Introduction–A Problem with Potential

One of the key objects in this study is the so-called ship setting (see Fig. 1), a burial type clearly associated with the sea. Ship settings are also indicators of maritime power and control. Of great interest is the fact that they contain the burials of both men and women. With particular reference to these graves, along with different key artefacts like the small gold scarab from the shipwreck of the Ulu Burun, this paper will acknowledge and give examples of women as travellers and participants in maritime activities. Not the least of these is warfare, which researchers have suggested was interwoven in socio-political processes of which long distance maritime trade was part of. The key objective of this study is thus to present a holistic Bronze Age with female power included. This will be shown by incorporating empirical evidence showing women clearly connected to maritime trade and overseas networks. Departing from intersectional critique, and despite abundant androcentric ideas in the archaeological field, the present study intends to show the involvement of women in socio-economic maritime contexts. This proposal is ground-breaking since it has not been discussed before.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Ship setting, RAÄ Boge 28:1 (Tjelvars grave), in Boge parish, Gotland. Foto: Mårten Stenberger (1938). Permission from Swedish National Heritage Board@Flickr Commons

Full size image

The geographical area of this study is concentrated in Scandinavia but the Mediterranean area is also referred to, based on the conviction that, during the Bronze Age, contacts were established between these areas. Within this setting, networks of overseas trade involving high prestige commodities started to circulate instituting and maintaining a new economic order. High status materials were only intended for the upper strata of society but did include both men and women. Although high status items are found in burials of both sexes, the archaeological interpretation of Bronze Age societies as a whole is clearly based on a system of inequality.

Recent research suggests that slaves were a key factor in Scandinavian export for Bronze Age maritime trade. Owning boats and financing voyages may be summarised as being political strategies to control trade (Ling et al. 2018a). Inequalities not only involve a society based on exploited groups such as slaves, but just as much the treatment of women by the archaeological tradition of today. A fundamentally misconceived position is the gender-biased tradition in which archaeological research, when focusing on power and control, seldom needs to find proof of the biological sex of an individual if men are involved, but is highly important in any case involving the presence of women.Footnote 1 Hence gender identity is determined by biased notions based on a specific course of events.

For quite some time, researchers have proposed that it was higher ranked chieftains who undertook long-distance journeys (Helms 1998; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005). More recently it has been stated that Scandinavian chieftains created class-based warrior societies (Ling et al. 2018a, 488) and that long-distance trade was carried out by warrior leaders (Horn & Kristiansen 2018). Furthermore, we read that “males were probably warriors responsible to protect and raid…” (Ling et al. 2018a, b, 492–my italics). In addition, it is men who are displayed in figurative rock carvings according to a strong, masculine warrior ideology, with women only playing secondary roles (Kristiansen 2014, 340, 348). It has been suggested that these warriors, such as the participants in long-distance seafaring trade, belonged to secret societies consisting of warrior-traders (Chacon et al. 2020).

Men are also associated with ritual performances and sea travels (Kristiansen 2014, 340f). Women of high status were household keepers and ritual leaders in particular warrior rituals “while their husbands, sons and kin were journeying to distant places in search of fame and riches, bronze and gold” (ibid:350). The basic assumption is that “we are in a male world of warrior ideology” (ibid:349f).

The present paper is without doubt a reaction to existing, mainstream ideas that pure masculinity governed Bronze Age society. Above all, it is a reaction to the neglect and even deleting of any female presence in important economic and political contexts–outside the domestic and ritual spheres. Proving female presence in the maritime sphere has great potential to change the erroneously androcentric notion of social structure during the Bronze Age. The emergence of female power in maritime settings should therefore be examined as well as problematised. In this study, female burials, in the maritime landscape in particular, will be discussed from the premise that they constitute a potential indicator of female power and integration in long-distance maritime networks.

Considering the solidity of current biased structures as clearly noticeable in archaeological interpretation, the present study will furthermore point to the cracks and show an alternative understanding of Bronze Age power based on a gender-inclusive perspective. Travellers and traders–terrestrial or maritime–have the potential to function as an ideological construction and nuance of the principles of social organisation and hierarchy.

It has been suggested that, on Gotland, a Swedish island in the Baltic Sea, the local elite were capable of sponsoring their own sea voyagers (for Gotland see Wehlin 2013, 189). For the present study, Gotland is of particular interest since the island is where we find the greatest number of key sites: i.e. ship settings. The fact that overseas journeys were undertaken by the local rulers of Bronze Age society is highly relevant and of major importance. If an autonomous travelling local elite existed on Gotland, it is reasonable and relevant to include women’s participation in this structure. The island proves unambiguously to be a locus of great interest for gender studies since monumental ship settings are especially common here and we know for a fact they were not exclusively for men. Female presence in political and economic structures can therefore be argued and motivated by the existence of female burials in these monumental ship settings. Based on female presence in maritime settings, a deconstruction of the patriarchal Bronze Age narrative is thus motivated.

Theoretical Framework

One prime gender issue is important to address right at the start of this study, emerging from the presence of skeletal parts in a burial. On these occasions, it is highly likely that any interpretation has a tendency to assume a direct equivalence between biological sex and gender. Gender is not a binary categorisation based on biological sex. However, biological sex must not be ruled out. On the contrary, and for this study, it is important to include biological analyses whenever possible in order to discuss heterogeneous socio-economic structures.

Tracing gender-specific individuals in prehistory is a challenge. Today we have DNA analyses as a tool for patterning major factors like migration (see Friis-Holm Egfjord et al. 2021), and genetic data can also determine biological sex (see for instance Knipper et al. 2017; Kristiansen 2021). DNA analysis is a revolution for the archaeological discipline but is still in its infancy and accessible data are therefore limited. Biological sex can naturally also be determined, if the circumstances are right, through osteological analyses, but any attempt to establish biological sex based on artefacts is dubious. Nonetheless, osteologists also take artefacts into account in some cases when determining gender (Biuw 1992, 95). This is practised despite osteological material frequently being labelled “with hesitation determined as” or “more uncertain” (see Biuw 1992). In some other cases, phrases such as “perhaps a women/man” are used (Wehlin 2013, 248).

“Gender is relational and inclusive it is therefore important to note that one cannot reach meaningful conclusions about one gender without studying the other equally relevant gender structures present in the Bronze Age society” (Felding 2020, 437). Although, the gender division for most of Bronze Age society is normatively representative, the content of these gender roles must be treated in a more diverse way than hitherto formulated (ibid 2020:423). Naturally it is a challenge to construct gender since gender roles are changeable and thus integrated into lifecycle changes. We may therefore discuss gender in terms of gender transformation which opens up to developing understanding of social power (Sørensen 2019, 113). Nevertheless, from a feministic perspective, it is difficult to adopt the idea of Bronze Age homogenous masculine power structures. However, there are constructive ways to identify power structures critically and to formulate oppression, which are both traceable as well as erroneously integrated into archaeological interpretations. The concept of intersectionality, developed in contemporary gender studies, explores the interconnections between systems of oppression. Thus, intersectionality opens up for possibilities to analyse how socio-cultural hierarchies and power structures interact. It also opens up for inclusion/exclusion concerning discursive and institutionally constructed categories such as gender, ethnicity, race, class, sex, age/generation, etc. (for the concept see Crenshaw 1989; Collins 1998; Lycke 2003; de los Reyes et al. 2006). In this paper, intersectionality refers to the complexity that arises when the subject of analysis expands to include multiple dimensions of social life and categories of analysis (see McCall 2005, 1772). Gender configurations are difficult to discuss without reference to intersectional categories such as age, social role, status, and shifting identities linked to the life course (Arnold 2016, 835). Although this study refrains from including an investigation of cross gender and transgender categories, intersectionality still plays a highly decisive role in my discussion. Intersectionality is also a perfect starting point to discuss gender studies since gender is relational and inclusive.

In the archaeological discipline, we can view a clear example of stigmatised power structure in the example of the so-called Egtved girl. The Egtved Girl is a young female who personifies female presence in political and economic structures during the Bronze Age. The Egtved example will be discussed in more depth in a later paragraph, but initially it is of interest to point out that, based on actual scientific proofs (Frei et al. 2015), she exemplifies a female traveller or even a travelling sea-voyager. Although a number of studies on human mobility, based on strontium isotope analyses of human remains, have recently been completed and discussed (see for instance Kristiansen et al. 2019), the Egtved girl was, for a time, the only example of a traveller established by natural science analysis. In line with biased archaeological notions, ultimately the young Egtved woman has unfortunately been interpreted simply as a part of a marriage strategy (Horn & Kristiansen 2018, 3). This interpretation is in line with the concept “the supreme gift” (Lévi-Strauss 1969, 65) and has become emblematic for Bronze Age research (Reiter et al. 2019, 12). The concept of women as gifts, is a thought connected to a number of old-school male researchers such as Oscar Montelius and John Lubbock, followed up by more recent researchers such as Michael Rowlands (1980) and Kristian Kristiansen (1998). The idea has been criticised that women were passive and subordinated subjects and commodities in an exchange system in order to maintain patriarchal political structures (Bergerbrant 2005; cf. Brück & Fontijn 2013). In a case study based on dresses in burials from South Scandinavia and Niedersachsen, Sophie Bergerbrant demonstrates that men also played a part in the exogamy system (Bergerbrant 2005, 233, 236).

