But seriously guys, this is important

Post where there is conclusive proof of her being a warrior of any rank and ill wire you 10k via PayPal , should be easy work.

>ill wire you
>PayPal
Ok grandpa, I'll run down to the telegraph office and get right on that, my morse code is a little rust, but I'll take the 10k in gold bullion or an equal amount of tobacco and spices lmao

>Conclusive proof

Your ignorance is showing. Archaeology proves nearly nothing conclusively. It isn't possible.

If its true, there's nothing wrong with that
Whats wrong is portraying and treating them as some sort of historical proto feminist butch punk, its all political at this point

>start watching Norsemen
>it's super realistic

WE
WUZ
VIKINGZ N SHIET

You can still usually arrive at a conclusion without resorting to literal conjecture

saw that on netflix. Actually worth?

It's Danish and other Scandinavian or European actors performing an English script written by Danish people. But yes. If you don't like the first episode you won't like the rest, but if you do you will. It gets off to a good start.

Chances are the female cadaver was a slave or significant other.
The vikings were not some super progressive society that went full "womyn powah".
They raped and pillaged coastal fiefs throughout the western world but because they also traded a little we are supposed to believe they weren't all bad.

A lot of people cite Valkyries as proof of how "accepting" they were but what they fail to understand is that the Valkyries wait on the fallen warriors (male) that Odin picked.

Not with archaeology, friend.

You may not like it, but if it was buried like a warrior then it was probably a warrior.

>The vikings were not some super progressive society that went full "womyn powah".

Okay? But you don't need to be a progressive womyn powah society for women to fight.

T. Woman

>Not dealing purely in salt and purple dye.
Uppity young whipper snapper.

Tried it. Slave being used as a literal toilet a bit much for me.

T. Person who's WRONG

So wait is gender determined by DNA or is it a social construct

Its true, Japanese onna bugeisha for example is expected to be feminine and graceful, ''women can't fight'' conservatism seems to be a Judeo-Christian / or western thing only desu

They made a huge mistake letting their women fight. Look at Nordic women today, bimbo whores who are overly masculine. Instead of serving their men they want to constantly challenge then instead, as if they are men themselves. They're also tall, muscular, and slutty like men. This dynamic is not in harmony with nature and thus all Scandinavians will be cucked to death because they let their women become too powerful.

Gender is a social construct, sex is determined by DNA.

But how do they know these people identified as female

>bimbo whores
>who are overly masculine

Strictly speaking "female" refers only to biological sex, not gender.

So why did it make the news then

Because it challenges the widely held presumption there were no female warriors in the past, a presumption held by both the general public and some archaeologists to this day, and journalists write about things to earn money.

>Chances are the female cadaver was a slave or significant other.

Why not a male slave?

presumably analysis of the bones indicates female

Take a look at the reddit thread on this, there's zero skepticism whatsoever. Veeky Forums may be contrarian, but it's for a reason.

They get all their history lessons from modern media which imagines men and women are physical equals.

I put the likelihood of this grave being a female warrior at about the same odds of a woman dominating the NBA next season.

>Birka
Is that where the standard unit of measurement is based on the tangerine?
As in;"Just a mall slice of cake,I need to lose a few tangerines."
"I haven't seen you in so long,nephew,you must be 3 tangerines taller."
"My car got repossessed,tried my best to make the payment but I was a day late and a tangerine short."
That place is a citrus based Barter Town.

I wanna FUCK dat viking bitch

Gender is just another word for sex. I hate sociologists that make up this bullshit. They should stick it up their ass along with intersectionality and muh racism = power + prejudice.

It does not make sense from a pragmatic point of view. If you take one warrior on a raid, you reduce the amount of labour force back home. Men are stronger, have more endurance and mental strength compared to women in regards to war. Why would you take the risk of keeping a man at the homestead to work and bring a far less efficient woman. I have the idea that a lot of modern feminists are completely dilusional about their own capacities, if they were put in a ring with a man they would be torn apart, or the man would take pity and try not to hurt her.

It does not make sense.

That's very true, and to save our country we must import more submissive Arabs.

>Gender is just another word for sex.

No it is not. Biological sex is a very different thing from the social construct of gender, gender is informed by culture. Hence, in different cultures genders norms are different.

Why do we think of long hair being "feminine" and short hair "masculine", for instance? Culture. Why do women wear skirts and men wear trousers? Culture. Etc. Etc. Etc. That's nothing to do with biology.

Well that's a shame for you, for all practical purposes the individual has been proven to be female.

