![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
We were here
Jul. 22nd, 2011 04:49 amHalf of viking burials actually women
Previously the graves were figured to be for males because they had swords and armour and, you know, Boy Things. But how did people know they were Boy Things? Not by looking at the bones. They just now did that. "The bones were sorted for telltale osteological signs of which gender they belonged to, rather than assuming that burial with a sword or knife denoted a male burial." Now they have looked at the bones, half of them were guys, half of them were women.
... is this how women get invisible? Did they just not actually look before?
So, now they have found that half of Vikings was women (or roughly, maybe, could have been), what does the article conclude?
"Women may have accompanied male Vikings in those early invasions of England, in much greater numbers than scholars earlier supposed, McLeod concludes. Rather than the ravaging rovers of legend, the Vikings arrived as marriage-minded colonists."
... you see the *facepalm* in that paragraph?
Why phrase it that women accompany men when they were 50/50?
And why, when the witness reports say they were kick arse ravagers, conclude that the reports are wrong, because women were there so it must be Secretly About Marriage?
There's more context and evidence and the move here start a family version is probable from other stuff I've read, but those two sentences do not belong on the end of this report.
Women had swords. And shields. And viking burials with them.
Conclusion: Women kick arse too.
Previously the graves were figured to be for males because they had swords and armour and, you know, Boy Things. But how did people know they were Boy Things? Not by looking at the bones. They just now did that. "The bones were sorted for telltale osteological signs of which gender they belonged to, rather than assuming that burial with a sword or knife denoted a male burial." Now they have looked at the bones, half of them were guys, half of them were women.
... is this how women get invisible? Did they just not actually look before?
So, now they have found that half of Vikings was women (or roughly, maybe, could have been), what does the article conclude?
"Women may have accompanied male Vikings in those early invasions of England, in much greater numbers than scholars earlier supposed, McLeod concludes. Rather than the ravaging rovers of legend, the Vikings arrived as marriage-minded colonists."
... you see the *facepalm* in that paragraph?
Why phrase it that women accompany men when they were 50/50?
And why, when the witness reports say they were kick arse ravagers, conclude that the reports are wrong, because women were there so it must be Secretly About Marriage?
There's more context and evidence and the move here start a family version is probable from other stuff I've read, but those two sentences do not belong on the end of this report.
Women had swords. And shields. And viking burials with them.
Conclusion: Women kick arse too.