Hypothetically, female presence in archaeological contexts can frequently be treated in an intersectional perspective, since women are seldom separate from male presence and masculine power structures. Based on the erroneous assumption that women play no crucial part in economic and political systems, the presence of women is ultimately attributed instead as subordination to male power structures. The young Egtved woman, who has recently been acknowledged through spectacular analysis (Frei et al. 2015), has been clearly divested of a higher position in the social arena and reduced only to filling the function of someone’s wife. The reason for her travel has been explained as exogamy i.e. marriage into a group to maintain alliances through the social mechanism of marriage (Horn & Kristiansen 2018, 3, Kristiansen & Suchowska-Duckke 2015, 372). Structural discrimination based on gender identity is evident and the gender-biased treatment of the Egtved woman as a subordinate is symptomatic of how scholars reduce the significance of female presence.

Intersectionality clearly defines power relations and thereby subordination. From an archaeological point of view, subordination is highly visible within hierarchies. It has been suggested that the Bronze Age was a complex hierarchical society, which alternatively can be considered as a source of multiple power (for complex Bronze Age societies, see Levy 1995, 48). This perspective opens up for a critical discussion of inequalities and women as a group subservient to males. This situation may also be discussed in terms of heterarchical relations and a heterarchical model (for the concept heterarchy, see Crumley 1995, 1995), emphasising the co-existence of heterogeneous power relations that include women. Heterarchy is thus a system of relations addressing the diversity of dialectical relationships and, as well, a structure and also a condition. Heterarchy is useful as an abstract model or as a narrative (ibid.) and, for this study, it is a perspective to keep in mind when discussing the fundamental misinterpretations of women. Janet Levy has, critically and correctly, pointed out that not only hierarchical societies constructed by males count as complex and interesting (Levi 1995, 49f).

In the key sites for this study, the ship settings, we can trace the burials of both sexes. The presence of women in these structures signals, not just status and power viewed from the input of working hours it takes to erect a grave, but just as much from the shape of the ship, the monumentality of the grave in the maritime landscape, and the existence of metals in the grave. In addition, female status can be considered from a maritime context in which trading alliances at sea played a part. Traditionally, the sea and ships are environments with male social connotations. Locating biological sex in ship settings is not the goal per se but rather to grasp feminine empirical evidence that points to the existence of heterogeneous gender categories, inclusive of women, in maritime power and social structures. The burials of both sexes in ship settings may offer the possibility of erasing the dialectical relationship between men and women in a maritime context during the Bronze Age. In this study intersectionality, in this case the interaction between the sexes–men and women–in relation to hierarchical power structures, is given the possibility of being reinterpreted on fair grounds. Female burials are fewer in number, but this ought not to prevent the inclusion of female presence in maritime power structures. We need to realize that the development of gender groups easily opens the possibility of prearranged power constructions. However, it is possible to deconstruct patriarchal gender and power structures by including women. To attain this ambition, a survey of maritime structures–ship settings and other graves in the maritime environment–is one way to tackle the problem. This is of greatest importance since the maritime sphere has been decisive for the definition of the era, seen from the material relics left by sea-going trade networks–especially those trading with metals.

The Bronze Age Setting

The Bronze Age (c. 1700–500 BC) was a dramatic time of change in the Nordic region. From having been a society based on a mixed farming economy, the region started focusing on its valuable metals. To give some perspective, the Nordic Bronze Age displayed the greatest number of elaborated bronzes in Europe (Kristiansen & Suchowska-Ducke 2015, 369).

During the Bronze Age, the Nordic region showed many signs of adopting foreign culture, a development considered to be concurrent with the involvement in long-distance interaction and trade. Through networks in which metals and other commodities were transported, the Nordic region became involved with other cultures, receiving much more than commodities of material value. The Nordic region acquired access to immaterial values like technology, religion and ideology. It has been suggested that the Nordic region was actually part of a pan-European Bronze Age (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005).

The networks in which metals were circulating were often based on a maritime route in which chieftains were involved (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005, 198–212; Kristiansen 2007, 60f; Ling et al. 2018b). Due to recent lead isotope analysis on bronze items as well as metal oars, we know that an Atlantic maritime network was in existence, involving the eastern Mediterranean, the Atlantic Sea and southern Scandinavia (Ling & Uhnér 2014). Waterways, in particular the sea, constitute a central factor for our understanding of how the Bronze Age was organised and maintained. Naturally, ships became a key factor for the transportation of goods and people in the maritime networks. The so-called maritime modes of production (see Ling et al. 2018a) led to an emerging maritime economy in Bronze Age Scandinavia giving rise to control over distant trading and raiding opportunities. Maritime vessels were crucial for the economy and boat- building was a top priority. Timber was a prerequisite for boat-building, thus needing protection by a warrior aristocracy (ibid:491f).

During the Bronze Age, ships were portrayed in rock carvings, a traceable practice in Scandinavia as well as in the Mediterranean zone. In southern Scandinavia, ships are also monumentally represented in the landscape of ship settings. It has been suggested that the position of the ship settings in the coastal zones may indicate a connection to maritime practice (Wehlin 2013, 132). The suggestion is not at all far-fetched. From the British Isles there is some early evidence of boats. The so-called Ferriby boats are believed to have been used in long-distance exchange, including seafaring (Van de Noort et al. 1999). The calibrated radiocarbon datings of Ferriby boats 1, 2 and 3 are early; F1 1880-1680 cal BC, F2 1940-1720 cal BC and F3 2030-1780 cal BC. Radiocarbon dates have also been analysed for the British vessels Kilnsea 1750-1620 cal BC and Caldicot 1870-1680 cal BC (Wright et al. 2001, 732). These extremely early dates of sewn plank boats are an eye-opener and reflect the possibilities of a Bronze Age Atlantic network involving metal trade between Scandinavia and Iberia (for Atlantic network, see Ling & Uhnér 2014, 36) in which Cliffs End Farm, on the Isle of Thanet in Kent, may have been a key node. At Cliffs End Farm, a burial site from the Bronze Age and subsequent periods has been analysed using strontium and oxygen isotope analyses showing a significant proportion of non-local individuals identified as potentially from Scandinavia and the western Mediterranean. In the long run, this demonstrates long-distance maritime mobility (McKinley et al. 2014). Maritime practices were evidently ongoing during the Early Bronze Age (c. 1700-1100 BC) in Scandinavia, and of significant impact and therefore important to examine in that society. Here, ship settings fulfil this need.

The maritime Atlantic networks supplied Scandinavia with Iberian copper as early as around 1500 BC (Ling & Uhnér 2014, 30). Southern Spain is mentioned as a mining source (Ling et al. 2019, 19), but south-eastern Spain is not listed as a source of distribution. This particular area is of great interest when it comes to discussing female power connected to the metal trade. The Early Bronze Age culture (c.2200-1550 BC), El Argaric, was present in this region (Lull et al. 2011). It has been suggested that the culture’s expansion over a large territory, covering some 33,000 square kilometres, reflected its being among the first to utilise bronze. Metallurgy in the territory of El Argar has left traces in the form of metal ore (in Peñalosa), slag, moulds and objects related to the handicraft (Lull et al. 2011, 397). The recent discovery of a most lavish burial in the region of the European Early Bronze Age (Lull et al. 2021, 343) comes from La Almoloya. The grave contained objects of emblematic character like diadems made of native silver which display distinctive forms and meanings in Argaric society, and are associated with a female individual (Lull et al. 2021, 331, 340). The context signals the possibility that women may have been among the rulers of a highly stratified, urban society on the Iberian Peninsula (Lull et al. 2021). From this point of view, it seems reasonable to acknowledge women with independent roles in various power structures and also as participants in trade, perhaps also overseas.

The Nordic realm needed metals from different parts of Europe, including the Iberian Peninsula, at least in the production of armaments. To supply this need, a new maritime economy supported the development towards long-distance trade networks (Ling et al. 2018a; Ling et al. 2018a, b b). i.e., networks in which this study proposes that women were active participants.

Some Reflections Concerning Material Power Structures in Bronze Age Settings

Monumental structure is one form of manifested power and status. Even in the early periods of the Nordic Bronze Age, large barrows were erected that were highly visible in the landscape. This type of monumental architectural structure is per se impressive, since tremendous work and planning went into the erection of this type of grave. Due to the impressively high level of preservation of the barrows, the interiors frequently reveal burials of high-ranking individuals. Both men and women were buried in these barrows. It has been suggested that circa 20% of the Early Bronze Age population was buried in the mounds and belonged to the local elite (see Kristiansen 2017, 5). The lavish grave goods reveal the high social status of those buried, and these goods also disclose social cohesions involving long-distance interactions. Insights into social, political and economic structures also belong here. Current research presents Bronze Age society as governed by an elite consisting of men (Kristiansen 2018). Following the archaeological tradition, power belongs to men and dominance is associated with masculinity. The role of the warrior is associated with masculinity as an ideal (Treherne 1995; Skogstrand 2005, 2016). Weapons, deposited in what have been interpreted as male burials, reinforce the interpretation of the elite warrior class, which has recently become a key idea in understanding the Bronze Age as a whole (see for instance Molloy & Horn 2020). Christian Horn and Barry Molloy consider the idea of warrior elites hard to substantiate but point out that they do have a place “in any given society within the realm of elite power dynamics” (Molloy & Horn 2020, 137). Kate Anderson points out that almost all discussion regarding warriors (Cunliffe1995; Harding 2007; Hill 2006; Kristiansen 2002) assumes, implicitly or explicitly, solely male participation in combat and any women present as the prizes of warfare. These assumptions are widespread and pervasive even where the evidence of gender is ambiguous (Anderson 2018, 214). Kristiansen states explicitly that only young males were eligible to be Bronze Age warriors (Kristiansen 2018, 24, my italics). In addition, a warrior has often been identified on the basis of the weapons present in the grave. Using grave goods as evidence of a warrior’s tomb is a questionable method and a simplification in defining warriors exclusively as men (Anderson 2018, 215ff). However, burials with weapons should be considered evidence for symbolic warrior identity (ibid:220). Anderson considers it possible that others aside from elite male combatants could participate in warfare (ibid:225). The idea is not farfetched since we have DNA evidence today for female warriors, and also because female goddesses of war existed during the Bronze Age, exemplified by Greek and Babylonian mythology; Athena was the Greek goddess of martial arts and Ishtar the Babylonian goddess of war and love. The idea of female warriors is both compelling and troubling since war is considered a traditionally masculine sphere. Sophie Bergerbrant points out that archaeological research has avoided discussing the matter or simply totally ignored the existence of female warriors (Bergerbrant 2007, 98f). To give another picture, we can highlight the mythical Amazons–a group of female warriors. According to the myth, Penthesilea the Queen of the Amazons participated in the Trojan War against the Greeks, but was slain by Achilles (for the myth see Roman & Roman 2010, 390f). In Greek art, the Amazons are depicted as strong and virginal in character.

