Remains Of Xena-Like Woman Found

[Cleita]

<snip>
Oct. 1, 2003 — The remains of a six-foot tall woman, buried with a shield and knife, were recently discovered in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery in Lincolnshire, England.

The body and artifacts, which date to A.D. 500-600, suggest that more women than previously believed may have fought alongside men during the turbulent years following England's Roman period.

Archaeologists made the discovery while working on a program for Britain's Channel 4 "Time Team."
<snip>

more....http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030929/xenawoman.html

[Ellen Forradalom]

1. Wow!

Was Gabrielle buried nearby?

[DarkPhenyx]

2. *insert completely inappropriate post here*

See...I can behave myself.

[Deja Q]

12. You mean something like

"jumping her bones"? :eyes: :D

[DarkPhenyx]

23. Or something like...

..."Yes, she was buried under Xena, toes to head as it were."

[athos1126]

42. like mulder and scully...

Xena and Gabrielle were SO doing it.

[slinkerwink]

3. *giggle*

now that's just funny.

[Cleita]

4. Apparently and maybe Joxer.

Read the article. There was a woman of ordinary height and a man also buried with a pot?? I hope it's not a hoax.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. OK, bear with me here.

Big fat hairy deal. This isn't the first female warrior that ahs been found. It is hardly a unique discovery. We have known for years that women were the ones that taught their sons to fight. They found a Gladatrix in London about two years ago. We've known about those for 200 years.

Let's please restrain ourselves and not make more of this than it is.

[Cleita]

8. So why don't you want to discuss it?

Do strong women intimidate you?

[Bake]

16. Intimidate me? Hell no! Xena is HOT HOT HOT!

By the way, didn't you used to be Clete?

That picture of Xena you've been using for a while now ... it just makes me CRAZY!!! HOT HOT HOT!! And pardon me if that sounds sexist, but sometimes I can't help it!

Bake

[Cleita]

17. Yes I used to be Clete.

The only thing that's changed is the spelling.

[DarkPhenyx]

21. *laughing directly at you*

Nice pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me.

[VelmaD]

24. I just know...

there's a lascivious comment to be made here but I'm not capable of making it at the moment. Sorry. Got personnel stuff to deal with at work in about 10 minutes.

I promise to come back later with the appropriate double entendre. ;-)

[Cleita]

25. So now that we know you have decided that you

will control and decree whether a discussion is appropriate or not, I am wondering when you are going to post something more intellectual, lofty and more worthy of you so you don't have to go in and make rude remarks to some people who are just trying to have fun with a current events topic?

[DarkPhenyx]

26. I believe pointing out that...

...this is nothing new and that "warrior women" have been around for a long time was very appropriate to the discussion and well informed. Much more so than a childish comment about my "fear of strong women".

Of course I didn't make any comment about the appropiateness of the topic. That would be people putting words in my mouth yet again instead of addressing the points I brought up directly.

I could ask if you "have a problem with strong men voicing their opinion and sharing their knowledge" but that would be sinking to an unacceptable level.

[Cleita]

28. You aren't the only person who knows about warrior women dearie.

I have been studying the subject for decades. I don't have to put everything I know on one post. However, if you really want to be up on the subject I will recommend many, many sources to you.

<<I could ask if you "have a problem with strong men voicing their opinion and sharing their knowledge" but that would be sinking to an unacceptable level.>> Well, apparently you already sank and men have never had a problem trying to intimidate women to silence them.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. As have I...

...but my study has been more as a part of all of history instead of focusing on such a narrow portion of it. No sense in limiting your knowledge. You loose so much of the important stuff that way. That would be a shame really.

Nice little pejoritive "dearie" in there. Still in a knot?

[Cleita]

36. Dearie is a form of endearment. Look it up in the dictionary.

I'm so happy you study everything historical, because now you need to read the literature of the times as well as the history and archaeological record and about the languages all this was written in. You might find it interesting.

Again, my point was not to shove warrior women down everyones gullet, but to have a little fun with Xena fans, like myself. This is the lounge, remember. Oh by the way the word you wanted in your third sentence is 'lose' not 'loose'.

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Which I have also done...

...though not as indepth.

"Dearie" can also be used as a pejoritive term, as can "boy" and a host of other words. Words are a dual-edged blade.

And now you begin to get picky on small typos. Wow.

[Cleita]

39. Well, it changes the whole meaning of your sentence.

I thought someone who is as nit picky about accuracy as you are would appreciate it.

[DarkPhenyx]

45. OK.

I you say so.

[Ellen Forradalom]

9. Be that as it may

I don't care. I still think it's fun.