Short hair on men is a relatively recent thing though

>Men are stronger, have more endurance and mental strength compared to women in regards to war.

That's a generalisation, it is not a scientific truth that men are always more physically capable than women, and the idea they're "mentally stronger" is nonsense.

And just because a woman is fighting doesn't mean a man, who for no other reason than his sex is apparently more adept at fighting, is being left behind.

Precisely. That only illustrates the arbitrary and changing nature of gender roles.

No it illustrates that fashion was changing trough history

>No it is not. Biological sex is a very different thing from the social construct of gender,
No, it's not, nor has it been used as such until american sociologists started the fad. Look up any dictionary from 10 or 20 years ago.

>social construct of gender
The typical leftist trick of calling something a "social construct". Yes, everything is a social construct, even sex itself. Its a socially constructed definition by which we classify organisms if so possible. In fact, organism, definitions, society, etc are all social constructs, as is the language with which I'm communicating right now. Guess nothing makes sense anymore.

>Why do we think of long hair being "feminine" and short hair "masculine", for instance?
That has nothing to do with gender, gender is a synonym for sex. There's a lot of languages that don't have a synonym for it to begin with and both sex and gender are translated the same way as a result.

tl;dr pseudoscience

>That's a generalisation, it is not a scientific truth that men are always more physically capable than women
Yeah, not like there are literal biological difference regarding bone density, muscle mass, body fat %, height, upper body strength, etc. Its a generalization amirite.

Just like saying humans have two hands and two legs is a generalization, after all you have defective Indians with 4 legs.

Yes, fashion informed by our ideas of gender and what is appropriate for people who identify with a certain gender to wear.

I really don't see what point you're trying to make here.

>buried with high status accoutrements
>this definitely means she was a warrior and not just a rich woman
I'm not saying that she didn't fight but grave goods are not conclusive evidence

>No, it's not, nor has it been used as such until american sociologists started the fad. Look up any dictionary from 10 or 20 years ago.

Erm... You DO know there's nothing in your dictionary that contradicts what I've said, right? It's TYPICALLY related to biological sex, it is not the SAME as biological sex.

>The typical leftist trick of calling something a "social construct". Yes, everything is a social construct, even sex itself. Its a socially constructed definition by which we classify organisms if so possible. In fact, organism, definitions, society, etc are all social constructs, as is the language with which I'm communicating right now. Guess nothing makes sense anymore.

Lol why are you getting so annoyed by this? Gender is a social construct, our understanding of gender is constructed with reference to our culture. It isn't difficult to understand, user.

>gender is a synonym for sex

No it isn't. Your own dictionary definition says so.

Military grave goods are high status artefacts in general. Especially in a trading settlement like Birka, being buried with a nice sword doesn't mean you're a warrior any more than owning a Ferrari makes you a race driver. Grave goods are generally a conspicuous display of wealth by family and friends of the deceased rather than anything necessarily to do with the actual dead person

>Its a generalization amirite

Yes, it is. A female weightlifter and jiu-jitsu blackbelt will grease a fat boy in a fight.

It's generally true that men are naturally stronger than women, but you're treating it as a universal constant when it isn't.

>I'm not saying that she didn't fight but grave goods are not conclusive evidence

We're aware, but that's just how archaeology does it. If we got too hung on proving things conclusively, we'd never get anything accomplished, it just isn't possible without a time machine.

It is not a generalization, it is indeed a fact that nearly all men (with a few outliers) are stronger than women. Usually, the viking societies were not populated enough that they would have enough free labour to spare, as the harsh climate required constant domestic maintanance, preparation and farm work.

Pic related, the grip strength of men compared to women.

Furthermore, men are less likely to develop stress fracture and have better endurance than women. Rossi, S., J. Hauret, and B. Jones. "Effect of Physical Fitness on the Risk of Stress Fracture Injury in Army Basic Training." International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings. Vol. 9. No. 4. 2016.

Men and women react differently to stressful situations
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453009001486

Now imagine, if you have a village of 100 people. You would sent 20 out to raid in a foreign country, obviously you would choose those who are more fitted for combat so they would return home with loot, and use those less suited for battle as domestic labour.

Now imagine the "fat boy" taking up weightlifting and jiu-jitsu classes. In a small time he would outperform her. That brings you back to the following question, why would you raise a woman to become a warrior when it would be far more effective to make a man train to be one.

Okay, but it is suggestive that she was an actual fighter, since the fact that she was buried with weapons at all implies the people who buried her identifed her as a warrior, or at least someone capable of using the tools given to her in the afterlife.

It's not conclusive, but it is begging the question to presume otherwise at this point.