Researchers have tried to prove that the Amazons were Scythian women (Mayor 2014). In 2019, the Russian Academy of Sciences undertook an excavation in Don. Here one mound (no 9) revealed the burials of four women of very varying ages. The women were buried with weapons and horse-riding equipment. One was even buried in the “pose of a horseman”, bow-legged and with spread legs. According to the leader of the excavation Valerii Guliaev, women warriors were the norm, not the exception in Scythian culture (Machemer 2019).

Among the Scythians and Sarmatians one finds women warriors and women rulers. In this context it has been highlighted that even women could carry weapons, particularly in military actions, although in Scythian art they were never depicted with weapons (Hasanov 2018, 143). This realisation should of course be applied to the interpretation of Nordic rock carvings that, without exception, give sway to the idea of male warriors and rules out women as warriors.

The Contexts and Landscape of Ship Settings

The present study emphasises the relevance and potential of ship settings as one of the key factors in understanding Bronze Age maritime trade in general, in particular through the inclusion of women’s participation in maritime settings. As stated earlier, ship settings are associated with burial practices. In the Scandinavian region, this type of monument was erected in multiple ways: under barrows, beneath flat stone settings, below ground or as standing stones above the ground in open terrain. The strategies of the building also change within each specific period. The symbolism of the ship is thus unfolded in different ways over time throughout human history (Artelius 2013).

Geographically, Bronze Age ship settings are most frequent in the southern and central parts of the Baltic coastal area; in the east, in Estonia, Latvia and the self-governing province of Åland Island (Finland); in Sweden, in Mälaren (Uppland), Småland, Blekinge, Scania and Halland; in Denmark, on the island of Bornholm. The highest concentration of stone ships is located on the Swedish island of Gotland where 412 have been identified, of which approximately 350 have been preserved (Wehlin 2013, 29–31; cf. Stenberger 1964, 258).

On Gotland, ship settings frequently follow the shoreline of the Bronze Age period and were therefore located close to the coast (Hansson 1927, 63; Wehlin 2013, 84; Martinsson-Wallin & Wehlin 2017, 246). This pattern shows the maritime position in the landscape. In contrast to many Bronze Age cairns, ship settings were seldom erected on peaks, but frequently placed on smaller hills and ancient beach banks. Many are also found in sloping terrain in which the monument points towards the water (Wehlin 2013, 85).

Focusing on Gotland, which has the greatest number of ship settings, it is important to highlight the strategic position of the island in the Baltic Sea–a maritime zone of great importance for maritime interaction and trade. It is worth noting that most of the ship settings belong to the Bronze Age–the era of long-distance travel and trade. These stone ship settings are burial and ritual monuments dating mainly back to the Late Bronze Age (Martinsson-Wallin & Wehlin 2017, 242). The construction of ship settings on Gotland during this period of great change is an occurrence signalling a so-called geopolitical articulation in the region (Wehlin 2013, 47).

Ships in Stone and the Symbolism of the Ship

Stone ships are more than monumental tombs, they are also clearly connected to a larger ship symbolism which is most apparent during the Bronze Age, an era when the ship was a predominant symbol. In Scandinavia, traditional rock carvings are numerous and the ship is the most frequent figurative symbol. Tanum, located on the Swedish west coast, has the largest number of ship carvings. Following the shore displacement, the ships’ connection to the sea during the Bronze Age was obvious (see Ling 2008). The natural connection between the ships and the sea in Tanum becomes even clearer when looking at Valcamonica in Italy. This mountainous area has one of the world’s greatest collections of rock carvings. Although the thematic ties to water are discernible in the Iron Age, the lack of the ship symbolism during the Bronze Age is striking (for the Iron Age date see Fossati 2015). The site’s peripheral location in relation to the sea is self-explanatory and demonstrates the connection of ship symbolism to the sea. The mutual relationship between the ship and the sea also signals the profound perspective of ship symbolism and the characteristics of the ship as integrated into the setting of Bronze Age maritime activities.

The traditional practice of erecting ship settings reveals the obvious presence of ships in Bronze Age society. This practice varied greatly, geographically speaking, but was contextually always linked to burials and can be seen as early as the Early Bronze Age period III, circa (c.) 1300-1100 BC (Artelius 2013, 88f). In the case of Gotland, ship settings containing the cremations of humans appear in the transition between Early and Late Bronze Age (Martinsson-Wallin & Wehlin 2017, 231). Normally, one finds one or two persons buried in a ship setting. The burials are traceable through a noticeably small number of cremated bones. Bones are however not always present and in these cases the graves are interpreted as cenotaphs (for cenotaph see Stenberger 1964). Of interest is that every other grave lacks any burial. Although the cremation of one or two individuals in each grave is the most common pattern, there are anomalies like a couple of examples of collective graves containing men, women and children (Wehlin 2013, 107), perhaps constituting whole families. Since praxis was the burial of one or two adult individuals, interpretations of ship settings as monuments of the social elite are plausible (ibid:108).

There are four ship types, of which types 1 and 4 seem to belong to periods III and IV (Martinsson-Wallin & Wehlin 2017, 242) which correspond to 1300-900 BC. The so-called type 4 ship setting is frequently associated with house urns that per se may represent a social group including men and women, children and elderly (see Bradley & Widholm 2007)Footnote 2 compared with type 1 and later types 2 and 3 that are mainly associated with maritime activities and long-distance travels (Wehlin 2013, 189). Type 4 is, however, a ship setting of smaller size and is mostly constructed under the soil (ibid:80).

It has been suggested that these monuments were erected over high-ranking groups of maritime specialists and their kin (Wehlin 2013, 189) and as possible meeting places. This appears reasonable since many of the graves seem to be located in areas of importance for navigation as well as communication. This specific location signalled two spheres: the religious as well as the profane, in which encounters took place between acquaintances as well as groups foreign to each other (ibid:128).

As pointed out earlier, monumental structure is one form of manifested power and status. Ship locations are indubitably power made visible in a maritime setting. The ships are undeniably symbols and are particularly interesting in relation to their position in the landscape. According to Tore Artelius, the situation of the ship varies over time and, in period III, ship settings were constructed below ground and hence not visible in the landscape. In the following periods, ship settings are clearly manifested above ground. It has been suggested that the hidden ships primarily had religious connotations and those with pronounced visibility signalled social belonging (Artelius 2013, 89).

Artelius’ interpretation concerning ship symbolism focuses upon religious and cosmological aspects as well as its social function in Bronze Age society. This funerary practice thus reveals social identity and structure in Bronze Age society (Artelius 1996, 2013). According to cosmological notions and myths, the ship as a religious symbol is a vessel transporting the sun and thereby the world into a new tomorrow. The ship as a symbol is also connected to a fertility cult picturing the ship as an expression of nature and the constant rebirth of mankind. These ideas correlate with Mediterranean cultures (Artelius 2013, 91f). In line with Artelius, Flemming Kaul regards the ship as a symbol, but also takes account of the horse, fish and snake in this cosmological metaphor (Kaul 1998). Joakim Wehlin emphasises the important relation between the sea and the ship settings. The sea itself is more important than the movements of the sun even from a cosmological point of view. Wehlin thus suggests that it is not the ship which is guiding the sun over the heavens, it is the sun and the stars guiding the ship and its crew on its journey (Wehlin 2013, 158f).

Recently, the socio-political aspect of the ship, emphasising the need of ships for long-distance travels and trade, has been highlighted (Ling et al. 2018b; Earl et al. 2015; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Clark 2004, 2009; Kvalø 2007). This is a theory connected to Mårten Stenberger’s profane perspective linking the stone ship to sea-voyagers and their involvement in trade (Stenberger 1964, 259). Göran Burenhult has also raised the relevant question of whether these buried persons were those who controlled the trade routes on water. Burenhult suggests that ship settings were the burials of the sea-voyagers or the ship-builders (Burenhult 1999, 76, 81f). Westerdahl also suggests the ship to be a symbol of a society that was exposed and isolated at sea but safe in harbours. Consequently, the ship located on land does not as such symbolise water or sea (Westerdahl 2011).

The religious and cosmological aspects gained a strong hold on the interpretation of what the ship signified. It is surprising that the profound maritime aspect has not been discussed more deeply until quite recently. Yet the role of the ship in maritime networks and trade is of utmost importance in understanding the Scandinavian Bronze Age. Therefore, it seems reasonable to adopt the idea concerning the location of the major ship settings in the maritime landscape that they may have served as meeting points or harbours. In particular, it has been suggested that these locations may have served as nodes in the traffic network in the area or simply as meeting points. The ritual aspects have also been considered in terms of activities carried out after arrival from a long-distance trip, alternatively before departing on a journey. The transmission of power may also have been relevant at these locations (Wehlin 2013, 181f, 193f). These arguments are important when viewing the presence of women buried in some ship settings. These cases clearly show that women were present in areas/meeting-points involving maritime activities.

