Talk:Birka grave Bj 581

Archives (Index)

2022/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Totally misleading article

Let me quote the researcher team[1]: "We feel no intrinsic need for there to have been a female warrior buried in the grave, nor for such individuals to have existed more widely." Since it was not proven beyond doubt the buried individual was actually a female warrior, the initial paragraph should not state it as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamamura (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Judith Hesch, a professor of Viking studies at the University of Nottingham, challenges the hasty conclusions presented by online sources as well as this problematic Wikipedia article [2]: "Many aspects of the new article will lead to further discussion. The authors often make too much of rather slim evidence. The strong link they make between the gaming board and pieces [found with the remains] and the ‘command’ status of the individual is still unconvincing. In the online supplementary material they refer to “[w]hat appears to be an iron-framed gaming board”, suggesting that the evidential basis of their interpretation is insecure. The authors also make much of various “eastern” aspects of the burial but do not address the ways in which this might complicate their classification of it as ‘Viking’." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamamura (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Since this article (and other online sources) jump to conclusions that have never been scientifically proven beyond doubt (the skeleton may or may not be a warrior, and it may and may not be a viking, as indicatede by the article), I propose rewriting especially introduction of the article in a way that does not present these unproven conclusions as facts. Change of the name would be also advisable, unless the name is not used to refer to the archeological find by the scientific community (which to my knowledge it is not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamamura (talk • contribs) 12:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, Saxo Germanicus is listed by this article as a "Viking age source", which he is most certainly not, since he lived and wrote in 12th century, long after the era of the actual viking raids ended. Judith Hesch writes about him in the above-linked article[3]: "Back around the year 1200, the learned Danish cleric Saxo Grammaticus peppered his Latin history of the Danes with female warriors of an earlier time. His warrior women owed more to classical myths of the Amazons than to real-life precedents in the Viking Age, but his imaginative leap continues to influence our perceptions of that period." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamamura (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• This article depends entirely upon independent sources to support its content. Your dispute should be with them, since we merely report what the say. bd2412 T 12:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree, because the author of the article cherry picks only the arguments that support their point of view while omitting those that contradict them, which contradicts the very foundation of NPOV
• I agree with bd2412 that the statements in this article are reliably sourced, including 4 references to Judith Jesch's arguments. The controversy Jesch raised is also acknowledged in the lead paragraph. Revising the entire article to reflect emphasis on Jesch's work as suggested by Kamamura would amount to WP:UNDUE. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Some Jesch's inconvenient (and most important) arguments are omitted altogether, and the article presents misleading conclusion that there was such a thing as female viking warriors as a scientifically proven fact, while nobody has actually proven that. Imagine a similar article called "Notable European Wizards and Miracle Makers" that would state in the the last paragraph that the existence of magic was never scientifically proven, yet talking about magicians as if they were existing, widely accepted phenomenon.
    • If reliable sources reported that magicians were existing, widely accepted phenomenon, then we would reflect what the sources say. Again, this article reflects the content and the tenor of the sources, which did widely report that this was the grave of a female Viking warrior. If you have a problem with how these sources reported this information, bring your complaints to them. bd2412 T 14:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And this ladies and gentlemen is why Wikipedia is not credible anymore. An article on BJ 581 has been turned into 'proof positive of an ELITE PROFESSIONAL VIKING WARRIORESSS' because journalists are considered primary sources. As long as news articles and activis... uh, journalists are considered primary sources then the academia of Wikipedia will be actively subverted in this way into a political cudgel, truth be damned.

My mother was buried with two family swords. I guess she was an elite professional viking warrior. Let's not turn to the bones to see if there's the same marks and scars that breaks and damage inflicts upon them for those who serve in war fronts like my father, my brother, and myself, ignore the fact both my grandfathers were buried with multiple bullets in them healed over. Let's just look at the objects and claim it proves something.