[Cleita]

10. Yes, this is the lounge, isn't it where we

are supposed to have fun sometimes. Incidentally, there are the Altaic burials of warrior women as well.

[DBoon]

11. Fergettit!!

The repubs can have their women all dolled up, subservient and housebound.

A warrior woman suits me just fine!

[Book Lover]

63. Any Anglo-Saxon burial find is significant

It is a big, fat, hairy deal. From the archaological viewpoint, any finding of remains, purposefully buried or not, teaches us that much more about our collective past. You may think it unseemly to jump about shouting, "Look! They found a dead girl who could fight!" and that's fine. But why restrain those who want to? This isn't an archaological forum.

[athos1126]

65. Since so much of ancient history is...

either
1. male based or 2. unknown, and burial, especially that of a woman of the time, is an extremely signifigant look into past life ways. Especially this woman, who, in my impression, was probably an extreamely special case in her society.

[DarkPhenyx]

68. History is NOT male based.

That is a falicy. I am 35 years old. I know I was taught about female historical figures throughout my education. Outside of a formal setting I learned a great deal about women in history. history is the sum total of all human events, recorded and not, known and unknown.

now, if you wish to discuss specific events and texts then yes, there are some which are definately androcentric. Then again there are ones that are gynocentric as well.

[athos1126]

74. I can't believe I'm reading this.

History, especially of Europe, is male centric, traditionally speaking. I'm not saying that it isn't anymore, HOWEVER, that bias has stunted historical growth. Programs and concentrations like women's studies and women's history are trying to make up for that. Ohh you're 35, therefore you must know much more than poor little me, ay? God how I hate ageism.

Anyway. The male bias isn't necessarily intentional. In archaeological sites, what remains? Animal bones, tools, arrows, evidence of male work. Female work, such as gathering plant food and cloth disintergrates or decomposes before archaeologists can ever see it. The bias exists. You cannot deny that. Just because we, in our more liberal and open minds, have gone out and learned more about important women in history doesn't mean everyone thinks like we do. That doesn't mean that generations of historians have only written down a male centric, political and martial view of history.

[DarkPhenyx]

76. Ok, sure.

Whatever you say.

As to the agism comment that was unworthy of you. I pointed out my age simply to highlight that for years our children have been taught about important female figures in history. Leaping to any other conclusion in the absence of further evidence isn't logical.

[athos1126]

77. Alrighty then

But even now, in my Medieval europe class that I gotta take for my concentration, we've only talked about one woman, Chlotilda, the wife of Clovis. I'd still make a point to say that American education still does not cover women nearly enough, however, it's getting much much better. I apologize for my comment, however, ageism is a problem people don't even know exists.

[DarkPhenyx]

81. The American Education system...

...is another subject all toether. particualrly when you start talking about European History. I'm a little surprised that they haven't talked about Boudica though. Interesting.

Don't worry too much about the "-ism". I get blammed of holding a lot of "-ism's" that I don't. It seems to be some sort of perverse sport around here.

[athos1126]

83. I think she may have been too early

for the time period we're discussing, but I'm not sure.

[DarkPhenyx]

84. Yeah, she would have been.

I ahve to admit that off the top of my head I can't come up with a ME "woman of import" though I know I know a few. Ahte when the brain vapor locks like this. I'll wake up in the middle of the night with 15 of them pouring out of my memory.

[VelmaD]

85. Well, I took Women in European Civ back in college.

So, ME women of "import" off the top of my head and in no particular order.

Hildegard of Bingen
eleanor of Aquitaine
Christine de Pizan
Julian of Norwich
St. Birgitta of Sweden
Marie de France
Margery Kempe
Catherine of Sienna
Princess Anna Comnena
Hypatia

[DarkPhenyx]

87. OK, now I feel stupid.

Then again I have an excuse. I'm giving a presentation tomorrow in front of the local Genotoxcicity society. I'm, understandably, a bit distrated.

:)

[VelmaD]

88. Not stupid honey...

just distracted. :-)

Good luck on your presentation. You know I'm rooting for you. :-)


I'm on AIM if you get a chance to drop in. Would love to hear how it's going.

[Book Lover]

86. Here are a few - skewed towards writers

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Margaurite of Navarre

Marie de France

Christine de Pizan

Hildegarde von Bingen

Heloise (beloved of Abelard)

Just off the top of my head...

[DarkPhenyx]

67. Because it serves no purpose other than to...

...misuse science for ones own agenda. We have had far too much of that over the years. I'll refrain from listing the more glaring examples here. These kinds of misuses only serve to obscure the real importance of such discoveries. It makes it more difficult for real information to be diseminated to teh common individual. It is a horrible disservice in far too many ways to be mentioned.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. New username?