The Material

Ship settings mainly dated to the Late Bronze Age (c.1100-500 BC), but also to earlier periods are the key objects for this study. Gotland has a rich burial material but only 73 of the 412 recognised ship settings have been investigated archaeologically. Although this is a significant number, few of these documentations are available as reports (Wehlin 2013, 31).  Twenty-nine of the ship settings investigated on Gotland contain only a small amount (less than 200 g) of burnt bone and only 32 have been investigated osteologically (Wehlin 2013, 107f). However, the osteological material in the ship settings comprises a valuable source of information whenever natural science is given access.

The Lugnaro Burial

As mentioned, ship settings from the Bronze Age are present mostly around the Baltic Sea and, in particular, on the Swedish island of Gotland. Interestingly, there are examples of ship settings outside this area which have received a lot of archaeological attention. One good example is the monumental mound of Lugnaro, (RAÄ Hasslöv 3, 1) in the province of Halland in southern Sweden, excavated as early as 1926. This burial, from the Late Bronze Age, contains a central grave in a large stone ship (c. 8 × 2,5 m) with the prime burial being of a young woman (Wranning 2006, 183). The burnt bones of the woman were wrapped in a thin wool cloth and placed inside an urn. The urn was then placed in a square stone cist (ibid:138). The grave goods consisted of artefacts associated with the elite: an awl, tweezers, and a long dagger or miniature sword (St. H M inv.nr 18,323, see also Wranning 2006, 138). The miniature sword can also be seen as a token of “political command,” probably indicating that the deceased, when alive, belonged to the class of nobles who were allowed to carry the sword. It is suggested that the miniature sword is associated with northern Italy as it was the practice of wrapping bones in a cloth (Wranning 2006, 160f). The female bones in the urn were analysed by Nils-Gustav Gejvall in 1952. They occupied the central place in the grave, but it has been mentioned that in the filling material outside the urn, the bones of “a person with strong construction” were detected. These bones were never analysed or restored after the excavation. The excavator interpreted them as belonging to a slave who was buried with his “master”. In this particular case it is obvious that the excavator used the epithet “master” based only on preconceived patriarchal notions since the osteological analyses at that time had not yet been undertaken.

The Gålrum Burial

Another interesting female burial is a ship setting from Gotland on the Gålrum grave-field (RAÄ 9) in Alskog parish. At the site, seven ship settings, all connected to each other’s prows, were erected. The burial in ship no.6 contained the largest amount of burnt bones (926 g) which seem to have belonged to a woman aged 18–44. They were in a stone coffin also holding metal objects: decorated tweezers, a knife, an awl and, a small bronze arrow, possibly bronze. According to 14C analysis, the ship dated from 1050 to 900 BC (Wehlin 2013, 114f).

The Levide Burials

In Levide parish on Gotland two ship settings are present (RAÄ Levide 1). In the major ship (ship 1), the burials of one man and one woman were discovered (Wehlin 2013, 118f). In the major ship, covering an area of 31.5 m, the central burial (Aa) was covered by a small cairn. Inside the cairn were buried burnt bones and the shards of a biconical urn with possibly two additional vessels. Among the pottery in burial (Aa), a small bronze ring was deposited. The (Aa) burial has been osteologically treated and is human, perhaps a 10–24 year-old woman. The (Ab) burial in the same ship contained a person aged 18–44 years, perhaps a man. The somewhat smaller ship B (16 m) at Levide contains the burial of at least two humans, aged 5–14 and 10–24, of which one is a woman. Based on the osteological analysis, the ship has been dated to 911–805 BC (ibid:248).

The ships at Levide are classified as what are referred to as type 2 ships. Ships of type 1 and later types 2 and 3 can more specifically be regarded as vessels suited to long distance travel. Wehlin’s interpretation is that the monuments were erected over high-ranking groups of maritime specialists and their kin (Wehlin  2013, 189). The ship settings from Levide evidently constitute good examples of female presence in a maritime environment and most probably female participants in maritime enterprises.

The Lärbo, Martebo and Rute Burials

There are some additional burials from Gotland. At Lärbo RAÄ 162, Domarlunden, there is a stone ship environment with six ships. In ship 6, two burials, presumably, one man and one woman, deposited on top of each other, were discovered in a stone coffin. Among the grave goods, one bronze circlet decorated with stripes and one house urn were found. In addition, one pair of tweezers was found with a number of pottery shards. Ship 6 is of type 4 and 12 m (m) in length. The top burial has been dated to 545–39 BC through 14C analysis and the lower burial to the period IV-V according to the metal items (Wehlin 2013, 252). The bottom burial seems to have been deposited with the circlet, which may indicate this to be the woman and the prime burial according to the dating. The burial has been suggested to be a disturbed prime burial (ibid.). A question mark has been raised for both skeletons, indicating a not fully reliable osteological analysis. Although the author of this text is well aware of the problem of connecting artefacts with biological sex, the goods may indicate the burial of a woman since the jewellery (circlet) and the house urn are both considered to be symbols of female household leadership (for house urn interpretation see Kristiansen 2014, 345).

In Martebo RAÄ 68 Prästgården, there is one possible ship setting. Although a major part of the monument is missing, it is still classified as a type 1 ship. In the monument, there were three circular stone settings. In all, six cremation burials and two inhumation burials were detected. Burial IX contained a woman with a ring and a knife fragment–both made of bronze. Burial XVII was an inhumation of a woman around 35–40 years old with an unborn child (Wehlin 2013, 256). No dating has been carried out but since it is classified as type 1 (Wehlin 2013, 256), and based on Helene Martinsson-Wallin and Joakim Wehlin’s classification of ship types (2017, 242), it is possibly a ship setting belonging to the Early Bronze Age, period III (1300–1100 BC).

In Rute RAÄ 77 in Fardume, six ship settings were found. Ship no 2 was the burial of a presumed woman aged 18–44. The ship is classified as type 4. In Rute 77 (ship no 1) as in Rute 18, house urns were discovered (Wehlin 2013, 257f). Still focusing on Gotland, there are some additional ship settings with possible gender mixture, including ship 2 at Bandeläins täppo in Lau parish, RAÄ 49 (Wehlin 2013, 119).

The Rannarve Burials

In order to give a more ample picture of the burials of maritime specialists, it is relevant to highlight another type of burial, namely the cairn. Worth noting is that larger cairns are also connected to the maritime landscape (Nordenborg Myhre 2004, 71–168; Thedéen 2004, 33–41; Kristiansen 2007, 60; Ling 2008, 236; Wehlin 2013, 194). On Gotland there are thousands of cairns from the Early Bronze Age. In some cases, there is a mixture of both ship settings and cairns in the same area. In these cases, it has been argued that the ship is symbolically the vessel used to reach the cairn, which is the actual grave. The environment at Rannarve, Klinte 86 seems to express this idea (Wehlin 2013, 127). There, a major monument consists of four stone ships in a row, with the stern of one ship meeting the bow of another. The ship settings have been dated to between 1054 and 892 BC (for the dating see Wehlin 2013, 64) through 14C analyses. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the biological sex of the osteological analyses from the ship settings (see Wehlin 2013, 110, table 6.1). However, at Rannarve, there is a cairn adjacent to the major row of ship settings. The osteological analysis (1,582 g of bones) discloses a burial most probably of a woman aged 18–44 (ibid:111). The complex has been dated to the Later Bronze Age (ibid:116f). There is no doubt this monumental burial is a manifestation of individual power. The osteological analyses of the ship settings at Rannarve have never been reported. However, it has been established that only ship 2 contained a burial. The burial has clear resemblances to the Lugnaro burial, with a house urn containing a bronze plate and a miniature knife (see Wehlin 2013, 115). As stated, it has been suggested that house urns are a symbol of female household leadership (Kristiansen 2014, 345) which hypothetically strengthens the possibility that this burial too was of a woman. Noteworthy is that this paper stresses alternative interpretations for the presence of women in ship settings i.e. as participants in maritime trade, etcetera–not primarily as household leaders. However, in this particular case, the house urn strengthens the idea of female presence in maritime settings, not in relation to the household but instead that household urns may instead represent female interaction with northern Italy. What additionally strengthens this theory is the locally made dagger/miniature sword found in the Lugnaro burial reflecting cultural contacts with northern Italy (see Wranning 2006, 160).

The Övraby Burials

Less than a kilometre north of the famous mound Ivar’s barrow, there are additional examples of ship settings in Vrangelsro (Övraby 87, 1), located east of Halmstad in Sweden. In the area, a Bronze Age site was also discovered (Ängeby & Lindman 2017). The most striking result at the site was four ship settings, the first examples of ship settings exposed above ground in south-western Scandinavia. They reveal the connection between maritime ship symbolism and burial practices in the Late Bronze Age (ibid:9). It has been wisely suggested that during the Bronze Age the wide Nissan River must have been an important route for communication between the maritime zone and the ancient remains further inland (Carlie 2009). At the time of the erection of the grave field, the estuary of the Nissan River was a broad bay (Ängeby & Lindman 2017, 11).

