http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2017/09/12/a-female-viking-warrior-interred-at-birka/
This topic peaked immense curiosity for me.
I have read brief articles about this topic of finding the first real female Viking before. In this particular case, the author Rundkvist elaborates on how the first real female Viking warrior was identified through sequencing the genomes of the bones. This is the first case recorded where there is a mismatch between osteo-sex and artefact gender. For me, this an incredible find, and almost feels liberating on behalf of feminist archaeology or queer archaeologies, despite the fact that it took nearly 40 years for someone to shine a light on a quiet osteologist who previously regarded the bones as female. Leading female academics are proven to be rare already, let alone listened to about their findings. I think it is also important to acknowledge the female reseachers such as Anna Kjellström who identified the bones as belonging to Birka’s grave 581.
Despite the presented evidence, there are still archaeologists who outright say they don’t believe this because of the weapons present, or the bones which could be from two different people. I can understand where they are coming from. In this field, one has to be critical of the entire picture. Can we say for sure this female was definitely associated with the items she was buried with? Was there possibly another person who she was buried with that was removed early? Even though I agree that the skeleton is female, maybe I personally can’t rule out any explanations of her surroundings until there is hard, empirical evidence that proves what archaeologists theorize.
I can’t help but wonder if the author of this article is a little biased in his opinion. Stating that the team of researchers who conducted the bone analysis are his “professional buddies” would make for a pretty slanted view towards the research of his friends, and possibly away from the critique of other academics. I think it is commendable he provides a few notes at the end of the article which address differing theories as noted above, I just hope he keeps an open mind, as well as future researchers when excavating graves.
I agree with Melissa that this is a very interesting case. The fact that this is the first known case of a mismatch between osteo-sex and artifact gender, leads me to wonder if the case is not necessarily odd, but rather one of many such mismatched cases that archaeologists have simply failed to investigate. Perhaps there are many more cases lying in archives, forgotten and misinterpreted.
I expect as more female archaeologists take the lead on projects, the question of gender will not be so readily assumed as it was in this particular case. More importantly, as more women lead the field, more women will have their opinions taken seriously when they have a theory that may contradict traditionally held archaeological interpretations of artefacts.
The assumption that just because weaponry is discovered the remains are male has to be put aside. I am actually surprised that this is still an issue considering the factual warrior queen, Boudica, who led a revolt against the Romans in Britain in 60-61 bce. There have always be women who do men’s jobs. Modern women, like my cousin the rancher, do traditionally male jobs as well, so why do archaeologists assume the Viking warrior is a rare case?
Melissa is correct when she says we also cannot assume that the skeletal remains were the only remains in the grave with the weaponry, but I too think there is a distinct possibility that the article’s author could be biased and may be straying away from the significance of this case for the probable misinterpretation the case points out. Perhaps he is threatened by the idea that other cases might be found where assumptions of gender have been made that would shed light on the unbridled androcentricity of past archaeological interpretations that science may now uncover.