Happy Birthday, Megan Ryder!
Is nobody else concerned that the archaeologists— you know, the people with degrees and supposed-higher learning— have been identifying skeletons based ONLY on the stuff with them? Have they never watched “Bones”? Are they just going “Oh, that one’s got a sword, must be a dude” or “This one’s wearing jewelry, must be a chick”? Because I think maybe we ought to be a little concerned.Re-identification of Viking corpses has revealed that half of their warriors were female.
"Researchers at the University of Western Australia decided to revamp the way they studied Viking remains. Previously, researchers had misidentified skeletons as male simply because they were buried with their swords and shields. (Female remains were identified by their oval brooches, and not much else.) By studying osteological signs of gender within the bones themselves, researchers discovered that approximately half of the remains were actually female warriors, given a proper burial with their weapons.”
Women have always fought. We have always been there, ‘contributing to history’. Our own, modern sexism contributes to the erasure of it.
Sadly not completely accurate. They couldn’t confirm that half of them were warriors (it was a small sample size) - but it did confirm that the methods that had previously been used to determine the sex of the corpses were incorrect.
Specifically that even though it is well known that Vikings had great warrior women in their ranks, archaeologists frequently assume their remains belonged to a man unless they’re have only traditionally “female” items on them. This is because “history” as we know it is interpretation of evidence, and sometime the interpreters are both sexist and lacking in imagination.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you that women in history didn’t fight and never, ever let anyone tell you that fiction shouldn’t include badass warrior women.