[Cleita]

6. Yes.

[roguevalley]

13. This is great.

Now the Russian steppe women have a challenger for coolness.
Roman men sometimes like to say about Celts that they would
rather fight a lion than a Celt's wife.

Go, grrls!

[Ellen Forradalom]

15. I had a downstairs neighbor once,

one Ms. McGinty, who said she intimidates Chicago cops because she reminds them of their mothers.

Some things never change.

[Sinistrous]

14. What a *Boadicious* discovery.

on edit: see Queen Boadicea (Boudicca)of East Anglia, AD 61.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Or Queen Maeve.

[oldcoot]

19. Did you see the Discovery Channel documentary about women gladiators?

The Discovery Channel featured a documentary about women gladiators hosted by Lucy Lawless. The show describes the role of women gladiators in England during the Roman occupation. You might find the show interesting.

[Cleita]

20. Gee I missed that one.

I'll keep my eyes open for repeats. I'd like to see it.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. Yes I did. It was an excellent show.

They did a very good job of deconstructing the Gladatrix myths and presenting the facts as best we know them. THey also did a good job of discussing the woman in question, where she probably came from, her status level. Surprisingly it appears she was a high class individual...if I remember the show correctly.

[supernova]

27. Stands to reason

the high-born were the ones who had the leisure to pursue such activities.

Did the show say she might have been some female "Maximus" - accomplished but due to circumstances beyond her control had to fight her way out/up?

as for this lady. I think it's appropriate to celebrate all of our female warriors whereever we find them. And celebrate the fact that maybe they weren't so unusual afterall. It's just our limited perception of history that makes them seem so.

Long live XENA!!

[DarkPhenyx]

29. So we are going to celebrate this warrior...

...because she is female? that seems a bit sexist, don't you think?

I'm not sure about the Gladatrix being a Maximus type. If I recall, and I may be wrong, I think she was a noble lass who joined the "Circus" becasue she liked the fight. Does anyone else remember for sure?

[VelmaD]

31. No, not just because she's female...

but because she is one more crack in breaking up the long-standing myths about women and their "kinder, gentler nature". She's one more piece in the puzzle of history so tht maybe she'll help us see women's history in a more fully accurate way.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. Just seems to be the "flavor"...

...of some of the posts here. I, for one, have never bought into that "kinder gentler" crap. Anyone who has ever done even a light reading into history soon realizes that women can be just as bloodthirsty as men. Hell, I have know this since I was 6 yo and learned about Annie Bonny.

[supernova]

34. Congrats to you, DP

:D

Some people don't. Ashame really. Makes you wonder about all the knowledge we have forgotten.

[VelmaD]

35. We get a little over-excited sometimes...

when things like this come along to remind people that we were always more than just baby-factories. You and I and most of the posters on the board know enough history to know that isn't the case. But much of the general public has a cursory knowledge of history at best. They don't know until finds like this one hit the news.

[supernova]

33. Yes, thank you

It was Paul who said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly... "

Perhaps this woman, and others like her can help us lift the veil and teach us to see more clearly and fully the path of history.

[DarkPhenyx]

38. and for that reason this find...

...like everyother find no matter it's nature, is an important find. Not becasue she is female, but becasue she is knowledge.

[Cleita]

40. I see you finally get it.

Yet, man posts back you tried to make it as of no consequence, because, warrior women aren't anything new. :wow:

[DarkPhenyx]

44. No, I always got it. They aren't anything new.

Therefore it isn't that big of a deal. Which is exactly what I said before. Of no more, or less, importance than the archer they found last year. It may even be of less importance as the archer may be able to give us some information on the physical impact of being a combat archer which we did not have earlier. It will be good to get some decnt archeo-forensics off of the body and see what impact it was having on his skeleton and musculature.

[Cleita]

50. So according to you the archer is more important

than a tall woman with a sword? Is it possible because he's a man? I think they are both equally important for the understanding of both genders, although the archer is a different period than the warrior woman. Since the archer lived before written history, he can shed light on things. However, the warrior woman lived in historical times which makes me wonder why that history wasn't recorded. All we have are literary references from German mythology about Valkyries etc. etc., but nothing about warrior women in post Roman Britain.

[DarkPhenyx]

53. No...

...it would be because of the potential for new information as opposed to a re-iteration of data that we have a pretty good set of data on already.

You will also notice I said possibly more important. Not definately more important.

[Cleita]

57. Okay.

As long as you clarify it.

