← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Bardamu
Thread ID: 10040 | Posts: 20 | Started: 2003-09-26
2003-09-26 00:30 | User Profile
WARRIOR QUEEN IS UNEARTHED
10:30 - 20 September 2003
[url]http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=57711&command=displayContent&sourceNode=57238&contentPK=7109460[/url]
A 1,500-year-old Anglo-Saxon "warrior queen" has been found buried just two feet under the surface of a county field.
Lincolnshire's own 6ft tall "Boadicea" has been described as one of the best Anglo-Saxon finds of its kind in the county.
She was still holding her shield and had a dagger at her side when she was found. On either side of her at the site just outside Lincoln were the remains of a man and a woman who were possibly her attendants.
The woman was wearing an amber necklace and had her feet bound together with rope. The male companion was buried with his hand over a pot.
The exceptional discovery was originally made by a man with a metal detector.
Mystery surrounds the identity of the 6ft tall warrior queen.
Her ancient Briton predecessor Boadicea led a rebellion against the Romans in 61AD. After the Romans left England in 410AD tribal conflict was rife and the mystery queen might have fallen victim to this.
All the bones and artefacts discovered at the scene are now being examined by independent conservator Wessex Archaeology and at a later date will be brought back to the City and County Museum in Friars Lane.
Lincolnshire County Council archaeologist Adam Daubney said that there was an enormous sense of excitement when the bodies were unearthed.
"Any discovery from Anglo-Saxon times is important for Lincolnshire because this era of history is not as well documented as other periods," he said.
"In other parts of Lincolnshire we have found two large Saxon burial sites at Loveden Hill and Ruskington.
"But one of the interesting things about this is that a total of four shields have been found.
"The shield would have been originally made from wood but the boss - which held the handle in place - was made of iron and this has survived."
The Channel Four television programme Time Team carried out the excavation and the programme is due to be broadcast next spring.
The owner of the land on which the burial site was discovered asked not to be named to avoid the venue's location becoming common knowledge.
He said: "Two years ago a discovery of a brooch was made on the site which was unmistakably Anglo-Saxon. It was incredibly exciting to discover the burial site."
Councillor Marianne Overton, a member of Navenby Archaeology Group which assisted Time Team with the excavation, helped out at the three-day dig which took place between Tuesday and Thursday last week.
"What struck me was that there are possibly a great many more sites like this across the county," she said.
"When you actually see the venue and are able to imagine what life would have been like then you get a strong sense of the history of the county in which we live."
2003-09-26 15:43 | User Profile
:yawn:
Ok I'm sure the PC media is blowing this way out of proportion. Just like they blow Boadicea out of proportion as some "warrior queen". Boadicea as far as I know only attacked under- and un-defended villages and when finally confronted by a real military force(a Roman legion), her forces were utterly smashed. Not impressive and not much to brag about.
I'm sure a similar unimpressive story surronds this new "warrior queen" discovered.
2003-09-26 15:49 | User Profile
I didn't even pick up on the feminist angle. I was interested in the Anglo Saxon archeological find.
2003-10-01 19:25 | User Profile
Ok I'm sure the PC media is blowing this way out of proportion. Just like they blow Boadicea out of proportion as some "warrior queen". Boadicea as far as I know only attacked under- and un-defended villages and when finally confronted by a real military force(a Roman legion), her forces were utterly smashed. Not impressive and not much to brag about.
I'm sure a similar unimpressive story surronds this new "warrior queen" discovered.[/QUOTE]
I think one could safely call her a "warrior queen." Warrior is a ideology, culture, or way of living which one can be sure she probably was. Rather or not she was successful in battle agianst the Romans, doesn't mean she was less of a warrior. The Romans got theirs in the Teutoburg forest.
2003-10-01 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]I think one could safely call her a "warrior queen." Warrior is a ideology, culture, or way of living which one can be sure she probably was. Rather or not she was successful in battle agianst the Romans, doesn't mean she was less of a warrior. [/QUOTE]
Ok if attacking under- and un- defended villages makes you a great warrior, than you have very low standards for warriorship. Now certainly her raising her people up to fight against the Romans should be commended, but don't be calling her a "warrior queen" or anything.
Same thing with Joan of Arc. She raised the French people to fight the English, and for that she should be remembered and praised. But don't praise her for being a warrioress or anything. In fact at her trial she admitted she never killed a man!
Most "warrior queens" are mostly symbolic leaders, not actual military leaders. Often they rely heavily on male military advisors(more so than male military leaders usually do). Again nothing to brag about here Ritter.
