Not just another pretty face

Think of a Viking warrior and you probably imagine a fearsome, muscular, bearded man. Well, think again. Using cutting-edge facial recognition technology, British scientists have brought to life the battle-hardened face of a female fighter who lived more than 1,000 years ago.

The life-like reconstruction, which challenges long-held assumptions that Viking warrior heroes such as Erik the Red left their women at home, is based on a skeleton found in a Viking graveyard in Solør, Norway, and now preserved in Oslo’s Museum of Cultural History. The remains had already been identified as female, but her burial site had not been considered a warrior grave “simply because the occupant was a woman”, according to archaelogist Ella Al-Shamahi.
MORE

This entry was posted in History. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Not just another pretty face

  1. mark says:

    She prolly got that head damage for refusing to make a sammich.

    Just kidding

    Also, Epstein did not kill himself

  2. BrassG says:

    Yes, because the modern spectacle of women attempting (and failing spectacularly) to compete against males has sooooo proven that women can be warriors, hasn’t it? I was in a Combat Squad Leader Course in 3d MARDIV when the Powers That Be at division tried to shoehorn two WMs into it, back in 1989. They didn’t make it past the hump to the training area. To be clear, that was on THE FIRST DAY.

    Go peddle that shit elsewhere, because I damned well know better.

    • Bright Eyes says:

      I’ve carried one er two wounded men. It was all I could do as they are dead weight. I’m not talking a couple feet. No way a women could have done this. There is more to battle then pulling a trigger. I know damn well too 3/1 India, 0351, 68. A civilian scenario. Yer in a burning building, a 200 lb. beam is on your leg you are trapped. The floor is ready to cave. Who do you want to show up? A one hundred lb. female fire person or a 190 lb. fireman? Which one is going to lift that beam off your leg and carry you to safety? Not a put down, just a reality. I believe in equal pay for equal work.

  3. Bright Eyes says:

    So what? Everyone knows women have fought in battle. Not a big news flash there. Not buried with warrior honors? Hell, most men weren’t either so whats the big deal there? Hundreds dead on a battle field? I reckon back then many were left to rot and for the crows and buzzards to chow down on. She was a warrior, got killed and was probably fortunate to get buried.

  4. FaCubeItches says:

    It’s funny how they take one possible exemplar and then posit that something was at all common or ordinary. Show me two confirmed, and you can posit a third, but just assuming that one possible example means anything isn’t exactly accurate.

  5. Thats one yes scientist maybe. The DNA they managed to pull from that site has bounced back and forth for years about whether it is actually a female skeleton or not and if it is actually the burial site of that particular skeleton if I remember right. BY no means is it settled but right now someone claiming the female warrior myth is pushing it again of course. There has never been a burial site with a confirmed female warrior in it. Not even one that was a confirmed female occupant that contained a sword in it for that matter. Even if there were some women who fought alongside the Male warriors they were obviously so rare as to not show up on the archeological radar.

  6. the other other Andrew says:

    Victorian era historians screwed up history bigtime. Like assuming that Greenland was a frozen hell for the Norse when it was first found, and was a sell-job by Leif or whomever. Except when the Norse found it, it was green, and growing and a good place to live.

    Just like poo-pooing female warriors. Most cultures had them. It’s not a new idea. Proving it, that’s a tad bit tougher, as most digs have had the truth destroyed by the preconceptions of the diggers.

    Like.. Amazons. Fake or real. Well, back in the days of Troy, when there weren’t stirrups, and saddles were relatively new, AND the horses were small, a female could ride and fight longer and better than a guy. So a female horse archer is a real thing. But the Victorians and those who followed could not believe females fought.

    There’s a castle in Scotland that was held by nuns for months. Nuns. Real live penguinish nuns. And they racked up a decent kill ratio.

    Joan of Arc was said to be so strong that she could squeeze the chest of her horse enough that the horse complained. Joan was a big farm girl, like those found along the Alcase-Lorraine area (France-German borderlands.)

    And, well, in Norse, Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, Norman-Saxon, Welsh, Norman-Welsh, Scottish, Norman-Scottish…. places, women were expected to defend the home while the dudes are out. Maybe not carry a full combat load, but at least fort up in the local keep and shoot and stab (with spears and other polearms) to their hearts’ content.

    In medieval Japan, there were lots of female warriors, even though western historians poo-pooed the idea for a long time. (The histories would have been proven if we had had to invade Japan during WWII, as everyone was being trained to fight.)

    Heck, during Roman times, in England and France, there were celtic women who fought, some alongside their men in battle, others in the rear or in defense. When your combat gear includes a pair of pants, a sword and a shield, anyone can play…

  7. Sanders says:

    Well, half of all Viking warriors were females. I know it because I saw it on the Vikings TV show.

    If you’ll believe that, then you’ll probably believe Epstein killed himself, too.

Play nice.