The ship settings from Övraby 87:1 may be discussed for both their religious and social meanings. For instance, it has been suggested that the monuments were used by ritual specialists and suggested exclusivity (Ängeby 2017, 65f). Based on the archaeological context and artifacts connected to smiths, it has furthermore been suggested that the graves were used for individuals connected to bronze craft (ibid:66f). However, graves erected over bronze smiths are rare in Scandinavia, there being, in fact, only one unambiguous example from the Bronze Age located in Galgehøj at Hesselager on the island of Fyn in Denmark. In this grave, a number of stone tools were deposited which were probably used for metalworking. Also, one dagger and the shaft of a knife were deposited in the grave (Nordbladh 2007, 88f; Randsborg 1986, 185ff). It is interesting to reflect over the presence of the dagger and knife, which, according to archaeological tradition, are frequently interpreted as grave gifts for women.Footnote 3

In the oldest ship setting in Övraby, 30 crucible fragments were located (Ängeby 2017, 71) which made up four almost complete crucibles (ibid:74). The suggested connection between the graves and metalcraft is therefore apparent but not per se necessarily the universal explanation for the presence of these objects in this particular context. The maritime symbolism constituted by ship graves in combination with metal items may equally support the connection to mariners or perhaps other groups associated with the maritime networks trading and transporting valuable metals.

The osteological analyses from the graves at Övraby 87 show that men were buried in the ship settings, but bones of unknown gender were also present in the graves. According to the osteologist Caroline Arcini, the gender analysis of the bone material in the graves (including the adjacent grave field) at Övraby is strictly based on the appearance of the upper part of the eye socket (margo supraorbitalis). These were not particularly rough or typically masculine but in a comparison, gender analysis has been possible (Arcini 2017, 161). The fact that bones of unknown gender are present here, in combination with the osteological premises, indicates the theoretical possibility of a female presence in these graves too. The manifest ship symbolism–described by Gisela Ängeby as “exposed to a broader collective of people in an exceedingly concrete and intentionally communicative way” (Ängeby 2017, 71) is not denied but needs primarily to include mariners as the self-evident group associated with maritime vessels. Furthermore, the ship settings in Övraby 87 are clearly exposed above ground, a circumstance which does not harmonise naturally with the esoteric notion of secrecy associated with the ritual role/function and technological knowledge of the metal smith (see for instance Stenberger 1964, 205; Goldhahn 2007; Belgiorno et al. 2012; Sörman 2018). There are examples of sites for metal production which, after use, have been destroyed and covered with stones and soil, probably in order to keep the secrets of metal handicraft intact. The idea of revealing the presence of the smiths in the landscape is not self-evident, yet should not be excluded. However, the maritime presence signalling long-distance trade and travels overseas is more explicit in the landscape than is that of the smith in the role of religious specialist or cult leader. Ship graves may instead serve as a reminder of the important role of the elite in undertaking the travels that gave access to metals and, in the long run, technological knowledge, leading to the prosperity of Bronze Age society.

Metal Craft, Glass and Female Skills in Maritime Contexts

Although this study considers it more reasonable to draw parallels between ship settings and the mariners connected to the metal trade, the hypothesis connecting the monumental graves with bronze specialists, suggested by Ängeby (Ängeby 2017, 65f), is not ruled out. This is not a farfetched hypothesis since ship settings in close relation to metal production are also present in Värmland in Sweden.Footnote 4 The sites RAÄ 27:1 and 249 at Berg in Millesvik parish disclose a material with close connection to metal production in the form of parts of crucibles, wall fragments from kilns, and parts of blast nozzles with narrow entrance holes indicating their use for bronze production (Olsson 2007, 99). Adjacent to the ship settings, one cult building measuring 9 × 9 m indicates bronze production as crucibles were found here (ibid).

At Broåsen in Grimeton parish in Halland in Sweden, there is another bronze metal workshop–or perhaps the debris of it. The area is located close to the grave field Grimeton 3:1 containing 55 ancient remains of which seven are ship settings (cf. Sarauw & Alin 1923, 258).

The metal workshop area at Broåsen consists of a mound with a mixture of earth and sooty stones, all affected by fire (Oldeberg 1942, 165). Here one single blue perforated glass bead was deposited (Sarauw & Alin 1923, 262). This glass bead from Broåsen was also notably affected by fire. Since the glass bead was found in the lower layer of the context investigated (25 cm below the surface), the relationship between the glass bead and the rest of the items in the context is unquestionable (Sarauw & Ahlin 1923, 262; Niklasson 1950, 161). The specific function of a blue glass bead in a specific context like Broåsen is not settled, but could it be possible that the bead constituted part of the metal production, perhaps as a tool for controlling the heat? Or may it have been a lost bead belonging to a woman who participated in the metal production?

This idea can be viewed from another example of a glass bead from Skeke at Rasbo parish in Uppland in Sweden. It was found in a single shared stone barrow (A83) in a context containing a small amount of pottery shards dating from the Bronze Age, burnt clay, melted clay, and clay for crucibles, as well as part of a bowl-shaped item, possibly a part of a crucible. Two beads of blue glass (F 86 and being from F90) were found in a layer that circled grave A83 but for unknown reasons, these have been dated as being from the Iron Age (Larsson & Lingström 2014, 70–72, 138, 223, 304).

Another interesting example of the relationship between maritime structures and glass beads is the burial site Foss 239 near Saltkälle Fjord in Munkedal County in western Sweden. Here a field of eleven stone settings and one ship setting were situated. In one of the larger tombs, one glass bead was deposited. A bronze rod was deposited in the same layer. Charcoal from hazel dated the layer to 1210–920 BC i.e. period III or IV (see the report by Lindqvist & Toreld 2005, 64). The bead is reminiscent of the turquoise-coloured glass beads in the Danish oak coffin graves and was highlighted by Katarina Streiffert Eikeland regarding long-distance contacts and the similarities in grave material between southern Scandinavia and the eastern Mediterranean (Streiffert Eikeland 2015, 334f).

The blue glass bead from Broåsen belongs to period II (Niklasson 1950, 161) and is thus comparable to the interesting parallel in Bronze Age barrows (dated to period II and III) where a blue glass bead is deposited in wealthy female burials.Footnote 5 Based on spectrometric analyses, Jeanette Varberg and her co-authors highlight the deposition of blue beads of Egyptian glass in wealthy female burials. Fifty-three beads have been analysed from 39 Danish Middle Bronze Age burials (Varberg et al. 2019, 6). The major part of the glass beads analysed found in northern European contexts were originally from Mesopotamia (Varberg et al. 2014).

It goes without saying that these glass beads dating from the Bronze Age signal long-distance contacts, and of major importance is that one single blue glass bead in wealthy female burials is outstanding in relation to the fact that they contextually, in some cases, may be associated with bronze casting. The blue glass beads originated from Egypt and Mesopotamia and were naturally status-related objects per se, but is it possible these elite women were connected to and active participants in long-distance trade and perhaps also involved in the knowledge and mysteries of metal production? Following Varberg and her co-writers, others have suggested that “people of the highest levels of society that controlled and benefitted from the amber export may have been the receivers of the exotic and valuable glass beads, with some of the richest Danish female graves (Sövigaarde, Omme and Humlum) physically close to well-known amber find-spots along the Danish west coast” (2015, 174). The glass beads in rich female burials are accompanied by amber beads (Kaul & Varberg 2017) which constituted one of the main ingredients in long-distance trade. The combination clearly signalled not just wealth, but also participation in one way or another in long-distance interaction. Hence, was it only men who participated in long distance trade? The interconnectedness of gender hierarchies is, in this case, obvious and needs to be highlighted since the unilateral archaeological interpretation of male dominance and power during the Bronze Age is fixed and needs to be deconstructed. Perceiving female presence in high-ranking contexts, power structures and long-distance trade, as is discernable in these burials, does not exclude men but simply includes women. Female involvement in long-distance trade with Egypt, in particular with glass, is also evident in the cargo of the shipwreck Ulu Burun which contained supplies of copper and tin allocated in a perfect balance to produce bronze. In additional, dozens of ingots of cobalt-blue glass were also on board the ship (Bass 1991, 74). It is interesting to reason around if and how the different categories of material on the Ulu Burun–glass, tin, and copper–correlate when it comes to trade but just as much whether glass was used in metal handicrafts, in one way or another. On the Ulu Burun, one of the jars was filled with glass beads. Baltic amber was also discovered together with the glass among the wreckage (Mukherjee et al. 2008). Additionally, 150 Canaanite shipping jars containing more than a half a ton of terebinth resin were also found (Pulak 2005, 38). Resin has a pleasing scent and may have been used as incense (Ward Haldane 1990). The use of terebinth resin in Palatial Crete is an interesting subject since it is not settled whether it was used as incense or used in the manufacture of scented oils (Pulak 2005, 39). In this specific context it is interesting to highlight the fact that olive oil was widely used as fuel during the metallurgical processes in Pyrgos-Mavrorachi in Cyprus during the Chalcolithic period (Belgiorno et al. 2012, 29). It is a general fact that wood containing terebinth resin burns well. Can it be ruled out that the huge quantities of resin onboard the shipwreck may have been used as fuel in metal production? Regardless of the answer, it is more important to highlight the fact that the only actual person the ship may be associated with is Queen Nefertiti. The Queen’s maritime endeavours will be discussed in more detail in following paragraphs.

Maritime Endeavours Under Female Flag in the Mediterranean Area

Female presence is visible in maritime settings throughout the Bronze Age and, in geographical terms, from the eastern Mediterranean to Scandinavia. One highly vivid example of how this maritime trade was carried out can be illustrated by the Ulu Burun shipwreck. The example of Ulu Burun is also useful in the main argumentation of this paper i.e. active female presence in maritime contexts and long-distance trade.

The shipwreck of the Ulu Burun was discovered near Kas in southern Turkey. It has been suggested that the ship sank in the late fourteenth century BC (for the date see Bachhuber 2006, 347; Pulak 2005, 36). The excavations, which started as long ago as 1984, revealed a cargo with a great deal of raw goods: metal and glass ingots, ivory and Cypriot pottery, etcetera (Bass 1986, 1991).