2003-10-02 00:05 | User Profile
QUOTE=perun1201Ok if attacking under- and un- defended villages makes you a great warrior, than you have very low standards for warriorship. Now certainly her raising her people up to fight against the Romans should be commended, but don't be calling her a "warrior queen" or anything.[/QUOTE]
A warrior has nothing to do with honour.
1 - One who is engaged in or experienced in battle. 2 - One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict [url]http://www.dictionary.com[/url]
As for Joan of Arc, I wouldn't know. I am not french, nor do I hear voices in my head.
2003-10-02 00:28 | User Profile
Whatever her actual role in hand-to-hand combat the symbolism of the warrior-woman seems to be a recurrent theme in European legends. I recall a similar find of a Scythian (or possibly Sarmatian? I don't recall) princess buried with armor and weapons. So maybe Brunhilde and the Amazons have some grain of history behind them. But as was pointed out, these chicks in shining armor probably didn't do alot of actual front line fighting.
Of course, as Ritter points out, when it came to checking the Roman advance North, Hermann and his Germans got the job done.
2003-10-02 02:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Maximillian]Whatever her actual role in hand-to-hand combat the symbolism of the warrior-woman seems to be a recurrent theme in European legends. I recall a similar find of a Scythian (or possibly Sarmatian? I don't recall) princess buried with armor and weapons. So maybe Brunhilde and the Amazons have some grain of history behind them. But as was pointed out, these chicks in shining armor probably didn't do alot of actual front line fighting. [/QUOTE]
The Amazons were myths as well. If you look carefully at the Greek myths, they're mocking the idea of female warriors. The Amazons are always being defeated and humilated by a Greek hero. Plus the Amazons are usually wearing Persian armour and using Persian weapons, which the Greeks considered inferior and useless. Many Greek writers who wrote down the Amazon myths, like Strabo, even doubted their existance. One Greek writer in thr 4th century BC even joked that simply because the Amazons were reported to engage in warfare, then they must've been men!
The Amazons of Greek myths were far from the popular imagery we see today. The Greeks protrayed them not as invincible female warriors, but as pathetic amatuers.
2003-10-02 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]A warrior has nothing to do with honour.
Right here you just shown your utter ignorance of military history and the concept of warriorship throughout the ages and in different cultures. Honor is very much a major tenent of what it means to be a warrior, often far more than knowing how to kill somebody. Having a sense of honour is what seperates the warrior from the armed thug. You see this theme in Greco-Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc notions and epic stories exemplifing what warriorship means. Often the theme in these epics is "death before dishonor". So clearly you don't have any understanding of warriorship.
As for Joan of Arc, I wouldn't know. I am not french, nor do I hear voices in my head.[/QUOTE]
You further protray your ignorance and immaturity by your continual use of knee-jerk remarks.
If you want to glorify a woman who was only capable of attacking 3 undefended villages and was not able to take on any real military force, be my guest. The only talent Boudicea had was in killing and torturing unarmed civilians in the villages she captured, hardly the traits of true warrior.
2003-10-02 05:01 | User Profile
QUOTE=perun1201Right here you just shown your utter ignorance of military history and the concept of warriorship throughout the ages and in different cultures. Honor is very much a major tenent of what it means to be a warrior, often far more than knowing how to kill somebody. Having a sense of honour is what seperates the warrior from the armed thug. You see this theme in Greco-Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc notions and epic stories exemplifing what warriorship means. Often the theme in these epics is "death before dishonor". So clearly you don't have any understanding of warriorship.
The Bushido code has nothing to do with being a warrior. A warrior, is someone who is warlike, or in a war. It is that simple. You don't have to have honor to be a warrior. You state "warriorship" a couple of times, there is no such word.
quote=perun1201You further protray your ignorance and immaturity by your continual use of knee-jerk remarks.
Define "knee-jerk," because I think you are totally misunderstanding everything.
quote=perun1201If you want to glorify a woman who was only capable of attacking 3 undefended villages and was not able to take on any real military force, be my guest. The only talent Boudicea had was in killing and torturing unarmed civilians in the villages she captured, hardly the traits of true warrior.[/QUOTE]
First, never have a stated a glorifing thing about her. Secound, you state "true warrior," who stated this.
She meets the title of "Warrior Queen" - that is my point. Warrior, I have defined above; Queen, is a female monarch/leader.
2003-10-02 05:46 | User Profile
Perun, what do you think of Elizabeth I? Do you dismiss her accomplishments? I would consider her a bona fide "Warrior Queen" inasmuch as she ably led her nation in war (even wore armor, if only for symbolism) although she didn't actually fight. But what is the point of arguing? I don't think anyone here thinks women are or ever were capable of being a serious force on the battle field, certainly not in the ages when brute strength was the deciding factor. But ancient art and archaeological discoveries show women wearing arms and armor, from the Hittites to the Greeks to the Kelts and so forth- so what was going on?