For an interesting discussion by two leading professors on this topic disproving this article and calling into question the dishonesty of Wikipedia, journalists, and modern pop science watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCiYckiApo But these guys won't be primary sources because it's on YouTube and not an activist run infotainment website like some tabloid. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You can find YouTube videos "proving" that the Earth is flat. We require, and have included, higher level sources than that. Provide an actual reliable source to the contrary and it will be included. bd2412 T 03:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@121.210.33.50: I agree that the YouTube discussion between Profs. Jackson Crawford and Howard Williams raises interesting questions about the difficulties of interpreting mortuarial practices of Viking cultutes (as well as nuances of other medieival/middle ages burial practices). Williams makes the point that he does not have primary knowledge of the Birka artifacts, and that he had only visited the site once as a graduate student. He says he was surprised at the conclusions of the Hedenstierna-Jonson article, and he advocates for an interpretive approach accounting for the artifacts based on the group of graves in the area, rather than trying to account for the artifacts in a single grave as being representative of the dead person's life accomplishments. Williams and Crawford also offer a variety of speculative "scenarios" to account for artifacts buried with the female bones based on uncertainties of religious and cultural practices of the Vikings, and they also consider whether the graves in that area may have been of invading forces rather than Swedish Vikings. It's academically an interesting conversation. However, I found no trace of any reference to "calling into question the dishonesty of Wikipedia, journalists, and modern pop science", but even if there had been, this YouTube video does not qualify as a reliable SECONDARY source because Wikipedia requires sources that have been fact-checked. I'm satisfied that the facts used in creating this Wikipedia article are from reliable secondary sources like Science (magazine), The New York Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, CNN, The Guardian, and primary sources such as refereed academic journals, in which other academics have reviewed and fact-checked the articles. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the problems with this article is the sources, but how they are used. Although, I doubt this article in Science is peer reeviewed or fact checked: https://web.archive.org/web/20170912115521/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/dna-proves-fearsome-viking-warrior-was-woman

It is rather short, and is a bit creative. The comparison to Wagner, is an indication that the author doesn’t know about Sagas. It also contains an error, because it states that armour was found in the grave. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

One

I removed the paragraph that starts "One study concludes the artifacts buried with the woman are evidence she was a high-ranking professional warrior." as it has no reference to a reliable source, seems to be original research, and is factually wrong. I cite an article, from a reliable source, which gives at least 50 references, spanning over 100 years, to papers all from reliable sources, and all assuming this individual was male, a warrior, and a leader of warriors. This reference also points out that no paper questioned this warrior interpretation until after the individual was shown to be XX, and thus genetically female.

I really do not want to get into an edit war. If you believe the paper I cite is incorrect, than cite papers published before 2017 which argue that this was not a warrior, or not a leader of warriors. Or cite a later paper that robustly refutes the paper I cite. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This specific grave was not interesting back then, but the idea already existed that archeologists were overconfident in interpreting grave goods. So no one is arguing that just this grave isn't a warrior, but rather saying that it is just a guess that sword equals warrior, just like it was a guess that sword equals male. I don't know where the professional and elite come from because that seems very anachronistic. 2A02:3036:272:FB2:E891:28B2:195F:1DEB (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Problems

There are a couple of problems with this article. Some were already addressed, but seem to have gotten worse. For example, the lead no longer mentions that the identification of the body as a warrior is controversial. In fact, the very name of the article is very one sided. The term "elite professional warrior" is also potentially misleading. It implies that the buried woman was an especially skilled fighter, but the word elite rather refers to the social rank. Furthermore, does anyone know what a professional warrior meant in the viking age? Does this mean she was a Hauskarl? Or did she have Hauskarls herself? I think the word professional is anachronistic here. The identification as a viking is also problematic. Especially, because it isn't clear if viking is used as an ethnonym here or to describe a pirate. The eastern elements suggest she might not be Scandinavian and not everyone who lived in Scandinavia during the viking age was a pirate. I am suggesting more neutral terms that don't make assumptions and don't mislead.

2A01:C23:60EB:7000:5C3C:E0F6:80D6:C86B (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources: https://books.google.de/books?id=JvE1EAAAQBAJ&dq=grave+goods+meaning&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://books.google.de/books?id=-7g7AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=6hVz6RzCkJcC&pg=PA159&dq=grave+goods+meaning&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0no_11JuCAxUE2QIHHWdqA58Q6AF6BAgDEAE#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=8I19EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT135&dq=shieldmaiden+word&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHxNf2m4WCAxVChv0HHf30CckQ6AF6BAgCEAE#v=onepage&q=since%20strolpe's%20time%20&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:60EB:7000:5C3C:E0F6:80D6:C86B (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For the next 128 years, the skeleton was assumed to be that of a "battle hardened man".[9]

There is an emphasis on this long period of time that the skeleton was assumed to be male and a warrior. It is repeated, although the 130 years is given as well as 128. Is this so important? Also, it is possibly misleading. It suggests that there was an unchallenged consensus. The 2014 osteological analysis seems actually to be pretty good evidence that is overlooked. Additionally, the doubts about the sex of the remains that were expressed in the 70s also seem to contradict the statement. It also ignores general criticism of the interpretation of weapons graves as male warrior graves that don’t directly mention the Birka site. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion from user talk page