This paper suggests that the ship reveals one of the earliest traces of female presence and female power in long-distance maritime trade. One key object is the little gold scarab belonging to Queen Nefertiti, wife of the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten (1352–1336 BC see Matic´2017). The queen herself was not onboard the ship but the cartouche on the scarab mentioning her name situates the queen hypothetically as the key-actor of the ship and its valuable cargo. No other connections that distinct, pointing to an actual specific person, can be made in this or any other maritime Bronze Age context in general.

The second sign relating Queen Nefertiti to maritime trade is another scarab found in the harbour town Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus. The scarab found in Tomb RR displaying the hieroglyphic words “(All) good. (All) life” belonging to the dynastic era of Queen Nefertiti and King Akhenaten. The scarab can be dated after 1350 BC.Footnote 6 The overall absence of Nefertiti in this area of the ancient world is well established (Weinstein 1989, 17), but when it comes to maritime trade, this study suggests that, on the contrary, she enjoyed high visibility. The Queen’s connection to Hala Sultan Tekke may be viewed in relation to the fact that the site was a major producer of copper. Copper workshops have been detected through the presence of furnace bases, pieces of furnaces and tuyeres, plenty of ash, and hundreds of kilograms of slag, not to mention copper ore (for copper production see Fischer 2019, 195). Ulu Burun was a receiver and transporter not just of Cypriot pottery but also Cypriot copper.Footnote 7 In both contexts, i.e. the ship and the harbour town with the metal commodities, the production of and trade with copper are connected with the female presence of Queen Nefertiti. Of interest is that copper ingots are seen in Egyptian tomb paintings dating from the reigns of both Akhenaten and the female pharaoh, Queen Hatshepsut (Gale 1991, 204). This illustration of copper ingots may very well signal the pharaohs’ involvement in the copper trade–male and female pharaohs alike.

Hala Sultan Tekke is a harbour from which transport of copper to Scandinavia is highly likely. Johan Ling and his co-authors have already established we have clues, isotopically, fully consistent of copper ore from Cyprus, in the Swedish materials (see Ling et al. 2014, 124).

Some scholars designate traders and warriors as key factors in the new Bronze Age economy, based on long-distance trade including the control of the flow of goods and people (Earl et al. 2015; Vandkilde 2017; Kristiansen 2018). The notion of the warrior as the foundation of economic control strengthens the belief that the Bronze Age was governed by masculinity alone, but this idea can and must be broadened to female presence and power. In the case of Nefertiti, it has been suggested that she stopped being the King’s Great Wife in favour of being a regent pharaoh herself even before Akhenaten’s death (Dodson 2020). This suggestion is not surprising in that “the archaeological record abounds with documentation for the royal women in ancient Egypt in, or very close to, positions of political power” (Troy 2003, 93). Her strength as a female counterpart to the king is depicted in iconographic scenes typical for kings where she smites the enemy and, as a female sphinx, tramples the foe (ibid:101: Matic´ 2017). To give one example of the queen’s violent actions, two limestone blocks–talatat–from Hermopolis, Amarna, depicting Nefertiti in a procession of royal barques on the Nile, may be mentioned. The scene shows the queen’s left hand holding the hair of an enemy and her right hand raising a sickle sword. The talatat also show the barques of Akhenaten smiting the enemy (Matic´2017, 106, 118).

Another powerful woman was the Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut, a female pharaoh who ruled Egypt in the 18th Dynasty, c. 1462–1447 BC (Dodson 2020, 134). Hatshepsut made a successful maritime expedition to Punt, an enterprise that will be highlighted in more detail further on in this text. For tracing female power in maritime settings, Hatshepsut and Nefertiti are both potential indicators of female power and integration in long-distance maritime networks.

Female Mobility and Female Power in Maritime Contexts

The research of today uses natural science to reveal data never seen before in the discipline of archaeology. The results are amazing and striking but the interpretations that follow are frequently based on preconceived notions. One example that confirms this is the so-called Egtved girl.

The Egtved Girl

In 2015, a major discovery was revealed through a high-resolution scientific study (Frei et al. 2015). Through strontium isotope analysis, the iconic Bronze Age woman–the Egtved girl–was examined. Buried in an oak coffin in a large barrow, the eighteen-year-old woman was amazingly well preserved. Using her hair, thumb nail and tooth for analysis, her upbringing as well as the last two years in her life were scientifically chronicled (Frei et al. 2015). Buried in the Vejle area on Jutland in Denmark, and displayed at the National Museum in Copenhagen, the young Egtved woman has for a long time been considered a national treasure. Therefore, it was spectacular when the strontium analyses revealed her life story without a Danish origin. Through this new method of analysis, Karin Frei and her co-authors outlined the movements of the young Egtved woman over a longer time span. She was thought to have been brought up in southern Germany (specifically the Black Forest, which is located approximately 500 miles south of Egtved) and the travel mark of the last two years of her life demonstrates that she travelled a route between the two regions twice (ibid.). Following Bronze Age research of today, the travel mark of the young Egtved woman presupposes strategies involving “regular routes with known destinations, where rules of guest friendship guaranteed food and safety along the way” (Horn & Kristiansen 2018, 3). The Egtved woman constitutes an example of secure alliances through the social mechanism of marriage–she travelled to get married, probably functioning as a pawn in male networks (ibid; Frei et al. 2015). However, there are researchers who consider other explanations than just marriage alliances arranged by men possible. The young Egtved woman may have benefitted from a version of the ancient Greek concept of guest-friendship xenia with its practical social mechanisms that facilitated long-distance exchange and voyages (Kaul 2018, 28ff).

It has proved necessary to re-evaluate the life story of the young Egtved woman–her origin and migration history. The reason is that the isotopic analysis is believed to have been affected by agricultural lime disturbance and furthermore all strontium values may be local (Thomsen & Andreasen 2019). Therefore, it has been suggested that the strontium data provides no basis for suggesting a movement pattern between Egtved and a place far outside Denmark and back again, during the last two years of her life. It is instead plausible that her movement pattern could have been carried out in the immediate vicinity of Egtved (Thomsen & Andreasen 2019). This theory was responded by Robert Frei and his co-workers (2020). They argue against the idea that strontium isotope signatures measured on sparse surface water are relevant for prehistoric and modern provenance studies. Sophie Bergerbrant is also sceptical and points out the lack of connection with the archaeological material. Bergerbrant does however agree with the Egtved woman’s Scandinavian origin although not necessarily an origin on Jutland (Bergerbrant 2019a). Following Bergerbrant and based on archaeological factors (clothing and artifacts), it is more likely that she originated from the island of Bornholm, from southeastern Sweden or Rogaland in southwestern Norway (Bergerbrant 2019b). If this is the case, the young Egtved woman must surely have travelled by sea.

The Skrydstrup Woman

Irrespective of her origin, it is obvious that the scientific results from studying the young Egtved woman have provided a better understanding about the movement patterns of women during the Bronze Age than we have of male movement patterns (cf. Bergerbrant 2017, 403). Today we have the additional scientific data of strontium isotope analyses,Footnote 8 taken from an oak coffin burial, showing the movement pattern of the young and tall Skrydstrup woman. This time, the data discloses a high-precision migration chronology of a Bronze Age woman. The analyses based on molars imply a non-local origin when put in context with her place of burial as well as with territorial Denmark in its entirety.Footnote 9 Karin Frei and her co-authors suggest that the Skrydstrup woman lived most of her life outside present-day Denmark (Frei et al. 2017). In contrast to the young Egtved woman whose data revealed repeated long-distance travels, it has been suggested that the Skrydstrup woman, who was at the “age of marriageability”, migrated by a single long-distance displacement “with the aim of establishing an alliance between chiefdoms, rather than being part of a trade visit” (Frei et al. 2017, 16). This paper does not suggest that the Skrydstrup woman is an example of a woman in a maritime setting, but she does present one interesting example of female mobility during the Bronze Age. Her role as a bridge between chiefdoms is simply an interpretation in line with the patriarchal notions of the era, which exclude women from participating in trade. According to Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke “women achieved new social and economic status by being central to foreign marriage alliances, and keeping the system open” (2015, 372). This interpretation captures the necessity of an intersectional perspective and heterarchical thinking since this type of mindset reinforces the preconceived notion of women as subordinated cogs in a patriarchal system. Furthermore, it is important to point out that there is an alternative interpretation of the Egtved woman as well as other mobile women during the Bronze Age, like for example the Rege woman from Norway. Kristin Armstrong Oma suggests other explanations than that of secure alliances (Armstrong Oma 2020, 24). Instead, she proposes roles as travelling priestesses of the sun (ibid: 25).

Female Presence Onboard Maritime Vessels

The lack of interest in archaeological research for discussing the existence of female warriors is conspicuous (see for instance Thorpe 2006, 142). The same premise also applies to the female presence in maritime settings, which for too long has either been ignored or denied (Streiffert Eikeland 2014). Due to erroneous associations constructed by years of biased notions in archaeology based on what was considered acceptable for the roles of men and women, women have not been included in any settings associated with the sea.Footnote 10 According to this notion all maritime activities were carried out by men. Long-distance interaction including the import and export of highly ranked goods is the trademark of the Bronze Age. Traditionally, the archaeological discipline believes that, in these structures, men were the participants, but what exactly disqualified women from participating in these activities?