2003-10-02 06:06 | User Profile
Bodicea is as anglo-saxon as Gerry Adams.
2003-10-02 07:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Maximillian]Perun, what do you think of Elizabeth I? Do you dismiss her accomplishments? I would consider her a bona fide "Warrior Queen" inasmuch as she ably led her nation in war (even wore armor, if only for symbolism) although she didn't actually fight.
She did lead her country in war, and for that she should be commended. But also remember she(like almost every other female leader during warfare) relied heavily on her [B]male[/B] military advisors.
But what is the point of arguing? I don't think anyone here thinks women are or ever were capable of being a serious force on the battle field, certainly not in the ages when brute strength was the deciding factor. But ancient art and archaeological discoveries show women wearing arms and armor, from the Hittites to the Greeks to the Kelts and so forth- so what was going on?[/QUOTE]
What I'm disputing is the typical PC feminist myths about women and warfare, especially this "GI Jane" nonsense like we recently saw with Jessica Lynch.
Now on to ancient art. A common theme in ancient art is of creatures with the head of animals and the body of humans. Does that prove such creatures existed? Mostly what you're seeing is of protrayls of warrior goddesses. Interestingly enough, most societies with such warrior goddesses were usually extremely patriarchal in which women had no way in hell of ever engaging in combat. Plus the warrior goddesses themselves are extremely non-feminine and have strong hatred for women.
Now if women did fight in the ancient world, their numbers were absolutely insignificant, especially when compared to the numbers of male engaged in combat. Finding 1 or 2 women buried with weapons is nothing to brag about when if in the same area you find thousands and thousands of males buried with weapons.
Just like with the Night Witches debate, only 0.7% of Red Army personnel consisted of women who recieved weapons training(which by itself doesn't prove they served in combat). Now again 0.7% of 12 million is nothing to brag about here people. The closest these women ever saw(as is true in everyother case of female "warriors") was guarding quiet areas of the front so as to free up manpower(ie male soldiers) to fight on more critical areas of the front.
Female "warriors" past and present are largely myths. The Amazons were about as real as Wonderwomen.
2003-10-02 07:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]The Bushido code has nothing to do with being a warrior. A warrior, is someone who is warlike, or in a war. It is that simple. You don't have to have honor to be a warrior. You state "warriorship" a couple of times, there is no such word.
Ok you further prove you're an idiot when it comes to military ethics and military history.
First, never have a stated a glorifing thing about her. Secound, you state "true warrior," who stated this.
She meets the title of "Warrior Queen" - that is my point. Warrior, I have defined above; Queen, is a female monarch/leader.[/QUOTE]
Ok you asked me who stated that she was a "true warrior". Why you did, and you proved it by your last statement.
Can you actually back any of your arguments up more than one sentence knee-jerk remarks? Hmmmn, nevermind I'll probally just get another ridiculas one sentence answer.
"Never try arguing with somebody with a brain" as the old Russian proverb goes.
2003-10-02 07:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]The Bushido code has nothing to do with being a warrior. A warrior, is someone who is warlike, or in a war. It is that simple. You don't have to have honor to be a warrior. You state "warriorship" a couple of times, there is no such word.
Ok you further prove you're an idiot when it comes to military ethics and military history.
First, never have a stated a glorifing thing about her. Secound, you state "true warrior," who stated this.
She meets the title of "Warrior Queen" - that is my point. Warrior, I have defined above; Queen, is a female monarch/leader.[/QUOTE]
Ok you asked me who stated that she was a "true warrior". Why you did, and you proved it by your last statement.
Can you actually back any of your arguments up with more than just one sentence knee-jerk remarks? Hmmmn, nevermind I'll probally just get another ridiculas one sentence answer.
"Never try arguing with somebody without a brain" as the old Russian proverb goes.
2003-10-02 16:18 | User Profile
[INDENT]What I'm disputing is the typical PC feminist myths about women and warfare, especially this "GI Jane" nonsense like we recently saw with Jessica Lynch. [/INDENT]
Perun, I agree 100%.
Rban sez: [INDENT]Perun is correct in that the feminist dogma which pollutes North American society insists on idolizing women, including the distortion of history and creation of artificial mythology. Actually males have always had a fascination with females being in a 'warrior' or 'fighting' role, and a lot of this AngloSaxon pricess or Joan of Arc garbage is simply te result of male sexual fantasy. [/INDENT]
(sarcasm)Oh yeah! Let's all go to the Parthenon and check out that hot, hot Athena. Perhaps the Parthenon itself and the whole of classical accomplishment should be regarded as an outgrowth of ancient Greek horniness...
