Viking Ladies Overdressed

Should Archeologists and Anthroplogists have a creative writing award? These academic folk are responsible for our view of the past, and distant past at that, but owe far more to art than science. They might make claim to finding 'truth' about the past, but let's face it, there is 1) no money in that, and 2) they cannot make experiments from their theories nor replicate findings. But by the Lord Harry they publish a lot!  Their speculations are often spectacular.

In a few thousand years time when archeo-anthrops sift through the wreckage of Londonistan, buried under silt from the great flood - the King Tide and Meteorite-made tsunami -  of 2046, which covered what remained from the Greater Fire of 2037 which apparantly took the lives of millions, they will be scratching their imagination itches. Finding Ramonde's Review Bar material from Soho, with woman's clothes clearly made for a man's privates, a cache of books about a youngster by the name of HarPooter who was able to turn people into frogs and fly on a sort of sporting stick,  and messages from the Caliphate Mayor calling for more taxes on Christians, they will form a very odd view to pass on to the reading public of 4417.

Muslims worked magic and wore women's clothes, but never figured out the Thames Barrage? Allah was pissed off ? Legend has it that the Great Fire v.2 started in a doner kebab shop.

Today though we look back at Vikings, who have also disappeared, but left behind some stones and bones. The archeologists have had great success with imagination. Not too sure about the science though.

Principle amongst the imagining is the Shield-Maiden. By crikey we seem to revel in the idea of the kick-arse woman with a braid and a sword, or a pair of inexaustable Glocks. She can dispatch big fellows without even peering over her voluminous breasts and down her gunsights. 

Or in the viking world, her shield.

A small group of diggers and sifters, all 'people-people', were in the Tavern quaffing mead.  Kathleen O’Neal Gear & W. Michael Gear are Anthropologists and award winning authors who have authored and co-authored over 40 books. Warrior women feature strongly.

Viking Warrior Women: 

Did ‘Shieldmaidens’ Like Lagertha Really Exist?

As archaeologists, we’ve spent over thirty years studying warrior women from a variety of cultures around the world, and, we have to tell you, shieldmaidens pose a problem.

Stories of Viking warrior women are found in a number of historical documents, but several come from factually unreliable heroic sagas, fornaldarsogur. 

A good example is Hervor’s and Heidrek’s Saga. After the hero, Angantyr, falls in battle his daughter Hervor takes her father’s sword and uses it to avenge his death by killing his enemies. There are similar stories of Brynhilde and Freydis, in Sigurd’s Saga and the Saga of the Greenlanders. 

 https://www.tor.com/2015/06/08/viking-warrior-women-did-shieldmaidens-like-lagertha-really-exist/

But in each case the story is more about myth-making than fact. 

As well, these are tales of individual women who are highly skilled with swords and fight in battles, but give no evidence for a ‘community’ of women warriors, which the shieldmaidens are supposed to have been.

There are, however, more reliable historical resources. In the 1070s, for example, Adam of Bremen (chronicling the Hamburg-Bremen archdiocese) wrote that a northern region of Sweden near lake Malaren was inhabited by war-like women. But he doesn’t say how many women, nor does he clarify what “war-like” means.

Feminists? 

Were these women just zealously patriotic, bad-tempered, aggressive, or maybe even too independent for his Medieval Christian tastes? It’s hard to say.

No. Feminists are rarely Patriotic. In fact they would vomit at the term. 

Then we have the splendid references to ‘communities’ of shieldmaidens found in the works of 12th century Danish historian, Saxo Grammaticus, whose writing is sure to make every modern woman livid. Keep in mind, Saxo was likely the secretary of the Archbishop of Lund, and had specific Christian notions about appropriate female behavior. He wrote:

“There were once women in Denmark who dressed themselves to look like men and spent almost every minute cultivating soldiers’ skills. …They courted military celebrity so earnestly that you would have guessed they had unsexed themselves. Those especially who had forceful personalities or were tall and elegant embarked on this way of life. As if they were forgetful of their true selves they put toughness before allure, aimed at conflicts instead of kisses, tasted blood, not lips, sought the clash of arms rather than the arm’s embrace, fitted to weapons hands which should have been weaving, desired not the couch but the kill…” (Fisher 1979, p. 212).

Okay. Saxo says there were ‘communities’ of shieldmaidens. Apparently, he means more than one community. How many? Ten? Fifty? Five thousand? In his The Danish History, Books I-IX, he names Alfhild, Sela, and Rusila as shieldmaidens, and also names three she-captains, Wigibiorg, who fell on the field at Bravalla, Hetha, who became queen of Zealand, and Wisna, whose hand was cut off by Starcad at Bravalla. He also writes about Lathgertha and Stikla. So…eight women? They might make up one community, but ‘communities?’

