Fight Like A Girl: Iron Age Female Warrior Burial Discovery

Figure 1: Sword and mirror found in the Bryher burial (Source: Historic England)

 

One of the dominant narratives that continues to exist today is that men are aggressive and often act as warriors, meting out violence.  Women are characterized as meek and mild, often becoming the victims of that violence.  There are challenges to this paradigm, supported by evidence that shows women can and do serve outside of these roles (e.g., being hunters or fighting in wars).  Today’s blog post will feature another one of those challenges by way of evidence of a female warrior from the Iron Age.

 

The discovery of this female warrior was the Bryher burial site on the Isle of Scilly in southwest Britain.  The island has a long history of human occupation, dating as far back as the Neolithic (New Stone) Age, but there is substantial evidence of Iron Age and Roman activity throughout the island, as well.  Iron Age people built a cliff castle on the northern part of the island, but they appear to have used the southern part of the island for burials, which is where the Bryher burial is located.  It was discovered by accident by a farmer who was cultivating potatoes.  When his equipment got stuck and immediately sank into a small sink hole, he discovered a stone lined pit.  He entered it and recovered a sword.  This led him to contact local museum staff, who immediately identified the sword as being from the Iron Age.  This discovery was met with much fanfare from the media and the British crown (as then Prince Charles visited the site).  The attention led to the immediate identification and quick excavation of the site to recover and preserve the material and physical remains of the burial.

 

The subsequent analysis of the burial determined that it contained one individual who was badly decomposed.  Only fragmentary remains of the deceased were able to be recovered, which included pieces of long bones and two crowns of mandibular molars.  Several of the burial goods were also severely deteriorated, but metal pieces were recovered, including the sword, remnants of a shield, elements of a belt to affix the sword to the deceased’s body, a brooch, spiral ring, and a mirror with sun motifs (Figure 1).  The burial dated to the first century BC (between 100-50 BC).

 

Despite the poor condition of the human remains several analyses were attempted to learn more about the deceased individual.  DNA analysis was the first to be done, but the results were inconclusive as the bones were in too poor a condition to recover an ample DNA sample to test.  Isotopic analyses were more successful, demonstrating that the deceased’s diet was a combination of terrestrial resources and seafood.  Macroscopic analyses of the remains were also attempted.  There were too few skeletal elements to rely on skeletal sexing methods, but examination of the molars led to a conclusion that the deceased was a young adult (aged between 20 and 25 years of age) at the time of their death.

 

Without DNA the individual’s sex could not be positively identified, leading to researchers to infer gender identification based on the grave goods.  The sword and shield are commonly found among male Iron Age period burials, so they were assumed to represent the deceased was a man.  The presence of the ring and the mirror, however, were commonly found among female burials, demonstrating that the deceased was a woman.  This led to a complication in accurately assessing the sex and possibly the gender of the individual. 

 

A little over two decades later, though, advancements in chemical analyses of sex had advanced, allowing for the testing of the teeth to determine the sex of the Bryher individual.  The analysis relied on sourcing a specific protein that showed the presence of either an X (female) or Y (male) chromosome.  When the investigation was completed it was discovered that the Bryher individual was a biological female!  The researchers returned to the presence of the grave goods and the ethnographic evidence of the roles of men and women in small-scale societies, and they concluded that this individual was most likely a woman who was a warrior.  Not only that but the quality of the mirror probably meant that she was a military leader.  This conclusion is in line with more recent analyses of other past populations (e.g., the Shield Maidens of the Vikings and Scythians), and it has led to a renewed interest in the role of women in the past, particularly when it pertains to warfare.   

 

Bibliography

Davies, C. (2023, July 27). Isles of Scilly remains are iron age female warrior, scientists say. The Guardian.

Johns, C. (2002). An Iron Age sword and mirror cist burial from Bryhers, Isle of Scilly. Cornish Archaeology, 1-79.

Mays, S., Parker, G., Johns, C., Starks, S., Young, A., Reich, D., . . . Hale, K. (2023). Sex identification of a Late Iron Age sword and mirror cist burial from Hillside Farm, Bryher, Isles of Scilly, England. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

 

Non-Human Primate Themed American Idioms

Gelada baboons grooming each other, which is an example of nonhuman primate behavior.

 

There are various ways of talking about specific topics.  One way is through language, specifically the number of idioms (phrases) related to the topic.  This is a topic that has been previously addressed in different posts on this blog (see this one and this other one for examples).  Carrying on with this theme, as well as incorporating a broader anthropological focus, today’s blog post will address the origins and history of three nonhuman primate themed idioms.  They are merely linked by their use of a nonhuman primate in the wording of the phrase, but this just makes it all the more interesting as to how and why these creatures are used to express diverse ideas and messages within the English language.

 

Monkey See, Monkey Do

The phrase “monkey see, monkey do” refers to someone who unquestioningly mimics the behavior of someone else.  This type of behavior is often witnessed among children who copy the language and behaviors of any parent or parental figure they imprint on.  Overall, the phrase is not a positive one since it demonstrates a lack of critical thought in what is being done or said through imitation. 

 

The precise origins and history of the phrase “monkey see, monkey do” are difficult to pinpoint. There exists a lot of inaccurate information about the origins, citing a Jamaican, African, or even a Chinese origin.  These pieces of information, however, are unsubstantiated as they lack credible evidence.  The best evidence comes from the research of Neal Whitman, who tracked down some of the original uses of the phrase in American newspapers.