Rban sez: [INDENT]I wouldn't be surprised if this bodacious gal were not really a warrior at all...she was probably dressed up and buried in warrior gear to satisfy some male's fevered imagination. Perhaps her sexual partner asked her to dress up in armour in the bedroom to make the experience more arousing for him. Hence was born the legend.[/INDENT]
(sarcasm)Perhaps this also explains the false beard worn by the Egyptian queen Hateshphut. Those Egyptians were undoubtedly aroused by the sight of the sexy man-woman pharoah.
I have to stop getting these email updates on these threads. I have work to do! I can't sit here all day chittering about dead chicks that may or may not have been dressed up in the arms of war! :taz:
2003-10-02 16:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]What about the females in the red army during WW2? Or as we called them "Flintenweiber". :D[/QUOTE]
Glad you asked that Leeland. You can check out the Night Witches thread here to see my full views on the topic of Red Army women, but I'll give a summary.
Despite Communist propaganda, Red army women were no more active in combat than women in Germany, America, or UK; that is very little if any. Only 1/12 of Red Army personnel was ever female(1 million women in an army of 12 million). But only 250,000 women ever recieved weapons training(which alone doesn't prove they went into combat cause Israel trains women all the time but doesn't send them into combat). Now 250,000 would equal about 0.7% of the total Red Army strength during the war. So as I keep saying, nothing to brag about since it would take a large leap of creativity to argue that 0.7% of 12 million was somehow vital to the Soviet war effort.
The most these women ever saw was guarding quiet areas of the front in order to free up manpower(ie male soldiers) to fight in more critical areas of the front. This is backed up with testimony from Red veterans. In fact many male Red Army veterans are pissed off that the female vets get so much attention when in fact it was the men who did all the fighting.
You can read more details in the Night Witches thread.
2003-10-02 17:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Maximillian] Rban sez: [INDENT]Perun is correct in that the feminist dogma which pollutes North American society insists on idolizing women, including the distortion of history and creation of artificial mythology. Actually males have always had a fascination with females being in a 'warrior' or 'fighting' role, and a lot of this AngloSaxon pricess or Joan of Arc garbage is simply te result of male sexual fantasy. [/INDENT]
(sarcasm)Oh yeah! Let's all go to the Parthenon and check out that hot, hot Athena. Perhaps the Parthenon itself and the whole of classical accomplishment should be regarded as an outgrowth of ancient Greek horniness...
Actually Rban is closer to the truth than you realize. Men for some strange reasons are attracted to the idea of female warriors, largely because of well..... "horniness". Most depictions in art of female warriors is of women scathely clothed and are very sexually suggestive. This is true even today with Buffy the Vampire slayer or Dark Angel and such. Now some feminist wrote an essay that the recent fascination with "female warriors" on TV and in film was the result of men finally being able to take orders from women. :lol: No men watch those shows because they think Buffy or Dark Angel is "hot" and also you get to look up her skirt when she kicks some guy in the jaw.
So yes sexual attractions does play a big role in many if not all protrayls of female warriors.
2003-10-02 17:50 | User Profile
QUOTE=perun1201Ok you further prove you're an idiot when it comes to military ethics and military history.
You don't know the definition of the word "warrior"; or are you special and can make up your own definitions?
quote=perun1201Ok you asked me who stated that she was a "true warrior". Why you did, and you proved it by your last statement.[/QUOTE]
No, I didn't. You were the first one who stated "true warrior," without stating what you meant by it. What is "true?" Well, I guess to you it means one with honour. Well, then you just made the distinction between "Warrior" and "true warrior." There have been countless warriors who didn't have honour in the least. They were no less warriors.
One would say: "Yes they were warriors, but they didn't have any honour." You would say: "No, they weren't warriors."
Why? Well, you don't realise, that they infact DO reach the criteria for the definition of a warrior.
As for queen Boudicca, she wasn't as one sided as you portray. [url=http://members.tripod.com/~ancient_history/boad.html]Boudicca[/url]
quote=perun1201"Never try arguing with somebody without a brain" as the old Russian proverb goes.
Your constant ad hominem remarks are tiring. :sleep:
quote=perun1201So yes sexual attractions does play a big role in many if not all protrayls of female warriors.
I agree.
2003-10-02 18:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ritter]You don't know the definition of the word "warrior"; or are you special and can make up your own definitions?
