Is this true?

Some girl on facebook said that, Im trying to argue with her, she keeps bringing up buzzfeed tier facts out of her ass

why is it so important for you to prove her wrong?

So ask her to present her source for this evidence.

OCD in the form of autism

but were they black muslims too aavaard jewgoldbuergfuckmywifesonboorgshe?

She'd just bring up some buzzfeed article, I cant even trust Jewgle chrome since there are articles about black cleopatra and black celts on the interwebz

Is that a Huffington Post article?

Specify an actual academic report or similar instead of a clickbait news article.

amp.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors

She sourced this

>why is it so important for you to prove her wrong?
You're asking this on a board about history? Asking why its important to argue about history.

Thats the entire subject.

Women buried with swords does not make female warriors. The PC bandwagon is jumping the gun.

arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/have-we-finally-found-hard-evidence-for-viking-warrior-women/

Article with a few sources about why it's probably not a warrior and why the identification is sketchy at best.

"But she cautioned that this grave, and a handful of others where women were buried with weapons, does not mean Vikings accepted women as warriors. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that women in the Viking world were expected to run households, serve the men, and bear children. Even the mythical Valkyries, with their bellowing battle cries, are most often depicted in images where they offer drinking horns of mead to slain (male) warriors."

>it's totally authentic because "anonymous" says so??
I can only imagine what you said that led to this
>I'm a Psychology major with Criminology minor. It's my job, to Research tons of papers and theories in this
you both sound like massive twats. Just let it go.

posted this
>let it go
Why? Its a debate on history

>you both sound like twats
Well Im 19 y/o shitposter and she's a psychology major. She's the bigger twat

Yes.
But all the evidences disappeared. Thousands of graves, paintings, texts and reports depicting warrior women, all of this vanished, fsshhh. Bad luck.

How are you even losing that debate?

>BJ581 is not comprehensive of all viking culture
>BJ581 was excavated a century ago
>bones may have been mixed up or incorrectly labelled
>viking literature barely existed: what is recorded is from Christian ancestors centuries later
>women simply don't have the same physical strength as men (see competitive physical sports)
>women were too precious to lose: men don't give birth
>the female bones from bj581 showed no signs of physical trauma, which suggest she was either literally untouchable in battle or didn't fight at all
>serious reputable scholars in Norse and viking culture have questioned the findings

Yes. Down with the evil white woman who has pillaged and raped her way through history.

What about this user? Im a brainlet so could you find any flaw in this?

amp.history.com/news/dna-proves-viking-women-were-powerful-warriors

He and other anons just gave you all the info refute that shit. Did you even read any of it?

Read some, didn't understand, but Im a real brainlet when it comes to learning history

You just cant win

The bones tested and were found to be female are very likely not the bones from the warrior grave. It was excavated over a hundred years ago and everything was dumped into bags and/or wrongly labeled. Even if the bones are from a female "warrior" nothing indicates that this was normal. No literature or anything points to female warriors. If it was 50% like this retarded article suggest it would be mentioned in accounts. Female warriors were not common and if a force turned up with 50% female fighters you can bet your ass it would be recorded en masse.

It's just wishful sjw thinking.

>It was excavated over a hundred years ago and everything was dumped into bags and/or wrongly labeled.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
that's almost as bad as the Swedish government turning everything they find that's made of metal into scrap pig iron.

Not only that, the bones of the female "warriors" don't have any battle damage. They must either be vastly superior to men in battle that 30+ years of battles had netted them no damage or they weren't warrirors at all.

Fellas looks like Im losing the argument

...

...

>Facebook
Who let the normies in again?

Its still a Veeky Forums related argument

>single grave
>dna test shows female
>paraphernalia suggests warrior
>somehow vikings are now a progressive and true egalitarian society

That was literally the "article" I was talking about regarding bj581.

Female warriors did exist, perhaps even high in the ranks. There is the possibility that bj581 was a high ranking female warrior. However, the issue with this article and others like it is that they sensationalise theories, presenting them as fact, because 'science'. It's used to promote modern day ideology and as a result the view of History is tainted to match political and social agendas. That's why people are dumb enough to believe fifty percent of viking warriors were female. The figure is ludicrous and should not be entertained.

Ask her where the evidence is that this was a common occurrence. Surely to support the broad statements of 50 % female warriors and even fucking commanders there should be more evidence.

And it's still normalfag shit that doesn't belong in here.

vikings are pretty much a bunch of thieves and their biggest achievement was making the Anglo Saxons weaker so the Normans could conquer England

>You're asking this on a board about history?
Yes, he's asking on a board about history why you're being autistic on fucking facebook of all places.
What next, are you gonna try to force a scammer to be honest with his customers?

>make wild claim
>get claim refuted
>"state sources for your claim that my claim is wrong"
Thats not how it works butter cup.

Sage goes in all fields.

not him, but probably let it go because neither of you seem to know what you're talking about. I can't imagine either of you have ever actually read a scholarly article about this besides glancing over one for this "debate."

And its always cringy when you post things relating to Veeky Forums in public spaces, how is that better than her posting her buzz feed articles or whatever?

you know what's the most important thing to know about the vikings

most of them were manlets, and if manlets could fight and hold leadership positions then women probably could too

Aren't the Normans themselves basically all just a bunch of Vikings, descendants of Rollo who used to raid France?