I guess I should technically add that this does not mean that every single viking woman was a warrior, just that women were also buried with swords. It might mean that those were just heirlooms.
On the other hand: I am still stunned that historians and archeologists let their prejudices affect their work so much. Only now they are accepting that a skeleton with warrior equipment might belong to a woman. And there was of course that little detail concerning dildos. Dildos have been found from archeological digs for God knows how long and the usual response is to call it a "ritual item" and discard it.
Because the tought of a woman having a dildo for masturbation purposes is too embarrassing.
Cue the misogynist rationalizations.
Those came immediately. On Facebook there was a comment on the lines of "This is ridiculous, why the hell would they bring breeders to the front line?!?"
Complete nonsense.
If half of the warriors were women, then why aren't half of the sagas about women and half of the contemporary records about women? Why aren't half of the runic inscriptions about fallen shield maidens? Where are the graves of women who died of battle injuries?
Wishful thinking ... Some people will reach pretty far to revise history to fit their notions... Shield Maidens may have existed... Most cultures have examples of female fighters to some extent... But this one lost me at 50%... Even the Spartans didn't send their breeders out to fight...
I call bullkrap! Some were undoubtedly female. It feels like they had a very egalitarian society from what I remember reading. But half? Pfft. Someone is appealing to a political agenda...
(Well the article from Tor
is misrepresenting the data by claiming that 50% of warriors were female, but that is no excuse to calling women "breeders" or other idiocy.)