Very well I'll give you the definitions of a warrior from several sources.
Here's an essay that does a good job explaining what I wish to explain. http://www.eighthcity.com/Articles/Rogerbrown/HonrCodC%20(1).htm
[B] It is important to follow this spiritual element through human history because it is an important characteristic that [I]distinguishes Warriors from Soldiers and Savages.[/I]
Among the important characteristics that identify Warriors, and distinguish them from Soldiers and Savages, are beliefs that life is sacred, disciplined violence should only be used as a last resort, emotions and appetites must be mastered, fear of death must be mastered or set aside, and the source of greatest individual power and abilities comes from gaining conscious awareness and connection with the divine spark within. These, and other important elements, form [I]a Warriors Code of Honor[/I]. A Warrior’s allegiance and commitment to his Code of Honor, including his commitment to the divine force of life, transcends all other obligations.
A Warrior can perform the duties of a Soldier, but he does so under his Code of Honor, a higher standard than a Military Code of Conduct. A key distinction between Soldiers and Warriors, is that the Military Code of Conduct, under which Soldiers function, ceases to be of use as a daily guide when military service ends and civilian life resumes. Once adopted, a Warrior’s Code of Honor guides him throughout his entire life in all forms of conflict and in the absence of conflict.[/B]
Also I take cues from Shannon E. French's recent book " the Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior values past and present"
Shannon is teaching a class from the US naval academy on what being a warrior means, and asks the class to find words that are synonyms for warrior. As she writes on page 1;
[B]The words I off my students for their consideration are "murderer", "killer", "fighter", "victor", and "conquerer". I have found that most of them reject all five. The reasons that they give to account for why they wish to dismiss each of these synonyms for warrior consistently stress the idea [I]that a true warrior has to be morally superior in some way to those who might qualify for the other suggested epithets[/I]. Consider these respresentative comments from a variety of midshipmen:
[I]Murderer[/I]: "This word has connotations of unjust acts, namely killing for no reason. A warrior fights an enemy who fights to kill him."
[I]Killer[/I]: "A warrior may be required to kill, but it should be for a purpose or cause greater than his own welfare, for an ideal"
[I]Fighter[/I]: [U]"Simply fighting doesn't make you a warrior[/U]. There are rules a warrior follows."
[I]Victor[/I]: "Warriors will lose, too-and the people who win aren't always what a warrior should be."
[I]Conquerer[/I]: "A conquerer may simply command enough power to overcome opposition. He can be very lacking in the ethical beliefs that should be part of a warrior's life."[/B]
Further down on page 2 the cadets make further distinctions between a murderer and a warrior: [B] "A warrior is not a murderer because [I]a warrior has a code that he lives by which is influenced by morals which must be justified[/I]."
"A murder has no honor."**
Then there's David Myatt's "Way of the Warrior" [url]http://www.geocities.com/davidmyatt/warrior_way.html[/url]
[B] First, let us be quite clear what warrior way is: it is the Way of personal honour, the Way of duty to the community before self-interest and self-gratification, and the Way of steadfast loyalty unto death.
Thus, way of the warrior is the Way of the noble individual - the individual who is civilized, decent, fair-minded, idealistic and who seeks to aid and further evolve their own culture.
The true warrior seeks to do what is noble, right, decent, and idealistic. A true warrior tries to set an example for others to admire and follow.
All of this arises because the Way of the Warrior is ethical and moral - it has its own unique ethics, based upon honour. Thus a warrior is not someone who simply desires or is trained to fight. Neither is a warrior someone who just takes part in some combat or belongs to some professional Army. Rather, [I]a warrior is someone who lives by the high ethical standards of honour, loyalty and duty and who is prepared to die in the service of those standards. [/I][/B]
Now here's just 3 sources backing up what I have been saying all along about warriorship, and I have plenty more sources were that came from.
No, I didn't. You were the first one who stated "true warrior," without stating what you meant by it. What is "true?" Well, I guess to you it means one with honour. Well, then you just made the distinction between "Warrior" and "true warrior." There have been countless warriors who didn't have honour in the least. They were no less warriors.
If they didn't have honor, they weren't warriors. Now maybe by a simplistic dictionary definition they were warriors, but within the actual military context they weren't. Just like there's a dictionary definition for "manslaughter" or "assault and battery", but thats for common everyday use. Often the definition of such words that you'll find in penal codes is often more complex and not as easily defined.
One would say: "Yes they were warriors, but they didn't have any honour." You would say: "No, they weren't warriors."
Why? Well, you don't realise, that they infact DO reach the criteria for the definition of a warrior.
From a purely dictionary perspective, not in a military context.