Posted on 05/26/2011 5:30:06 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
ping
of course there is no evidence that she was a “warrior”, they sure love to speculate about things
Hey, thanks for the ping. Hope I don’t meet the same end. Brrr...
bookmark
Robust and muscular?? And they would know that how??
How did they surmise that she was a warrior?? Sounds more like her and hubby were leaders in the village.
By the way the muscles/tendons were attached to the bones.
IIRC, muscles and such leave marks on the bones.
Except it says skeleton...not mummy...
Interesting. She may well have been in the fight, as her wounds and atypical burial show.
The fact that the bones were probably quite dense for somebody of that height and gender says that the person led a very physical sort of life, which leads to them being very strong, as compared to somebody who leads a relatively sedentary life.
Yes, but the attachment points on the bones reflects a number of things, including level of activity during life.
Has Bubba asked her out yet??
Except from her wounds.
They can project her body type (slender, delicate or stocky and robust) by the size of her bones, although I would quibble about calling a 5’4” female an “Amazon”. I suppose that depends on the size of the male skeletons of the time.
Those wounds are not evidence of her being a combatant, she could have been the wife/consort of a local ruler who was caught in their castle. Lots of women have died in wars as victims throughout history without being warriors.
FYI, possibly relevant for your GGG ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.