This discussion has been moved from User talk:Grand'mere Eugene:

Hello, you seem to be active on the Birka female viking warrior article, are you interested in participating in the discussion there. I find that the article has problems, because it focuses on the misidentification of the skeleton's sex but ignores other details about the grave. It quotes extensively from journalists and not the experts. It misrepresents the controversy surrounding the label warrior, and is rather quite shallow and poorly structured. In short, I would like to remove some ambiguities and have the article explain more why the experts came to the conclusions they did. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tinynanorobots. I agree the article needs to follow neutral point of view guidelines. Controversial statements in the article are substantiated and use reliable sources, including secondary sources produced by journalists. What ambiguities/explanations do you propose? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the ambiguities come from an unclear meaning of the word warrior as well as the word viking. Most disputed is the label "warrior". This is actually discussed in the 2019 Antiquity article, which agrees with the possibility that the interred person may not have been actually in combat. The wikipedia article ignores both the question of what is a warrior and the question of what do grave goods indicate. It also ignores the context that this is all interpretation. I think that the wikipedia article should therefore rather focus on the undisputed facts, and explain the various interpretations. Also, while I believe that Hedenstierna-Jonson and her team are acting to the best of their knowledge, there is evidence that relevant questions were raised before the 2017 study was published. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done some more reading, and I realized some of the confusing things in this wikipedia article are taken over from the AJPA article. For example, that the equipment is called complete, implying that the grave contained a complete set of equipment for viking warrior. The grave contained a lot of military equipment, but neither mail nor a helmet has been found. I am not sure what counts as complete. I also found this blog post: https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/viking-warrior-women-an-archaeodeath-reponse-part-5/ It explains well the weapons burial vs. warrior burial concept and cites where it comes. This may in part be due to a language difference. Finally, I have compared both the 2017 AJPA article and the 2019 Antiquity article. Although the later article repeats a lot of the claims of the first ones, the wording and tone is more cautious. This is seen already in the titles. I think that the later article should be seen as more authoritative. Unfortunately, this wikipedia article follows the 2017 AJPA in many things. There is no academic consensus that the occupant of Bj 581 Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Jesch

Judith Jesch is misrepresented. She is said to have rebutted the study’s conclusion, but her blog post criticized the arguments. She explicitly said that and said that she doesn’t have an alternative theory. In fact, this is typical of most academic critics. The criticized the 2017 paper for overlooking previous scholarship, poor use of the textual sources, not supporting their conclusions, but don’t actually argue that the person buried in Bj 531 wasn’t a warrior. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the text referring to Jesch's blog, since blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. Do you have text you want to propose with reliable sources to support your assertions? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I believe you are mistaken. As a general rule self-published sources are not considered reliable. However:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Furthermore, Jesch´s blog posts have been themselves cited by news sources. Additionally, blog posts are already quoted in the wikipedia article, albeit, quoted through a book. But that is an awfully legalistic work around. Jesch´s blog posts are the best source to what she actually wrote on those blog posts. One could agree with everything Jesch wrote in those two blog posts and still think the woman in Bj 581 is a woman. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I also added a quote from another source published by Jesch, with her more thorough and nuanced comments. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Quetions about last section

I'd like the opinions of other editors on the last section, which, to me, has the flavor of whataboutism without clear linkage to the burial at Birka. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder why it is there. The article on Margaret Thatcher doesn’t have a list of other female Prime Ministers. The actual content of the last section also has its problems, but I think the best solution is to delete it. At most, we could include a discussion of the relation between the person in Bj 581 and the textual evidence. However, there actually doesn’t seem to be any connection. It is not like anyone suggested that Bj 581 might be one of these specific persons. At most, there has been a suggestion that there existed during the viking age a class of female warrior. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

To Do:

In order to get this article into shape, there is a couple of things that need to be done. I am not actually sure how best to do them all, so I would appreciate some help. Firstly, this article contains a lot of quotes, I have already removed some quotes that were essentially puffery from journalists, still a lot of the article quotes Surrsi. There is also very little about the facts. What is said about the grave goods is very shallow, the possible mirror pieces aren’t mentioned, as well as the hat. The DNA and strontium analysis are vague, etc. So that needs to be added. I also found an article by Rune Edberg that contradicts the claim that everyone thought that Bj 581 was a warrior. This shows there is a lot of misconceptions going around, and we need to figure out a way to address that in the article. Also, the article needs a better structure. -Less quotes -More details about the grave contents -Address misconceptions -Better structure Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2023

