![]() ![]() While the main article is a reasonably well-argued archaeological analysis, some of the online supplementary material is less impressive. The article thus improves on the previous study with a better-reasoned argument and by toning down the originally rather sensationalist claims. The authors also give more consideration to what it might mean to identify a body as both a 'woman' and 'warrior'. ![]() Important matters, such as the processes by which the archaeologists identified the contents of the grave and by which they were led to do a genetic analysis, are better explained this time around. They do not revisit the scientific conclusions of the earlier study, but concentrate on the archaeological interpretation. 581’), the authors recognise the need for judicious interpretation of the evidence, with the question mark inviting discussion and argument. Already in the title (‘ Viking warrior women? Reassessing Birka chamber grave Bj. Now, the same team has published a more extensive assessment of the grave in question (Price et al., 2019). ![]() ![]() This desire for female Vikings contributed to the viral reception a couple of years ago of the paper ‘ A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics’ (Hedenstierna-Jonson et al., 2017). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |