Exactly that one, McLeod's paper mentioned it and reminded me of the articles when the find was first made. Early medieval graves have long been said to be male or female according to the burial objects, but recent bone analyses show a much more mixed picture.Xenophon wrote:