The Sea-Travelling Woman from Massleberg

Due to over-simplified templates for interpretations, female presence has for a long time been hard to decode on the Scandinavian rock carvings in contrast to male images (Goldhahn & Fuglestvedt 2012, 238; Varberg 2015). Although most images are interpreted as men, it is clear that women too are depicted on the rock images, disclosing female presence at sea.

At Massleberg, in Strömstad municipality in Sweden, there is a rock carving motif rendering a ship (actually two ships overlapping) with three human figures: two figures without phalluses (males?) each raising a long lance pointed at the other, and beneath the lances one female (?) figure with a braid and a rounded belly (see Fig. 2). Recently, it has been suggested that rock carvings have an agentive power that helped to sustain political power in maritime chiefdoms (Ling & Toreld 2018). Following this trajectory, if we do have images of females like the one from Massleberg, picturing a woman on a ship, can this symbolism be linked to female power in maritime chiefdoms? According to Kristiansen “It seems increasingly likely that the rock art images in Iberia, Norway and Sweden are interlinked by direct personal travels” (2014, 342). The present study raises the question of whether the carving from Massleberg depicts a female person travelling over the sea? Kristiansen does however point out that during the Late Bronze Age (period V) sea-travellers were chiefly males engaged in risky sea-journeys, trade and warfare. Women stayed at home and took over responsibilities as the household leaders (Kristiansen 2014, 341). Female leadership of the household is one of the typical social hierarchical positions (head of household or rituals) that the archaeological discipline assigns to Bronze Age women. This hierarchical setting opens up for heterarchical thinking and the present paper therefore intends to approach a mindset which includes the existence of alternative influences and power relations (cf. Levy 1995, 48). The interpretation of the carving from Massleberg, indicating an explicit female presence in a warlike maritime setting, is, according to Kristiansen’s hypothesis–astonishingly enough–a non-existent phenomenon. Nonetheless, this study argues for a female presence at sea.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Rock carving from Massleberg, Strömstad, Sweden. Photo: Katarina Streiffert Eikeland

Full size image

Queen Nefertiti

Let us return to the shipwreck of Ulu Burun where the female presence in the maritime context is exceptionally visible. The ship was loaded with metals with a perfect balance for bronze production which is 90% copper (c. 10 tons) and 10% tin (c. 1 ton). There were 354 ingots shaped as so-called oxhide ingots (Pulak 2005). Ulu Burun is believed to have been a trading vessel primarily for metals. Of great interest is, therefore, the golden scarab seal with the Egyptian queen Nefertiti’s name incised on the cartouche. The gold scarab was an amazing find and is the first object in this field naming either Nefertiti or her husband Akhenaten (Weinstein 1989, 17; Fawcett & Zietsman 2001, 14). The scarab is considered to be one of the most important Egyptian discoveries ever made in the eastern Mediterranean outside Egypt (Pulak 2005, 42). According to James Weinstein, the gold scarab and some other objects indicate that Nefertiti’s scarab was on the ship as a piece of bric-a-brac. The interpretation is formulated thus: “These objects may have belonged to a merchant, jeweler or even the ship’s captain, and were being saved for eventual sale or melting down. They should not be viewed as royal gifts from Egypt to an Aegean or Asiatic potentate” (Weinstein 1989, 23). This is simply an interpretation. Noteworthy is that it is Queen Nefertiti not Akhenaten who is present in a context with explicit association to maritime trade and metal production. Weinstein does however consider it probable that sometime late in Akhenaten’s reign or shortly after his death, Nefertiti was pharaoh of Egypt (Weinstein 1989, 29, cf. Matic´2017, 103). Once again, the female presence is contextually visible in the setting of metal trading, this time perhaps in the context of one of the most important finds of metal trading. The artefact strengthens the theory suggested that sea trade in metal indeed involved women. In the Ulu Burun cargo, 350 kg (kg) of blue glass ingots were also discovered. The cobalt-coloured glass is suggested to have been produced in Amarna. It was during the regime of Akhenaten that the city of Amarna was founded and the city became famous for its flourishing handicraft and glass production. The relation the king had to Amarna may explain the glass cargo onboard the Ulu Burun and the scarab with Nefertiti’s name on it. It is also from Amarna the talatat depicting a violent, independent, empowered Queen Nefertiti smiting the foe originates, and it is not surprising that researchers have suggested that the queen actually did get involved in affairs of state (Cooney 1965, 85).

Queen Hatshepsut

In order to shed some additional light over female maritime presence, let us return to Hatshepsut, the female pharaoh who ruled Egypt in the 18th Dynasty c. 1478–1458 BC (Troy 2003, 98). Hatshepsut was the widow and sister of King Thutmose II (Keller 2005). Initially, she served as the regent for the young male heir Thutmose III. In time, she acquired the full title and regalia of a reigning king, and claimed to be the heir of her father, Pharaoh Thutmose I (Dorman 2006). Hatshepsut and her daughter Neferur were the last of a series of royal women who, as daughters to the king, had access to an independent power base through their priestly role as Wife of the God (Troy 2003, 100).

The queen made a successful maritime expedition to Punt, an expedition she intended to lead on water and on land, thus manifesting her political position (Breasted 2001). The Punt expedition is generally regarded as one of the greatest achievements of the Egyptian navy but also as the rediscovery of Punt (Säve-Söderbergh 1946, 9). The Punt enterprise is also the earliest known expedition of the New Kingdom (ibid:13). It is generally accepted in the field that Hatshepsut sent her fleet to Punt, thus being considered to be the first monarch in the New Kingdom to trade with this area (Saleh 1972; Creasman 2014). Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition, undertaken in the period of her coronation, and its depiction were calculated elements of her legitimisation (ibid:402). The Punt enterprise is perhaps the utmost action and attempt of a queen to manifest and be on top of the political power in patriarchal structures. No matter what, the Punt expedition is an explicit act of female power in a maritime setting, as well as terrestrial leadership.

Male Attributes in Female Figuration

In previous paragraphs it has been established that researchers of today assume that Bronze Age society was governed by a ruling warrior aristocracy (Kristiansen 2018; Dolfini et al. 2018) involved in maritime exchange, warfare and long-distance travel (Ling et al. 2018a, b, 150f). Weapons signalled different meanings, like status, but naturally also conflicts or even war. Yet, do weapons necessarily determine a warrior?

Weapons in Female Graves in Nordic Contexts

It is highly interesting to reason around the fact that there are bronze daggers in many burials of wealthy women from the early part of the Nordic Bronze Age (periods II and III). Due to the female context, the role of the dagger has for a long time been questioned, whether it can be classified as a weapon or just as a high-ranking status symbol (Müller 1876, 282ff; Mestorf 1889, 151; Hjørungdal 1994, 134f; Bergerbrant 2007, 99). Ultimately, an interpretation like this aims once again at an exclusion of women from the governing class and warfare. Men, on the other hand, are considered as being the building bricks of the ruling class of the Bronze Age elite, in which one finds the ruling warrior class. It is noteworthy that current research presents a context including more women buried with daggers than had been thought—about 20%. It has recently been emphasised that warrior women are a phenomenon in Bronze and Iron Age Europe which opens up for an engendered warriorhood (Felding 2020, 440). Yet, the dagger is not seen as a symbol of a woman warrior but rather as a signum for a “political, powerful and free woman” (Felding 2020, 440f).

Daggers, compared with swords (with very few exceptions,Footnote 11 see for instance the Ølby burial in Denmark, in which a sword/part of sword was deposited), frequently accompany women’s high-status burials, and can be seen as the counterpart to male burial goods during the era. Daggers are a lighter type of weapon and easier to handle. This does not explain the absence of swords in female burials during the Bronze Age, but it does verify the inclusion of weapons in female burials, too. For a long time, archaeological research has erroneously excluded the connection between female gender and warfare and thus also the notion of women as warriors (Thorpe 2006). Luckily, this image has been confuted through recent DNA analysis from a warrior grave, from the Viking Age, at Birka in Sweden. The grave was excavated as early as the 1880s. The grave goods included a sword, a spear, a battle-axe, shields, a battle knife, and bow and arrows (Hedenstierna–Jonson et al. 2017). In line with 1880s ideas of gender roles, the grave was interpreted as a male warrior burial. Based on the DNA result, Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson and her co-workers are able today to suggest that women, indeed, were able to be full members of male-dominated spheres (ibid:858).

Comparisons between the Bronze Age and the Viking Age have been previously outlined (Kristiansen 2007, 66f; Ling et al. 2018a). It goes without saying that larger, more general similarities can naturally be found but the social structures in the Viking era are not applicable to the more than one thousand years older Bronze Age. The specific example from Birka is still worth mentioning as the archeological frame of interpretation, based on the biased notion of male dominance and rule, affects our understanding of the past. The inclusion of female presence in male structures may not be excused as a result carried out on incorrect grounds (see the critique in Hedenstierna-Jonson et al. 2017).