She most very likely had servant girls who did her washing.

Historical problems like these have caused many scholars conclude that shieldmaidens were little more than a literary motif, perhaps devised to counter the influences of invading Christians and their notions of proper submissive female behavior. 

There are good arguments for this position (Lewis-Simpson, 2000, pp. 295-304). However, historically most cultures had women warriors, and where there were more than a few women warriors, they formed communities. 

If the shieldmaidens existed, 

we should find the evidence in the archaeological record.

For example, do we see them represented in Viking material culture, like artwork? Oh, yes. There are a number of iconographic representations of what may be female warriors. Women carrying spears, swords, shields, and wearing helmets, are found on textiles and brooches, and depicted as metallic figurines, to name a few. One of the most intriguing recent finds is a silver figurine discovered in Harby, Denmark, in 2012. The figurine appears to be a woman holding an upright sword in her right hand and a shield in her left.  

Now, here’s the problem: These female warrior images may actually be depictions of valkyries, ‘choosers of the slain.’ 

Norse literature says that the war god, Odin, sent armed valkyries into battle to select the warriors worthy of entering the Hall of the Slain, Valhalla. Therefore, these images might represent real warrior women, but they could also be mythic warrior women.

And where are the burials of Viking warrior women? Are there any?

This is tricky. What would the burial of a shieldmaiden look like? How would archaeologists know if they found one?  Well, archaeologists recognize the burials of warriors in two primary ways:

1) Bioarchaeology. If you spend your days swinging a sword with your right hand, the bones in that arm are larger, and you probably have arthritis in your shoulder, elbow and wrist. In other words, you have bone pathologies from repetitive stress injuries. 

At this point in time, we are aware of no Viking female burials that unequivocally document warrior pathologies. 

But here’s the problem: If a Viking woman spent every morning using an axe to chop wood for her breakfast fire or swinging a scythe to cut her hay field—and we know Viking women did both—the bone pathologies would be very similar to swinging a sword or practicing with her war axe. Are archaeologists simply misidentifying warrior women pathologies? 

Are we attributing them to household activities because, well, they’re women. 

Surely they weren’t swinging a war axe. See? The psychological legacy of living in a male dominated culture can have subtle effects, though archaeologists work very hard not to fall prey to such prejudices.

At this point a gale of laughter blew several tables over. 

2) Artifacts. Sometimes warriors wear uniforms, or are buried with the severed heads of their enemies, but they almost always have weapons: swords, shields, bows, arrows, stilettos, spears, helmets, or mail-coats. A good example is the Kaupang burial.

There are many Viking “female weapons burials,” as archaeologists call them. Let us give you just a few examples. At the Gerdrup site in Denmark the woman was buried with a spear at her feet. This is a really interesting site for another reason: The woman’s grave contains three large boulders, two that rest directly on top of her body, which was an ancient method of keeping souls in graves—but that’s a discussion for another article. In Sweden, three graves of women (at Nennesmo and Klinta) contained arrowheads. The most common weapon included in female weapons burials are axes, like those in the burials at the BB site from Bogovej in Langeland (Denmark), and the cemetery at Marem (Norway). The Kaupang female weapons burials also contained axeheads, as well as spears, and in two instances the burial contained a shield boss.

There are many other examples of female weapons burials. For those interested in the details please take a look at the Analecta Archaeologica Ressoviensia, Vol. 8, pages 273-340.

So did the shieldmaidens exist?  When taken as a whole, the literary, historical, and archaeological evidence suggests that there were individual Viking women who cultivated warriors’ skills and, if the sagas can be believed, some achieved great renown in battle. Were there communities of Viking women warriors, as Saxo claims?  There may have been, but there just isn’t enough proof to definitively say so…yet.

Few would question the examples, especially the graves and things in them. But is any of it corroborated? Christopher Bjornsen had a more 'scientific' approach. He had more questions than examples. So while I made refreshments for the the Gears, he stood and was emphatic:

NO VIKING WOMEN WARRIORS

In a research paper titled “A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics”, and published in American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Uppsala University archaeologist Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson claims to have proven that there were women warriors among Vikings. 

 https://norskk.com/science/2017/9/16/no-viking-women-warriors

Hedenstierna-Jonson’s very research is fundamentally flawed from a technical, historical, and cultural aspect, and her conclusions simply have no scientific or factual basis.

