Viking expert raises doubts over research claiming famous warrior was actually a woman

Authored by abc.net.au and submitted by totalarkwar

Viking expert raises doubts over research claiming famous warrior was actually a woman

Doubts have been cast on new research that claimed an ancient Viking warrior buried in Sweden was actually a warrior or a woman.

The story sprang up all over the internet after the research was published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

So were Vikings more progressive than first thought?

The original research relied on DNA tests on bones

Researchers conducted tests on a Viking buried in a "well-furnished grave" found in the Swedish town of Birka in the 19th century.

Inside the grave were swords, an axe, a spear, armour-piercing arrows, two shields and two horses.

"The complete equipment of a professional warrior," the journal said.

"Furthermore, a full set of gaming pieces indicates knowledge of tactics and strategy stressing the buried individual's role as a high-ranking officer."

Researchers said that based on "material and historical" records, it had simply been assumed that the warrior was male.

They ran a DNA test to confirm the sex of the warrior inside the grave, and found a "lack of a Y-chromosome".

"The identification of a female Viking warrior provides a unique insight into the Viking society, social constructions, and exceptions to the norm in the Viking time-period," the journal article read.

"The results call for caution against generalizations regarding social orders in past societies."

So, Vikings were super progressive and allowed boss lady-warriors to run their armies, right?

A Viking expert has some big issues with the research

Judith Jesch, a Professor of Viking Studies, wrote a comprehensive blog post poking all sorts of holes in the original research.

There are doubt about the origins of the bones because they were excavated in the 19th century

Her own analysis raises doubts over whether the grave actually belonged to a "high-ranking" officer

There were no injuries observed on the skeleton, so there are questions over whether it belonged to a warrior at all

"These are some of my caveats which I would dearly love people to take into account before tweeting all over the world about women warriors in the Viking Age," Professor Jesch wrote.

She said she believes the "fascination with women warriors" is "is heavily, probably too heavily, influenced by 20th- and 21st-century desires."

"It's too easy to take the title of an article at face value and send it round the Twittersphere without further thought."

defonotahorse on September 15th, 2017 at 15:19 UTC »

So this is really more of a researcher calling for correct context to be applied to her findings due to sensationalism causing them to be taken as 100% truth....which has in turn been sensationalised into her claiming all her own findings are hocum.

Ffs media

Geirrid on September 15th, 2017 at 14:47 UTC »

Haha, the minute I saw this title my thought went immediately to "...Judith?!"

She was a lecturer of mine while I was at uni in Nottingham (I did English, not Viking Studies, but did a lot of modules related to Old Norse which she was the convenor for) so I sat in her cosy little office with about 6 other people fairly often where she'd warn us to be sceptical of sensationalised news stories about women warriors. I think bringing modern perspectives too heavily into analysing viking burials and Norse texts is a particular bugbear for her.

As much as the part of me that loves a good story would love a confirmed female warrior burial, I think it's fair to err on the side of caution with linking the grave goods to that specific skeleton. Especially given the multi burials with people of a different status and profession buried together. Honestly I don't feel at all qualified enough to side with either one at the moment (I haven't read the original article in full, I've just seen the news reporting on it), it mostly just tickled me seeing her name attached to this, because it's so what I would have expected.

Just as an aside, while I had her for a lecturer there were a few times where we would get emails ahead of Old Norse lectures apologising that she'd had to rush out and we'd either have someone else taking it or the lecture rearranged, then she'd be in for the next seminar with Norwegian sweets and apologies that she'd had to rush quickly off to a runic emergency. It must be a surreal life being a Viking expert.

Edit: spelling

totalarkwar on September 15th, 2017 at 11:59 UTC »

It seems that the original study that was highly circulated has some major issues with the interpretation of their findings. Dr. Jesch seems to think that none of the authors were qualified to anthropologically interpret the findings, and that maybe they should have just stuck with the science part.

Edit: from her detailed critique of the study:

I note that while the article has ten authors, they have chosen not to involve any specialist in language or texts, in spite of the fact that the article begins with reference to early medieval 'narratives about fierce female Vikings fighting alongside men', and concludes with a quotation from an Eddic poem in translation. The impression given is that the authors consider that no special expertise is required to handle this kind of evidence unlike bones, or DNA, or archaeological finds. The authors might argue that they cite people who do have such expertise, including myself. I would just point out that their primary reference to my work is to a semi-popular book published 26 years ago. (See also point 6., below). I would have thought they could have made the slight effort required to read what I wrote on the subject of women warriors in a recent monograph (The Viking Diaspora 2015, pp. 104-7), a less popular and more considered work.

http://norseandviking.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html?m=1