[DarkPhenyx]

58. Go back and re-read my post.

The info you want is right there. As a hint, if it were a female archer and a male warrior the response would be the same.

[VelmaD]

41. No argument here honey...

you know you and I basically agree on this. However, I don't think you quite understand the extra importance expanding our knowledge of women's history has for some of us gals. The stereotypes have been in place for so long. For so long what women did and said wasn't really considered "history" at all. Put yourself in our shoes for a minute and I think you'll understand why we might feel a little extra sense of glee over this one.

I promise to be just as excited about the next archeological find that hits the news that isn't so "sexy" from a feminist pov. :-)

[supernova]

43. She's both

to me, DP.

We basically agree here, DarkPhenyx. I'm not negating your argument at all. Please accept that.

Also please try to be happy for us that someone who seemed so fictional, may afterall had quite a few bases in reality. ;-)

[DarkPhenyx]

46. Except we already knew the historical antecedents existed..

However Xena has no basis in "Reality" whatsoever. I don't care how many female warrior skeletons you find.

[VelmaD]

47. That's because Xena...

like Hercules, Buck Rogers, Mulder and Scully, and Bugs Bunny...is fictional. Like the tv psychics say - for entertainment purposes only. :-)

[supernova]

48. You're reading way too much into this

DP.

For heaven's sakes. :eyes: It's just a nice metaphor for an interesting find.

Besides, if the whole fiction/non-fiction thing weren't an issue, I KNOW you do XENA in a heartbeat! :evilgrin:

[DarkPhenyx]

51. I dunno. maybe.

Not entirely my type. I'd be much more interested in Gabby, 'cept she's a blonde and blondes are not my first choice.

[supernova]

52. So, who is?

Your first choice?

[VelmaD]

54. Think very carefully...

before you answer that question honey. ;-)

[DarkPhenyx]

55. You mean between the two of them...

...or among all women in the world.

[supernova]

56. Just in general

what's your type? You said neither Xena nor Gabrielle were your first choice, that leaves redheads.

[DarkPhenyx]

60. That would end up being a subject ...

...for a different thread.

[VelmaD]

61. Nice deflection.

:-)

[zonmoy]

49. didnt

the legend of the amazons have to come out of some reality.

[Cleita]

59. For sure.

Even Julius Caesar believed in the Amazons. When defending Cleopatra as a woman ruler to the senate, he cited that the Amazons had ruled vast empires at times and that there was no reason, Egypt couldn't have a Queen. It's in Suetonius's (sp?) "The Twelve Caesars". So he used this example not as mythology but fact.

[DarkPhenyx]

62. Provide a verifiable historical reference...

...and I'll conceed the point.

Caesar dosen't count as it was not uncommon for rulers in ancient times to cite mythological figures as historical fact.

[Cleita]

64. Suetonius?

I said Caesar believed in them not that I have proof that they existed and since he was two thousand years closer to those times than us, who knows what history has been lost in fires and other devastation. Remember that much of what we know about the ancient world is what the Christian monks chose to copy and pass on down to us.

There is no proof Jesus existed either, but there is pretty good circumstancial evidence that he did. I think the persistence of the Amazon legends plus the finds in Povkorova(Sp.? again) in the Steppes are pretty good evidence that matriarchal societies existed and no doubt they had warrior priestesses who taught war skills. The priestesses of Athena in ancient Greece (before the classical period) were warriors. They didn't go into battle but taught the boys battle skills.

Make of it what you will. I think it gives women's history a different dimension than what we have been taught.

[DarkPhenyx]

66. There is no question Matriarchial groups existed.

They still exist today.

The stories of Vampires, Lycanthropes, Dragons, Ghosts, et.al. are pervasive and span the entire world. Again, though, we have no proof one way or another about their existance. Not to mention a variety of Gods and Goddesses far every corner of the world.

If this one find adds a new dimension then you are not as good a scholar than you seem to think yourself to be. There is no new information in this find, as I said before. Not about the existance of women warriors anyway. As I said previously we have known about them for over 2000 years. With solid verifiable historical and anthro/archeological evidence.

If you were never taught any of this it isn't because the information wasn't there. That, however, is a different subject.

[Cleita]

69. Buwahahaha.

I never considered myself a scholar at all. No I was never taught this or anything about this. It has always been a hobby of mine. As far as the find not having any new information, has it ever occurred to you that maybe it's a hoax? Remember the Piltdown man? I don't know why this is such a big deal to you anyway.