NO EVIDENCE FEMALE SKELETON IS ACTUALLY LINKED TO WARRIOR GRAVE

The entire study is based on the assumption that bones recently identified as those of a woman were found in a grave believed to be of a warrior. The grave, however, was excavated in Birka between 1871 and 1895, and no proper chain of evidence was maintained over the course of at least 122 years. As a matter of fact, the only element that connects these bones and the grave are identification materials on the storage bag that fit "the original 19th-century drawings and descriptions”.

This messy chain of evidence is actually referenced in another paper, titled “People in Transition: Life in the Mälaren Valley from an Osteological Perspective”, and authored by archaeologist Anna Kjellström, who also worked on the study with Hedenstierna-Jonson. She writes:

During the present analysis, it became clear that the osseous material and the contextual information given on the box or bag did not always match the data... there are bags of bones tagged with grave numbers that do not exist elsewhere. In other cases, there are unburnt bones in bags from graves documented and registered according to [archaeologist Erik] Arbman as "cremations" and bags which include the bones of several individuals while being documented as the grave of one person.

Without actual evidence that these bones were actually from a warrior grave, there shouldn’t even have been any speculation with respect to the background of what could very well be a random skeleton, let alone conclusions that the bones were those of a woman Viking warrior.

NO TRAUMATIC INJURY ON BONES

Of particular interest is also Hedenstierna-Jonson’s own disclosure that “no pathological or traumatic injuries were observed” on the bones, effectively unequivocally ruling out the possibility that the bones actually belonged to a warrior. 

Indeed, the very aspect of being a warrior inherently involves a combat element, and with combat come injuries, especially considering the fighting methods of the Viking age, including the handling of swords and other medieval weapons. 

As a matter of fact, even training as a warrior would have resulted in various wounds that would have been visible on the bones.

Tell me about it !! 

Even modern day warriors show signs of various trauma and injuries, despite exceptional military advances for body protection over the course of the last millennium. 

With no sign of injury or any type of trauma on the bones, the subject of the study simply couldn’t have reasonably been a warrior, making Hedenstierna-Jonson’s conclusions preposterous. 

NO LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS IN STUDY

None of the nine other authors of Hedenstierna-Jonson’s paper, Anna Kjellström, Torun Zachrisson, Maja Krzewińska, Veronica Sobrado, Neil Price, Torsten Günther, Mattias Jakobsson, Anders Götherström, and Jan Storå, has any advanced knowledge of norrœnt (Old Norse), let alone any expertise of the language.

The paper’s authors did not even accurately considered the expertise of actual language specialists they quote in their research, including Judith Jesch, Professor of Viking studies at the University of Nottingham, chair of the international Runic Advisory Group, and president of the English Place-Name Society, who writes:

I would just point out that [Hedenstierna-Jonson and her team] primary reference to my work is to a semi-popular book published 26 years ago. 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.

As a matter of fact, Judith Jesch goes even further in her critical review of Hedenstierna-Jonson’s paper and the team’s analytical process, by referring to their “sloppy thinking”.  

A lack of language expertise fails to take into consideration a historical and cultural context absolutely essential in understanding Viking society, and thus, the role of women.  

NO ACTUAL WOMEN WARRIORS IN OLD NORSE LITERATURE

Outside of brief and clearly mythical allusions to shield maidens and other woman warriors, in line with the myth of Loki turning himself into a mare to be impregnated by the stallion Svaðilfari and to later give birth to Sleipnir, Óðinn’s 8-legged horse, there is simply no reference to actual woman warriors in Old Norse literature. 

This is not an actual photograph of a viking shieldmaiden.

As Judith Jesch, Professor of Viking studies at the University of Nottingham puts it: 

Women warriors and/or Valkyries and/or shield maidens (they are all often mixed up) are not just 'mythological phenomena' as stated by the authors, but relate to a whole complex of ideas that pervade literature, mythology and ideology, without necessarily providing any direct evidence for women warriors in 'real life'.

Skaldic poetry in its various forms, drápa, flokkr, vísur, dræplingr, lausavísa and mansöngr, typically details the deeds of Norse warriors, yet, makes no reference to actual women warriors. 

Even the mythical Valkyries, often associated with war, are depicted as actually fulfilling the needs of slain male warriors rather than engaging in combat. Eiríksmol from Fagrskinna refers to “valkyrjur vín bera sem vísi komi” in norrœnt (Old Norse), which invokes Valkyries giving wines to the warriors who have arrived in Valhöll, and therefore sticking to typical domestic duties.

The one Ásynja associated with battle, Freyja, has no direct involvement with combat or actual warfare, and through her other persona, Frigga, she is even identified with marriage, motherhood, and domestic arts.