Birka female Viking warrior → Bj 581 – I think this page should be moved to Bj 581 because it is more neutral and more academic. There is no consensus that Bj 581 is a warrior. All sides of the academic debate have referred to her as Bj 581. The grave was called that before she was known to be she. It is more unique. If another weapons grave in Birka is found to have a female occupant, then the article would have to be moved anyway. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose, as the current title reflects how the subject was generally reported in popular media. Bj 581 is unrecognizable to anyone outside the academic debate. BD2412 T 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, since sourcing in media such as National Geographic, New York Times, and Washington Post use descriptions consistent with the current title. Wikipedia readers are not necessarily academics, and the current title is consistent with the original reporting. (A didactic aside: unique means one of a kind, so something either is unique or it isn't, i.e., not more unique.) I advocate keeping the current title, and perhaps creating a redirect for "Bj 581". — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A couple of counterpoints:

Headlines should hardly be considered authoritative, they aren’t even written by the journalist who wrote the article and are instead written by the editor as clickbait. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times use the term Bj 581 in their article. Additionally, so does C.M. Surrisi, whose book about the topic, like her other work, was targeted at young readers. It isn’t that obscure.

The current title is not actually not that popular, and not actually used in headlines. Considering that, the "Birka" is often left out. Many headlines may contain all the words Birka, Female, Warrior and Viking, but not always in that order. Therefore, the title comes across as a descriptive name, and not a common name. The policy on non-neutral names applies to common names, not descriptive names.

Seen as a descriptive name, the current title is very problematic, because it implies that the person was a Viking warrior, which is the subject of controversy. A big part of the controversy regarding the 2017 study was the amount of certainty, and this certainty was walked back (slightly) in the second article in 2019.

It would make more sense to redirect Birka female viking warrior to Bj 581.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Tinynanorobots, I value your perspective in presenting the arguments of Hesch and others who took issue with the conclusions of Anna Kjellström and the team led by Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson, publishers of the osteological and DNA analysis, who are are also academics. The current title is represents a reasonable description of the articles they published that led to the controversies described in the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to be patronizing, I would rather that you actually engage with what I have written about the title. I don’t think that anyone has any criticism of Kjellström´s osteological analysis, or the DNA analysis. If that is the impression the wiki article gives, then it should be changed. It is the interpretations of the artefacts found in the grave that are controversial. It is important to note, that there is no indication of what the minority opinion is among the relevant scholars. Furthermore, I suggest that 2019 article, as it is authored by the same team supersedes the previous one. The 2019 article uses much more neutral language involving Bj 581.

I think that the current title goes against wikipedia´s policy on naming because it is not NPOV. As it is not a common name and it is not neutral. If there was another solution to indicate that the warrior status is highly controversial in the academic world, I am open to suggestions.

Another question is, what is this article about? Is it about the person buried? Is it about the controversy surrounding the article and the press coverage? If it is about the controversy, we should change the title to reflect that. If it is about the person, then more should be written about her. Although all that is known about her is her grave. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support Birka chamber grave Bj 581. In the current title, the word "Viking" seems superfluous. "Birka female" is fine, but "warrior" represents an interpretation of the grave occupant in life. "Birka female warrior grave" would work for me, but I don't think most people would analyze it as intended, "(Birka) (female) (warrior grave)"—indicating a "warrior grave" whether its occupant was ever a warrior or not. I do not think the article should be about either a former living person or a modern controversy, but about an archaeological find. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Partially striking. Upon further reflection, "Viking" is necessary. But after further reading (namely, this), it isn't even clear that "warrior grave" is appropriate. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Bj 581 or similar, basically per BD2412, because I think we absolutely should be following the academic literature on this, not the popular press, which is notoriously bad at reporting scientific topics in general, and archaeological findings in particular. The current title is unscientific on multiple counts: "female" is bad because it is impossible to sex skeletons with certainty, and this tells you nothing about the individual's gender identity; "Viking" is bad because it's a loaded term supporting multiple divergent understandings; "warrior" is bad because assigning a profession to archaeological remains can only ever be speculative and contestable. This is why scientists use an arbitrary label, and we should follow that usage. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • If that were our standard, we should have article titles at Ornithorhynchus anatinus, AL 288-1, and Stw 573, and shame on us if we don't know what those are without looking them up. BD2412 T 14:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

    The obvious difference is that those nicknames a) don't pretend to describe who a long-dead person was in life, and b) are also widely used in scientific literature. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

    • If indeed it is impossible to sex skeletons with certainty, then how is Lucy (Australopithecus) not inherently making an assumption about the subject's sex? BD2412 T 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

