+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence (/showthread.php?tid=46)
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - john1504 - 18th December 2005
Quote:quote:
I would be interested to know of any examples of women buried with swords, so if you can point me to any suitable reports that discuss it and put it into context, I would be grateful.
http://www.swordmaiden.com/history/overview.php
http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/07/tech/main641776.shtml
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html
These are just a few of the websites where you can find information about female skeletons found with weapons.
It has been a long held belief of mine that our understanding of ancient warfare is based on the Victorians desire to show that men were in charge of things. This was compounded by Religious teachings that women should be quiet and follow the orders of the senior male of her house. All to keep,as has been said, the status-quo.
Surely the evidence speaks for itself that women played just as much a part of defending her home as the men did. It may have been as a result of all eligible males in her family being dead, and therefore unable to fulfill the military obligations put on them by their fudal overlords for the levying of troops, that caused women to take up arms.
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - kevin wooldridge - 18th December 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by john1504 Surely the evidence speaks for itself that women played just as much a part of defending her home as the men did. It may have been as a result of all eligible males in her family being dead, and therefore unable to fulfill the military obligations put on them by their fudal overlords for the levying of troops, that caused women to take up arms.
Not quite sure that the evidence speaks for itself. It isn't the deceased after all that would have placed the weapons in a grave, but a third party (or parties). Archaeology doesn't yet have the technology to determine their motives, ritual or otherwise.
Mistakes have probably been made in the past in jumping too quickly to conclusions regarding grave goods. Suggesting that a fragment of pottery depicting a gladiator indicates a gladiator (or gladiatrix) burial, being the one case that immediately springs to mind.
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - sniper - 18th December 2005
there is also the problem of interpreting what exactly are grave goods (intentionally buried with the deceased), and what are accidental losses, intrusive or residual finds in the grave fill. This does not have to apply just to pottery sherds etc. For example, a ring is found in the grave fill of a skeleton from a cemetery that was known to have already gone out of use by the mid-14th century. The ring is dated to the 16th Century so has to be an intrusive find rather than a grave good, though what conclusion would have been made if the dates of ring and burial had matched?...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - john1504 - 18th December 2005
I agree on the 'danger' of jumping to conclusions. But if it is taken as true that the 'warrior' class of, for example, the Anglo-Saxons were 'high-status', then it would stand to reason that they (the warriors) would be jealous of that status and would, therefore, be reluctant to bestow it upon anyone without good reason. Using the sword, shield and spear as grave goods speaks, in my opinion, loudly that the person in the grave must have earned the right, in the eyes of those who placed them there, to carry those weapons.
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - sniper - 19th December 2005
kind of fails to explain why very young children have been found buried with weapons that are taller than they are. To be buried with a weapon does not necessarily mean that you could, or did, use it in life...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - kevin wooldridge - 19th December 2005
Quote:quote:[i]Using the sword, shield and spear as grave goods speaks, in my opinion, loudly that the person in the grave must have earned the right, in the eyes of those who placed them there, to carry those weapons.
The other possibility is that the mourners choose grave goods to reflect their own status rather than that of the deceased. A warrior might choose to give up a valued weapon as a grave offering, because of the social reflection on their generosity and social standing rather than as a indicator of the 'martial' achievements of the deceased. Hence the sex or age of the deceased is in effect irrelevant.
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - sniper - 19th December 2005
but the age or sex of the individual may not be totally irrelevant. A particular item placed in a grave may have reflected that the individual buried had reached a particular stage in their life course. For example, a weapon may have reflected that an individual had reached "maturity", at whatever age that was culturally deemed to have occurred and regardless of whether they actually used, or could have used, that, or a similar, weapon in life. Of course, this may not apply in all cultures, hence very young children buried with weapons. However, perhaps this could also be seen as trying to "cheat". If it was the object that signified maturity rather than the actual age of the dead individual, perhaps by providing a young individual with a "mature" object would mean they could be reborn as "mature" in the next life?...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - john1504 - 19th December 2005
A child could have inherited the right to carry weapons. When the senior male in the household dies, for whatever reason, the 'status' would have passed on to the next one down. If the next in line happens to be 5yrs old, so what, it is his birthright. It would, IMO, explain why children have been found with full size weapons, and The child may not have 'earned' the right to bear arms, but it would be certain that he/she was in the process of learning.
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - sniper - 19th December 2005
the child certainly could have inherited the right to carry weapons, but that does not imply that they were warriors, or that the person from which they inherited the right was necessarily one either. The weapon may have ceased to be an actual weapon to be used and had taken on a symbolic meaning instead, probably related to the qualities that a warrior was ideally meant to show, but not necessarily implying that the person buried with the weapon was an actual warrior.
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
pantomimes and farce:costumes and competence - john1504 - 20th December 2005
Agreed on that point Sniper, but the question remains as to why such, supposedly, valuable weapons were placed with the children. Their belief in the afterlife would, IMO, give them reason to ensure the child, who is of the 'warrior caste' was greeted in whatever meeting place by the ancestors as befitted his/her status. Thus ensuring entrance to the halls of the ancestors. They may never have readied their weapons in anger during their short lives, but, as 'warriors' they would, as can be found in many feudal societies, have been trained in weapon lore as soon as they could hold the weapon. It was a necessity of the times, logically, that as many people as possible be prepared to fight to defend their homes, land, and hunting grounds against incursions.