Armed Women in the Near East

Parts of the grave goods from the warrior grave at Birka find their parallel in the eighth century BC mural painting from Northwest Palace of Ashurnasirpal II,Footnote 12 Kalhu (today Nimrud, Irak). The image (see Fig. 3) depicts the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (reigned 883–859 BC) holding a cup. The king (interpreted as the second person to the left) is surrounded by soldiers and attendants. One of the figures, standing behind the king, is beardless, looking recognisably like a womanFootnote 13 who is depicted with a bow and arrows and what looks like a sword. The figure–the woman–depicted in profile, is wearing a large earring and her long garment is similar to Ashurnasirpal’s robe and decorated with rosettes.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Glazed terracotta tile depicting Ashurnasirpal II with attendants and soldiers. Neo-Assyrian Period 875–850 BC. From the Northwest Palace in Nimrud. ©The Trustees of British Museum, Museum number 90859, Asset number 32452001. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.sv

Full size image

Female Warriors

In discussions of the Bronze Age warrior role, it has been established that weapons became more deadly, but bows and arrows are infrequent in burials and other deposits. However, the many skeletal traumas provide evidence of their usefulness and reveal that archery was instrumental in war (Vandkilde 2017:66). In Tollense, north-eastern Germany, there is a battlefield of large proportions. The site dates from the Bronze Age, c.1250 cal BC (Jantzen et al. 2011) and contains the remains of 140 individuals (Uhlig et al. 2019), mostly male (Brinker et al. 2016; Lidke et al. 2018, 165). The skeletal remains show injuries from flint or bronze arrowheads (Brinker et al. 2016, 52). It is reasonable to believe that many archers were involved in the battle but is it possible to include women as archers in this battle? The scene displayed depicting a woman armed with a bow and arrows on a terracotta tile from Nimrud, Irak (Fig. 3), opens up for further reflections. It is not suggested here that women were heavily armed warriors accompanying heroic men who were their peers, but this particular woman was equipped with weapons and had a prominent role in this scene portraying the king and his retinue. A further example of a bronze arrow deposited in the ship setting is at Gålrum, on Gotland (RAÄ 9). It is probably that the woman buried here was accompanied by a bow as well, not just an arrow or arrowhead. The wooden material may have decomposed naturally. Therefore, in theory, it is not unlikely that women participated as archers in the Tollense battle and other instances of combat.

Continuing the reasoning on female warriors, it is impossible to exclude the article by Tim Yates in which he examines human figures in rock carvings and states that figures without male genitalia were four times as likely to be unarmed. However, figures without genitalia were slightly more likely to hold bows (Yates 1994). Although Yates rejects the possibility that any of these are images are of women, is it still possible that we have female warriors represented with bows in Scandinavian rock carvings? Alternatively, are female warriors never depicted, as is the case for Scythian female warriors?

Some Final Remarks

This article has explored women’s status, presence and power in maritime settings in a variety of forms. The ambition has been to demonstrate, discuss and suggest women’s participation in the otherwise unilateral patriarchal power relations model of male elite power on maritime trade routes and in maritime networks during the Bronze Age. Based on archaeological material from specified burials of the ship setting-type, this paper suggests heterogeneous power relations based on heterarchy, an idea that addresses the diversity of dialectical relationships. It includes and does not exclude women as active participants in maritime trade and as movers of change.

Quite some time ago, without anchoring the burials in ship settings to any specific gender, the question was raised as to whether these buried persons were the ones who controlled the trading routes on water. The suggestion was made that they were the burials of sea-voyagers or ship-builders (Stenberger 1964, 259; Burenhult 1999, 76, 81f). In accordance with this line of thought, the symbolism of the ship is not denied per se as a transport vessel to the afterlife, but the profane dimension signalling the long-distance contacts acquired by those buried is also emphasized (Wranning 2006, 165). Through the dagger/miniature sword with northern-Italian influence, there is no doubt that the buried woman in the ship setting in the Lugnaro barrow signals long-distance contact. Furthermore, the ship is no doubt a maritime symbol that, through its connotations, signals long-distance trade and communication. It is also reasonable to suggest that the intrinsic maritime symbolism of ship settings, in combination with metal items, supports the connection with mariners, or perhaps rather groups associated with maritime networks trading and transporting valuable metals.

This study has explored and now argues that some women had status equal to men. This statement can be substantiated by review of the highly visible ship settings on Gotland, which was a zone of great importance for maritime interaction and trade, and also represented in other geographical contexts. Not in the least, there are examples of buried women (central burials) in monumental ship settings of a type 2-ship, which is interpreted as a vessel for undertaking long-distance travels. This grave type is also located in areas of importance for navigation as well as communication. The transmission of power between high-ranking groups of maritime specialists and their kin may also perhaps have been activated in these locations (cf. Wehlin 2013, 181f, 193f). Finding women in a monumental stone ship is suggested here to be a manifestation of their socio-political identity and beyond doubt a circumstance signalling female presence in the maritime sphere of power and female participants in maritime enterprises.

Additional analyses of key artefacts have also contributed to strengthening the theory of female maritime economic power. This is, in particular, discernible in the gold scarab on the Ulu Burun shipwreck, linking Queen Nefertiti to overseas metal trade. The glass on board the ship is also a material category we find in female elite Bronze Age burials in Denmark in the form of beads (for glass beads see Varberg et al. 2016). The maritime economy in Bronze Age Scandinavia in particular, giving rise to control over far distant trading, needed protection from a warrior aristocracy (Ling et al. 2018a, b, 491f). Since the archaeological tradition clearly excludes women from Bronze Age warfare, it has been important in this study to explore the role of female power in maritime trade and networks but also women’s relationship to warfare in order to show an alternative to (male) warrior identity and protectors of trade (maritime as well as terrestrial). The idea of female warriors is strengthened by actual images from the Near East (see Fig. 3) to Scandinavia rendering women with weapons. The bronze arrow deposited in the ship setting on Gotland can also be included in this reasoning. The present paper therefore proposes that it is time to abandon the preconceived notion of solely men as warriors and carriers of weapons and instead reason around the possibility that female archers in all probability were present on maritime trading routes.

Another interesting example is the grave at La Almoloya, Spain, which has revealed unexpected political dimensions pointing towards the possibility that women may have been among the rulers of a highly stratified, urban society on the Iberian Peninsula (Lull et al. 2021). A diadem, found on the buried woman’s skull, suggests her representation of “the political unity among the core regions of Argaric territory during the seventeenth century BC” (Lull et al. 2021, 344f). Old, preconceived notions labelled these burials as “sovereigns or wives of chiefs” (Siret & Siret 1887), but today, based on statistical analysis, this grave’s goods are associated with the ruling class (Lull et al. 2021, 331). In the same grave, one copper dagger with four silver rivets was found which is a distinctive feature of Argaric metallurgy (Lull et al. 2021, 340). It has been suggested that the territory of El Argar which also covers a coastal area, was among the first to utilise bronze, which for this study is of the greatest importance in acknowledging the hypothesis that women had independent roles in power structures and were most probably participants in maritime trade. Vincente Lull and his co-workers raise the question of whether a class-based state society could have been ruled by women (Lull et al. 2021, 345).

Research involving women and weapons and their position in their given society is still in its cradle but one study of interest is Hasanova’s study of Scythian society in which women and girls possessed weapons (Hasanova 2018, 138f). In this case, it is relevant to ask the question of whether girls even from a young age were raised to be warriors. I personally am looking forward to the sequel of what new scientific methods open up in the immediate future. It is essential they are implemented in full scale. Only then will we be able to outline the biological gender division in Bronze Age burials and perhaps be amazed over the frequency of the re-interpretations of burials which have erroneously received a gender identity based on artefacts. It would be constructive if archaeological interpretation henceforth could avoid gender analyses and simply focus upon social identities and human actions. However, today we are far from this situation, which opens up the need to prioritise the inclusion of female biological sex in archaeological interpretations.

Analogies between the Bronze Age and Viking Age in Scandinavia have been outlined in order to strengthen the hypotheses of a raiding and trading political system over a long time span (Ling et al. 2018a, b). These parallels support the changed research premises of today, explaining the Bronze Age in a conflict-including way that diverges from the interpretations of earlier research. It has been established that conflict and warfare have been avoided as explanatory factors for Bronze Age economy and socio-political structures (Horn & Kristiansen 2018, 5), but today contemporary societal parallels are outlined that strengthen the interpretation of momentum, defining the Bronze Age as a time of conflicts and masculine warfare. However, it has recently been emphasised that warrior women are a phenomenon in Bronze and Iron Age Europe which opens up for an engendered warriorhood (Felding 2020, 440). Women in the Scandinavian Bronze Age are, for incomprehensible reasons, excluded from these structures, but why is this so? Bronze Age women may be compared with women in our contemporary society with conditions under which it is natural to include women in military service and as participators in warfare and conflict. Bronze Age women must therefore be treated on equal premises and not isolated like Athenian women during the classical period. This is not acceptable and it is urgent to reject this biased and limited treatment of women’s roles and identities in Bronze Age society as well as in the Viking period, intersectionally labelled as “empowered warrior wives” (for the wording “empowered warrior wives” see Ling et al. 2018a, b, 505). It is obvious here how current archaeological interpretation treats women’s identity; women are never freestanding persons with unique identities, but always related to male identity and agenda.

In line with the deconstruction of female presence in warfare, the maritime-based sector involving long-distance sea-route trade must naturally be regarded in the same way. Through multiple examples, the ambition of this study has been to open up for the revaluation and deconstruction of the presence of women in maritime contexts. To realise this aim, it is reasonable to reinterpret old osteological material although these analyses are difficult to carry out. Nonetheless, they have most probably laid the ground for multiple erroneous assumptions. Take for instance the boat grave field at Valsgärde in the county of Uppland in Sweden. Here fifteen boat graves from the later part of the Iron Age (Vendelperiod and Viking Age) were discovered. Despite the problematic osteological material from Valsgärde, mostly in the shape of bone powder (Arrhenius 2020, 51) or as a fragment of a shank (see Fridell 1930, 234), all of these boat burials were interpreted as male burials (Arrhenius 2020, 30). Since it is characteristic for earlier scholars to draw parallels between weapons and men and jewellery and women, we must be aware of this situation and critically reread interpretations involving artifacts equated with biological sex. Unfortunately, too much of our archaeological knowledge rests upon assumptions and not on scientific facts. I personally am convinced that the scientific methods of the future will advantageously be set as alternative interpretations to today’s fixed gender roles in archaeology.