>>>>>

tl;dr it's probably bullshit since the bones were all mixed up in bags and some people REALLY want to confirm their 20/21st century empowered female fetish.

>It's not a generalisation, it's just generally true that men are strong than women, except when they aren't.

Brainlet.

I'm an archaeologist, I know how it works. I personally think that high status grave goods associated with a burial at a primarily trading site (as oppoosed to, for example, a manorial or royal estate) do not necessarily relate to the profession of the deceased. I'd say the same about an ornate male burial, a sword and nice armour doesn't mean it's a warrior. I'd look for signs of injury or pathology on the bones to identify that.

Not necessarily.

And furthermore there's skill to fighting, it's not just a matter of brute strength. Men aren't naturally more suited to learning that.

>at least someone capable of using the tools given to her in the afterlife.
That isn't the meaning of Viking grave goods.
Often such goods were deliberately broken before being deposited, so they clearly weren't intended to be physically used by the dead person in the afterlife

Look at the graph again, the extreme outliers are in no way historically representative.

and that jiu jitsu black belt woman would get fucked up by a black belt male, Rhonda Rousey said it when she was ather prime when one dumb feminist reporter asked her if she could compete in the men's division, She said that even tho she could probably rekt the average joe, if she tried to fight even the worst male fighter on the UFC would mop the floor with her because we are naturally stronger

You sound like someone who never practised martial art. I did judo for 15 years and we had girls in our dojo. They were used, grown women, as practising for the younger guys untill they would have matured enough to compete with their fellow males.Up untill 12 years old, judo matches are mixed-sex, afterwards they get split because otherwise women constantly end up on the bottom. Technique is important but people underestimate power, weight and strenght in combat.

>I'm an archaeologist, I know how it works.

Me too. But we can't test how many people a person in the grave has killed, and the presence or absence of wounds is by no means a conclusive proof of fighting ability.

In short if, as a discipline, we're okay with declaring any grave containing weapons as most likely being that of a warrior, we're not allowed to be so sceptical once we find out the person it is also a female.

>Often such goods were deliberately broken before being deposited, so they clearly weren't intended to be physically used by the dead person in the afterlife

That's not necessarily true at all. Just as the person going to the afterlife has been "broken", perhaps the goods going with them need to be "broken" as well. But even then, with the Norse burials I'm familiar with, the goods weren't broken.

The problem is, I don't think we have any female burials at Viking war graves such as Repton (admittedly that site has its own problems). All we have is a single, obviously high status burial at a non-military site.
I think describing this as anything other than a possible (strong emphasis on possible) warrior burial, but just as likely a high status burial with ornate grave goods, is bad archaeology. 'Viking Warrior Women being written out of history' is reaching to the extreme.

Gender is a different word of sex, and both gender and sex are and can be the different words of same thing.

Gender/ Sex "roles" and "characteristics" can be social constructed, but gender/sex itself is NOT social constructed. Take your disgusting libercuck sex revolution / hallucination propaganda horseshit to you fluid degenerated ass and DIE!

Who are you to assume that? And we're not talking about what is typical, we're talking about specific cases.

That's not what you said, though, you said a man would become a joy jitsu blackbelt faster a woman would. That's nonsense.

And even then, you're using anecdotal evidence, it's not a universal truth for all cases. For example: youtu.be/S6x1kRnGNU0

>then, with the Norse burials I'm familiar with, the goods weren't broken.
There are numerous cases of this, Ingleby is one that comes to mind

Okay, but a skilled fighter who just happens to be female is still going to be better than a relatively untrained fighter who just happens to be male.

Remember these women wouldn't be like women today, they'd be doing the farm work, they'd be under just as much hardship as their male counterparts.

>Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

Why don't you fuck back to /pol/

This is a board for grown ups, you've already proven yourself wrong with your own "dictionary definitions", at this point you're just embarrassing yourself.

>Okay, but a skilled fighter who just happens to be female is still going to be better than a relatively untrained fighter who just happens to be male.

Depends on the male to be honest. A decently in shape male would probably still fuck up the female fighter. Most certainly if we are talking about just an average hobbyist black belt rather than some elite top 0.01% MMA champion female.

I didn't said that you feminist nigger, A black belt woman would get rekted by a black belt men and that's an universal constant, if it wasn't contact sports wouldn't be divided into women's and men's divisions.

If you want another proof Fallon Fox (I think it's his name) is a Male to female trans that got the chance to fight in the women's division and every opponent has ended with a career ending injury and even life threatening, hell Rhonda declined to fight him because she knew she could get seriously injured, male fighters have called him out on that bullshit because it's dangerous for women to fight men in the octagon.