NO “GENDER EQUALITY” IN VIKING CULTURE

While one gender was not considered superior to the other, men and women each had their role in Viking society. The role of women never was warfare or raiding, which remained the exclusive realm of men. As Annalee Newitz, Tech Culture Editor at Ars Technica, accurately points out, “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that women in the Viking world were expected to run households, serve the men, and bear children.”

As a matter of fact, the very forces of nature make the artificial modern “gender equality” utopian paradigm simply unrealistic and impractical in an ancient culture. 

A woman simply cannot bear and take care of children, breast feed, look after the homestead, or even the men, if she is engaged in raiding and other combat activities.

Biological facts also stand in the way of woman warriors fighting men warriors at home or abroad. Indeed, 

the reality is, women simply are no match to a male warrior.

One wonders how a hardy gal with a sword and a week or so sailing across the sea under her girdle would do against a farmer or farmboy on the English shore. No warriors they. 

For starts, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have made women react to threats by tending and befriending, in stark contrast to men who respond by fighting or flighting. Higher levels of oxytocin further prompt women to seek kinship when exposed to an enemy, in contrast to men who enter competitive mode. 

Hmmmm. I like a new approach to this old argument.  

Women also lack in sufficient levels the very hormone that is associated with aggression, muscle growth, denser bones, and other typical-male features essential for combat: Testosterone.  

After all, women just don’t have a hypothalmic pituitary testicular axis.

Well that's that then. He is right, you know ! I shall pull a fine pint for him. Now you have to ask yourself when was the last time you heard the issue of the hypothalmic pituitary testicular axis being raised in a pub? I learn something every day !

Less white matter in women’s pre-frontal cortex also make them analyze dangers and situations slower than men. A thicker paretial section of the brain also means women cannot visualize multi-dimensional objects as well as men, making the dodging of swords, axes, and other medieval weapons quite challenging.

I can see the hairs on Lady Penelope's neck rising. 

Women have 40% less muscle mass than men in the upper body, and 33% less in the lower body. They have less dense bones and weaker tendons and ligaments, as well as a weaker facial bone structure that doesn’t handle impacts, blunt force, and trauma to the face that well. With lower red blood cell counts, lower hemoglobin, and lower circulating clotting factor than men, women take longer to heal from injuries. A less evenly distributed blood flow in their body also makes women far more sensitive to environmental factors, including cold. The activation of the right amygdala in women’s brain even makes them more reactive to pain. 

With a larger deep limbic system than men, women are more sensitive to emotions. Women also synthesize serotonin slower than men, making them prone to far more severe PTSD and depression than men following traumatic events. 

Overall, biology, together with the inherent needs of a medieval society, make women simply unsuitable for combat.

NO VIKING WOMAN WARRIORS

Without rigorous scientific method, without language knowledge, without historical and cultural context, or essentially without facts or evidence, it is simply ludicrous to even remotely suggest that findings associated with the Birka grave relate to a woman Viking warrior, let alone prove the existence of woman Viking warriors.

Even assuming the remains were that of a woman, which has not been scientifically and reasonably established, burial with weapons does not imply warrior status, let alone prominent warrior status. As a matter of fact, it could be the contrary, as it was customary during the Viking age to bury slaves with weapons, so they could bring them to their dead owner in the afterlife.

Archaeologist Søren Sindbæk of Aarhus University asked Science News: "Have we found the Mulan of Sweden or a woman buried with the rank-symbols of a husband who died abroad?”. We very well may have. Or as archaeologist Davide Zori of Baylor University points out, "it's possible, albeit unlikely, that the woman's relatives buried her with a warrior's equipment without that having been her role in life."

Ultimately, finding bones buried with weapons simply does not even suggest, and even less so proves, the existence of women Viking warriors.

It does raise the suggestion though to a lot of people, even peers in academia. But then Unis ain't wot they used to be, innit?

Judith Jesch further wrote on this matter: "I have always thought (and to some extent still do) that the fascination with women warriors, both in popular culture and in academic discourse, is heavily, probably too heavily, influenced by 20th- and 21st-century desires.”

In other words,

Drum roll, maestro, please...... 

the modern reference to women warriors in an otherwise hypermasculine Viking society is yet another.... 

revisionist attempt at rewriting history to accommodate the inclusive ideology of the day. 

It has no basis in reality whatsoever. 

And it makes for good TV series too. 

Our Televisual and video and film age makes the same old superheroes, just more of them and more bizarre. The female thug-/-superhero- /- sex goddess-/ - beat men at everything trope is topical.

Casting today's bizarre ideas back in time is a work of imagination that has got out of hand and out of time.

But.... the Ale is better here and now.

Drink up.

Pax