      Lucy is 3.2 million years old and a member of a different species, which was far more sexually dimorphic than our own. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the wikidata style nominator’s suggestion. It fails WP:Natural and Recognisability. User:Srnec makes a sensible suggestion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What does "Wikidata-style" mean? This is what archeologists have called this burial for the past 130 years. – Joe (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It means, like a database code. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Two of the 19 references have titles that use “Bj 581”, both as “Birka grave Bj 581”. None use just “Bj 581”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, take a look at 14 of the 19 reference titles which do not include Bj 581:

1. Första DNA-bevisen för kvinnlig vikingakrigare [First DNA evidence for female Viking warriors]
2. Famous Viking warrior was a woman, DNA reveals (National Geographic)
3. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
4. Women at war? The Birka female warrior and her implications
5. A female Viking warrior? Tomb study yields clues (The New York Times)
6. The Bones of Birka: Unravelling the Mystery of a Female Viking Warrior
7. Secrets of the Dead / Viking Warrior Queen (PBS)
8. Does new DNA evidence prove that there were female viking warlords? (The Guardian)
9. Iconic Viking grave belonged to a female warrior(CNN)
10. Wonder woman lived: Viking warrior skeleton identified as female, 128 years after its discovery (The Washington Post)
11. How the female Viking warrior was written out of history (The Guardian)
12. Women and Weapons in the Viking World: Amazons of the North.
13. Don't underestimate Viking women
14. Viking 'warrior women': Judith Jesch, expert in Viking studies, examines the latest evidence

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about reliable sources, not media sensationalism. I have no objection to clarifying with "Birka Bj 581" or similar – which, to repeat myself a bit, has been the scientifically accepted name for the burial since the 1880s. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of headlines don’t mention the name of the main subject of the story. Think "Florida man" or "Republican Congressman". Headlines in news media serve a different role as an article title on Wikipedia. If you are worried about people finding the article, I am not sure, it is an issue. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Birka grave Bj 581 Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Birka grave Bj 581, per one of the references. Birka Bj 581 is too short, not giving human style information on what the topic is, a grave, implying human remains. Details, like chamber, female, and Viking, are not important enough for a concise title. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

“Warrior” should be dropped because it is an open question, according to the article.

“Viking” seems redundant with Birka, or we’re there non-Vikings in Birka at the time?

”Chamber grave” has merit, in that being a chamber, not just a hole, makes it unusual.

”female” is interesting, but not crucial. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Birka was a trading centre and the evidence suggests that a lot of people moved there from other places. This is reflected in both the various types of burials and the types of goods. There is of course the question of what viking means, and for example if the Rus are vikings. It should be noted that in her doctor thesis, Hedenstierna-Jonson just uses the term Birka warrior, and mentions that the word viking was problematic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Birka chamber grave Bj 581 seems like a much better title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bones of Birka

The Bones of Birka: Unraveling the Mystery of a Female Viking Warrior is currently the second most frequently-cited source for this article, but it is a book for children written by an author with no apparent expertise in the subject who, according to the publisher's own website, was previously best known for here "middle-grade novels The Unofficial Lola Bay Fan Club, The Maypop Kidnapping, Vampires on the Run, and A Side of Sabotage as well as the picture book The Best Mother". I don't think we can consider this a reliable source for this topic. Mostly it's used for quotes from archaeologists, which are too long anyway, so they should be condensed and sourced directly to reliable sources where possible, or else removed. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t go to so far as to say that it is unreliable, but I think she is quoted too much. In general, we should cite the original source. An issue with this article, is that most of the sources are based on the same source and just repeating it, at most adding puffery. So the sources aren't really independent. Here is Androshchuk's article: [4]https://www.academia.edu/38246456/Female_Viking_Revisited I suggest that we remove the whole quote from Rundkvist. I am not sure that it fits in the article, and he seems to be unaware of the multiple plans and seems to be writing informally. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ink labeling and Inconsistencies

The article now says that Stolpe labelled the bones, but it is in fact unknown who labelled them and at what time, and I think it should be made clear that not all the bones from Birka were labelled, but rather all of them that are attributed to the grave. Here is Hedenstierna-Jonson talking about it: https://www.medievalists.net/2019/12/grave-bj-581-the-viking-warrior-that-was-a-woman/ Androshchuk also mentions it. In my opinion, Hedenstierna-Jonson is sometimes a bit too enthusiastic with how she expresses herself and when you compare the facts that she shares with her interpretation of those facts. Stolpe was maybe pretty good for his time, but he wasn’t perfect. There were also two plans that contradicted each other. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)