When both sexes have the same level of training it's only the natural course of things that men would win over the females (in a contact sport/warrior scenario)

Numerous enough to be considered the norm, and how sure are we it wasn't taphonomic? But then even if so, I don't think that's reason enough to presume they weren't for use in the afterlife.

Yes, they would both be under hardships. So why would you use a potential scenario where the male counterpart is untrained then? If anything this would mean that biological advantages are key then.If you put equally trained combatants against each other/

>It is not a fact unless it is 100% of the male population is stronger than 100% of the female population.

You're a fucking dumbass]

Okay, but then we are just assuming that what is true of jiu-jitsu is true of archery, swordplay, etc. Plus one must consider campcraft, other skills that wouldn't be seen from the physical remains.

Okay, but we aren't necessarily talking about two people with the same skillset.

>So why would you use a potential scenario where the male counterpart is untrained then?

Farmers don't use swords and fight in shield wall in day to day life, user.

>>It is not a fact unless it is 100% of the male population is stronger than 100% of the female population.

Yeah, it's not a universal truth unless that is the case. I'd suggest you Google what a universal truth is, kiddo.

It'd be a very strange taphonomic process that bent a sword through 90 degrees at certain sites and certain sites only
it wasn't the norm as far as I'm aware, but it is a a fairly common feature of Viking weapon burials

then you are skewing shit in your favor, of course Holly Holm would beat my sorry lazy ass, but Nate Diaz would beat Holly Holm in no time, just like even if my sister takes up boxing tomorrow I would still be able to knock her out cold with one strike in my current couch potato form

You heard it here first lads. Ships are, in fact, biological women.

Well there we go, it wasn't the norm.

Then you agree, a man isn't going to be a better fighter just because he happens to be a man, as was my original point.

I'm sorry but how can they say that person was a woman? Did they find some runes stating they identified as such?
This articles is pretty cisnormative.

They didn't, they said "female".

>the guardian
>pushing modern desires and ideology on historical societies

Wew.

if we even the playing field then he will be, if a woman has more training of course not but by raw strength alone he would have a fighting chance.
to conclude that somehow women are naturally stronger than men you need to have an even playing field if not your comparisons are bullshit, this even playing field is evidenced in male to female trans dominating female divisions when they compete or even in the army where the physical requirements have to be lowered for women since they cannot pass even recruitment if they are given the same conditions as the average male who enters the army

That's even worse, because it furthers the idea that biological sex is real, when it's actually just another social construct.

Alright. I'll rephrase what I said. The fact is that the vast majority of men completely outweighs the physical capacties of women which could be benefited from in war. It is a fact that only a few handful of women have the physical strenght that could match a man supported by data results as:

"Less expected was the gender related distribution of hand-grip strength: 90% of females produced less force than 95% of males. "

When I was digging round looking into this yesterday I discovered that actually there is a wee bit of a problem with this study.

The skeletal remains were excavated in the 19th Century and apparently not cataloged very well. They don't actually know for certain which lot of skeletal remains even comes from which grave for certain. An issue one of the authors of this study mentioned in her last paper on this subject in 2016

>The problem at Birka arises from the management of the material; the contexts of some of thefinds have become mixed up. Around eleven hundred graves have been excavated at Birka (or theisland of Björkö); approximately half of these were inhumations, including both rich chamber graves aswell as modest coffin burials (Gräslund 1980, 4-5). Most of the graves were excavated in the 19thcentury by Hjalmar Stolpe (Arbman 1943). During the present analysis, it became clear that theosseous material and the contextual information given on the box or bag did not always match thedata published by Arbman (Kjellström 2012); 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 Arbman as “cremations” and bags which include the bones of several individuals while being documented as the grave of one person
>This is a chamber grave furnished with finearmour and sacrificed horses. Nevertheless, three different osteological examinations all found thatthe individual was a woman. Whether these are not the correct bones for this grave or whether it opensup reinterpretations of weapon graves in Birka, it is too early to say

People in Transition: Life in the Mälaren Valley from an Osteological Perspective (PDF Download Available). Available from: researchgate.net/publication/312474924_People_in_Transition_Life_in_the_Malaren_Valley_from_an_Osteological_Perspective [accessed Sep 17, 2017].

Look mate, I was just trying to disprove that /pol/ack banging on about why you'd ever choose to fight with a woman instead of a man.

Please stop being dumb.

Sex is biological fact, to the extent we can say anything is a "fact", and gender isn't.