What are you afraid of? Any knowledge is a wonderful thing. As far as these finds, imagine if an archaeologist finds a grave that says Mary, mother of Jesus in Aramaic. But he doesn't write anything in his journal because he says it is of no consequence because we all know that she was bodily taken into heaven. So if you believe that this is of no consequence because it doesn't fit into any preconceived notions that you have, I would have to hope that you don't consider yourself a scholar either.

[DarkPhenyx]

72. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...

...still no rational fact based response so you resort to your previous tactics. How nice.

If it is indeed a hoax then it is of absolutely no value and dosen't even merit a mention. However, what is your point here?

There really isn't anything I am afraid of. Not even death. Thank you for asking.

Thank you for trying to put words in my mouth again. I did not say it was of no consequence. I said it isn't that big of a deal. Completely different issue. As to why I have taken a stance on this? I hate seeing good science hijacked.

[VelmaD]

73. Not even spiders...

even I'm afraid of spiders. ;-)


psst...I'm home. Drop me an IM.

[Cleita]

75. This is the lounge, not the science forum.

It doesn't matter whether it's good science or not. Look at the sex threads. Are they good science? If you wish to educate, go ahead but don't be making ad hominem attacks about it. I didn't write the article, Discovery did and they made the Xena link, not me. I just thought it was amusing, especially since it seemed Gabrielle and Joxer also seemed to be buried in the same place.

I think questioning all things should be a part of science.
Could it be a hoax? Shouldn't someone prove it isn't?

[DarkPhenyx]

79. Yes, science should question all things.

Even those thing that are established as "fact". Excellent example for this is the hoax on the high end transuranic elements. Of course you did say taht when you first posted.

NOw, yes this is the Lounge. I didn't question your posting this here. I didn't even question the "Xena" reference even though I find making such a connection so unbelieveably stupid that it dosen't even bear mentioning, which I didn't till just now. Unfortunately it's all a part of the "dumbing down" of complex subjects that is necessary to catch the attention of the average American and for them to understand it when you finally do.

[athos1126]

70. While you all argue sociology, here's my Medievalist view....

Since the woman, most definitely an abberation in her society based on what we know about Anglo-Saxon culture, was buried without finery, here are some of my thoughts.
She may have been a slave. The rope around her feet may be a clue to validate this. Slavery in Anglo-Saxon and other Germanic cultures was much more rare and less widely practiced than in say, Rome, but it still exsisted. She may have been ostracized because of her size, being incredibly tall for a woman, even now, and forced to sell her services to a tribal leader. She may also have been of Roman slave stock who got left there after the Romans left. Only DNA analysis could prove that though.
She may also have been a mercenary, or fighting under a kinship bond with her tribe. Kinship bonds were for the most part selectable and voluntary. Just because you were related to someone didn't mean you had to enter into a bond with them. Well, actually, bonds exsisted between an entire extended family, on both the matrilineal and patrilineal lines, however, you could then form stronger bonds - the name of which escapes me - which was like a blood oath. While I've never heard of the practice before, the rope could symbolize a bond to a relative.

I'm pretty damn sure she was not a priestess, a noble, or anyone else of very much importance. She was probably a great asset to her kingroup/warband thing, because of all those shields. On the average, male Anglo Saxon burials involved one sword, one shield, ornaments to show status and food stuffs. But four shields? That's impressive.

The man's burial is also very interesting, however, I'm inclined to think that he may have been a healer or spiritual pagan leader, which still existed in post Roman England. Conversion to Christianity wasn't complete when the Romans left.

This is going to prove to be a very important discovery for us historians. Thanks for posting it, I'm going to send it to my Professor! I think the Xena comparison may have been tripping a few people up, so I hope I helped to put this in some perspective.

[Cleita]

78. Thanks for the sober and informative post.

What you say makes a lot of sense. The Xena connection was made by the writer of the article, tongue in cheek no doubt. I just posted the article, but I guess I am blamed for it. I didn't think it would ruffle so many feathers being in the lounge. I thought Xena fans would get a kick out of it and others who are interested in these matters would weigh in their knowledge like you just did.

[athos1126]

80. Thanks

and I was a big Xena fan, mad that it got taken off the air while that stupid Hercules show is still getting air time.

[Cleita]

82. Write to Oprah.

She bought the rights from the Sci-Fi channel for Oxygen channel where they show it every now and then. It was put together with "La Femme Nikita", which is seldom show as well. Too bad because Xena should have remained with Sci-Fi.

[MissMarple]

71. "So, you guys don't get out much, do ya".

Said Michael Madsen in "Species" to scientists who said they made the alien a female because they assumed she would be more docile.

It's one of my favorite movie lines.

:evilgrin: I hope I'm not being too oblique, here.