of Dark Ages Europe at the time. Most Viking women didn't fight in battle like the men did, but I have no doubt there were at least one or two female warriors who proved themselves. The Vikings admired strength, and their women were known for being headstrong and feisty :D.
shareIndeed.
share