
Let’s Debate Female Viking Warriors Yet Again - aaron695
http://norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html
======
mbillie1
Actually can we not debate it, and stop couching our barely-disguised
political motivations in pedantry?

~~~
mnarayan01
> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry?

While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing
in the linked article strikes me as "pedantry".

~~~
ajross
What parts don't? The entire article is one technical digression after
another, aimed solely to discredit the paper and its authors, without engaging
on the one result that makes it notable.

That's, like, the textbook definition of "pedantry".

~~~
mnarayan01
The linked article raises four concerns:

1\. It's not clear whether the skeleton goes with the grave -- The excavation
was in the 19th century and there are various methodological concerns.

2\. It's not clear that the graveyard was for "warriors" \-- The number of
bodies with serious injuries is low.

3\. It's not clear that the grave was for someone of "high rank", particularly
in as much as "high rank" modifies "warrior".

4\. The paper gives short shrift to the work of language/text specialists.
Notable in light of (2) and (3) above.

How much each of these things is a problem is going to depend on deep factual
information, but they are not indicative of "excessive concern with minor
details and rules".

~~~
phaemon
I think there is a misunderstanding here that is causing people to talk past
each other (and I think the Professor had the same misunderstanding).

There seems to be the idea that paper is making the claims that the person in
the grave was a) female and b) a warrior.

However, they are actually only making claim A, that the person was female.
The claim that the person was a warrior was made earlier by the archaeological
team.

So, if you think the paper is making both claims, then the professors
criticisms seem valid, as they are unconvincing in establishing this was a
warrior. However, if you know that they're only making one claim, the attacks
on the window-dressing of this being a viking warrior appear totally pedantic
(as it ignores the main claim entirely).

~~~
setrofim_
You are right, the authors of the paper only claim that their results
demonstrate a); they are, however, assuming b) based on previous studies.

What the Professor is arguing, as I understand it, is that those previous
studies do not necessarily warrant the assumption of b), and thus the paper's
title "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" is misleading -- there
has been a confirmation of "female", but not of "warrior". Something like
"Skeleton, that some evidence points to being that of a warrior, was confirmed
to be female"; but that's not as pithy or sensationalist.

Those not reading the paper sufficiently carefully (or at all -- only limiting
themselves to the title and the abstract) will end up drawing conclusions
unjustified by the paper. Which, given the political implications, may be
undesirable.

[edit: grammar]

~~~
phaemon
In that case, surely the professor should be commenting on the original
assessment, not any paper that accepts the published literature? I still
reckon it's a misunderstanding.

I don't know what the "political implications" means. I think I've missed
something. Did Trump tweet about it or something? I don't know why this would
have any political implications at all.

~~~
setrofim_
> In that case, surely the professor should be commenting on the original
> assessment, not any paper that accepts the published literature?

She does. Most of the criticism in the blog post is directed towards the
findings in the previous studies. The professor explicitly disqualifies
herself from discussing the findings of the current study, as they are outside
her area of expertise. The criticism of this paper is that it fails to
distinguish sufficiently clearly its a priori assumptions from the conclusions
drawn from the present findings.

> I don't know what the "political implications" means. I think I've missed
> something. Did Trump tweet about it or something? I don't know why this
> would have any political implications at all.

I meant gender politics, rather than the US national politics.

------
diyseguy
The referenced article says the grave contained a 'full set of gaming pieces'.
What are 'gaming pieces'?

~~~
lucozade
As I understand it, the speculation is that they are pieces from Hnefatafl
which is a chess precursor.

~~~
diyseguy
neat!

~~~
aaron695
Pic's from the actual grave -

[http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=561857](http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=561857)

Prettier ones -

[https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/viking-
game...](https://sites.google.com/site/archoevidence/home/viking-games-pieces)

------
SandersAK
I don't understand why this article is on HN nor how it fits into the HN mod
guidelines.

~~~
microtherion
The guidelines say "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity".

As a reader (not the submitter), I found at least two interesting ideas in the
article:

(1) the fact that the correspondence between bones and graves is less than
fully documented. An interesting factoid about past archeological practice.

(2) the argument that burial accessories don't necessarily prove life
occupation: Could it be that some "warrior graves" (of either sex/gender) were
really "warrior cosplay graves"; that in a society where warriors have high
status, other high status individuals could also be buried with the
accoutrements of warriors? Will future archeologists digging up US graves
conclude that there were millions and millions of people playing for the New
York Yankees, because of all the baseball caps they'll find?

So I'd argue this article qualifies.

