The modern belief that professional female warriors were a common sight in the ancient world is a myth which owes most of its popularity to the internet; and very little to the historical or archaeological records of antiquity. While some individual women did hold considerable power as aristocratic leaders during the Classical and Medieval periods (usually through their families or partners) very few indeed were genuine wielders of sword and spear. The reasons for this were not just societal or cultural but also practical. The expected domestic and maternal roles of women and girls in largely agrarian societies removed the opportunity to acquire the martial skills or stamina required to compete in hand-to-hand combat. Especially against almost exclusively male opponents.
Even among the Celtic peoples, where indigenous literary descriptions of heroines and warrioresses were somewhat more common, most references were to legendary figures rather than to historical ones. Indeed some early Christian writers in Ireland – the monastic grandchildren of “pagan” converts – clearly used the presence of female warleaders as a narrative motif or device to highlight the exotic nature of the pre-Christian stories they were composing or elaborating upon. It did not necessarily mean that it was ubiquitous at the time of writing or that it had been so in recent centuries. The proselytising authors had one eye on creating a morality tale for their largely illiterate audiences as well as entertaining them.
Of course, all this is not say that individual females in antiquity had no participation whatsoever in warfare. Obviously there would have been occasions when women and girls took up arms to defend themselves and their communities against attack. However dedicated female warriors would have been a rarity in almost all societies. Aside from fleeting periods during the Classical and Late Medieval eras, ancient warfare was primarily the preoccupation of affluent nobles and their retinues. Even in Ireland, where manuscript references to banlaochra, banféinnithe and other gendered military roles were not infrequent, women fighters were the exception not the rule (which is why the eachlacha, female messengers or couriers associated with largely male fianna or “hunter-warrior bands”, were invariably equated with prostitutes by the disapproving Medieval scribes who recorded their existence).
This leads me to this blog post by Judith Jesch, a Professor of Viking Studies, discussing the somewhat sensationalist reporting about a supposed Medieval female warrior uncovered by researchers in Sweden. As you might expect, all is not as it appears; or has been claimed to appear.
To put my cards on the table, I will say that I have always thought (and to some extent still do) that the fascination with women warriors, both in popular culture and in academic discourse, is heavily, probably too heavily, influenced by 20th- and 21st-century desires. At the same time, I also think it is interesting to debate these matters and I am happy to do so (although not with the type of people who write UTL words to the effect of ‘I just KNOW there were women warriors in the Viking Age’). I try to keep an open mind, but I also get very frustrated by what I consider to be academic discourse that seems to be mostly concerned with grabbing attention in order to facilitate further funding and/or claim ‘impact’.
Read the whole thing.
AN SIONNACH FIONN 
Thanks for the post and the link to Jesch’s article. Her point no. 4, concerning “no pathological or traumatic injuries” to the skeleton in question, is the very thing I wondered about after reading of the discovery. A warrior by profession, even in the unlikely event that he/she was never injured, would likely have grooves in the bones caused by musculature and possibly other skeletal malformations (think the deformed shoulder structures of archer’s remains from a lifetime of drawing a bow). It could be that the woman in question was indeed a warrior, but to state that unequivocally without forensic evidence is pushing it just a bit. In any case, it was an amazing discovery.
LikeLike
Good point on the lack of physical wear and tear on the remains. As others have pointed out, the accoutrements of a warrior do not make a warrior. It’s like burying an American businesswoman with her personal handgun and Taser. Dig her up a thousand years hence, would they assume that she had been a police officer rather than a CEO? Fascinating stuff all the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
there have always been legends of female warriors – think of the Amazons, goddesses like Morrigan and Grainne Ní Mháille, the Pirate Queen (who does have historical provenance).
Whether the legendary female warriors were figments of male fears/hopes or grounded in some reality is lost to the mists of time.
Today these legendary females could be construed as role models for some types of modern women – which is the role of all gods and godesses
LikeLike
Good points, but there are differences between female leaders, however bellicose, and female warriors. In a modern context, Margaret Thatcher thrived on her image as a “warleader”, if you like, but she was never a female soldier. Credible accounts of women actually engaging in fighting, with spear or sword, in the Classical and Medieval periods are incredibly rare. Very few aristocratic females in any pre-modern societies underwent military training. Even aristocratic Irish male boys and youths before the Middle Ages received only rudimentary military training, unless they lived in periods or areas of frequent warfare. And they were the “armies” of pre-Norman Ireland, even with the greater use of bodyguards and mercenaries (especially after the Viking incursions).
So, were there legendary women warriors? Absolutely, yes, Historical ones? Not so much.
LikeLike
It’s interesting how representations of female warriors are nearly always that of extremely fit, yet also extremely sexy, women with tight-fitting armor and long hair. Also, they’re inevitably young and very attractive. Obviously, and teen/young male’s fantasy of a warrior queen, but utterly impractical, ahistorical and unlikely.
Any woman who might, on the rare occasion, have been trained to the degree necessary over many years to be proficient in hand-to-hard combat would likely have stouter and garbed in considerably more armor, I would imagine. That is, if she wanted to last more than a short time in actual combat. Also, no set of big wings.
LikeLike
LOL! Yes indeed. While it is the job of new researchers to challenge some old preconceptions about history there is no need to throw out the historical baby with with the sexist bath water. Women probably did partake in “professional” warfare in the past – but they were very, very, very much the exception not the rule. Wishing something to be otherwise doesn’t make it so and twisting history to suit present attitudes just leaves you with more bunkum.
LikeLiked by 1 person