 

The first published evidence of the use of the phrase comes from the late 1800s.  At that time, however, the phrase was a little different.  It was “monkey sees, monkey does”, which is grammatically correct (versus the current way of saying the phrase).  The grammatically correct idiom was found throughout several shoe advertisements, suggesting it was a clever marketing ploy to disparage the competitor while promoting the company that ran the ad.  It is unclear why specifically the advertisement creator opted to use monkeys as a sales pitch, just as it is unknown how or why the phrase changed since that time.  There are several chronicled examples throughout many published pieces of literature that show the degradation of the phrase over time.

 

Go Ape

The phrase “go ape” is a cleaner version of a popular American idiom (to “go apes—t”).  It is typically used to explain negative behavior, such as that associated with violence or insanity.  It can, however, reference any excitable behavior that is not technically bad or deviant (e.g., to raucous/wild celebration).

 

The phrase was first published in American literature in the 1950s, although its exact origins remain unknown.  There are some sources that claim it came from the US military, referencing military personnel who would spend too much time in their barracks and then would go wild when no longer on base.  There are others who associate the phrase with the American Jazz night club scene.  These were places wherein both White and Black patrons could and would interact, dancing and conversing in manners that were not acceptable in more public spaces.  Because such interracial interactions were deemed deviant this may be part of the reason why the phrase is associated with the Jazz night club scene.

 

Monkey Business

Monkey business remains a popular idiom used throughout the English language to this day.  It references any actions deemed silly, mischievous, or underhanded.  As one examines the origins and history of change of this phrase one sees very little modification over time.  This phrase has two potential origins, both of which are derived from its predecessor phrase: monkeyshine. 

 

Monkeyshine was introduced in the early 1800s and referenced dishonorable behavior.  It was used in a popular song that mocked enslaved Blacks and ultimately used as a derogatory way of referencing all African Americans. Another potential origin comes from Sanskrit, a language spoken throughout the country of India.  British colonizers may have adopted the phrase from a Sanskrit idiom that came from watching the literal behavior of nonhuman primates that are commonly found throughout the area.  According to sources the Sanskrit saying used the foolish, silly, and sometimes violent interactions of monkeys to reference similar behaviors among deviant or irrational humans.

 

Works Cited

Friends of KSPS PBS. "Monkey See, Monkey Do." n.d. KSPS PBS. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Idiomorigins.org. "Origin of Ape/Apeshit." n.d. Idiom Origin. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Langeek Inc. "Go Ape." 2020. LanGeek Dictionary. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Osmond, Candace. "‘Monkey Business’ Idiom: The Art Of Trickery and Lies." n.d. The Grammarist. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

The Button Museum. "Go Ape." n.d. The Busy Beaver Button Museum. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Vocabulary.com. "Monkey Business." n.d. Vocabulary.com Dictionary. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Whitman, Neal. "Why Do We Say "Monkey See, Monkey Do"?" n.d. Vocabulary.com. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

 

Dining on the Dead: Potential Evidence of the Earliest Case of Cannibalism

Figure 1: Evidence of nine butchery marks on a fossilized tibia (Photo by Jennifer Clark)

 

In the 1970s Mary Leakey and her team discovered a hominid tibia.  They initially identified the tibia as belonging to the Paranthropus boisei species, although reanalysis of the tibia in 1990 determined it may belong to a Homo habilis individual.  This tibia remained in the Kenyan National Museum, where Briana Pobiner, an American paleoanthropologist based out of the Smithsonian, began to study it.  It was this analysis that led to an amazing discovery: the earliest definitive evidence of intentional butchery marks on hominid remains, as well as perhaps the earliest case of cannibalism.

 

Pobiner noted nine marks on the tibia where the calf muscle would have been present.  The marks were unique because they were unlike animal bite marks, leading her to take molds of the remains.  The molding technique she used is similar to that dentists use to model teeth.  The dental molds were sent to Michael Pante at the Colorado State University, and he, alongside Trevor Keevil of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. used 3-D modeling to study the marks.  They compared the marks on the fossilized tibia to almost 900 identified marks, including those created by stone tools, stone pounding implements, animal teeth, and animal hooves trampling the bones.  Pante and Keevil ultimately concluded that the marks on the fossilized tibia were caused by stone tools intentionally being used to cut the bone.

 

Pobiner, Pante, and Keevil published their conclusions in the journal Scientific Reports.  Their discovery marks the earliest case of intentional butchery on hominid remains, but the team did not stop there.  They also resolved that these marks may have been evidence of the earliest case of cannibalism.  They reached this conclusion as the cut marks were located where the calf muscle would have been, leading them to presume the cutter wanted to consume that specific cut of flesh.  It is unclear, however, if these cut marks were made by members of the same species, which would further support this as evidence of cannibalism, or if they were created by members of another species, which could mean they were caused by scavengers seeking to remove flesh.  This is not outside of the realm of possibilities since the fossilized tibia also had definitive bite marks from a large predator (most likely a feline, such as a saber tooth tiger).  The team believe, however, that they have the earliest case of cannibalism, although additional evidence is necessary to fully support this conclusion. 

 

Bibliography

Bower, B. (2023, June 26). Fossil marks suggest hominids butchered one another around 1.45 million years ago. Science News.

Domínguez, N. (2023, June 26). A fossil leg bone may reveal the oldest case of cannibalism, from 1.45 million years ago . El Pias.

Lavery, R., & Kremer, R. (2023, June 26). Humans’ Evolutionary Relatives Butchered One Another 1.45 Million Years Ago. Retrieved from Smithsonian Museum of Natural History: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/humans-evolutionary-relatives-butchered-one-another-145-million-years-ago

Pobiner, B., Pante, M., & Keevil, T. (2023). Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports, 9896.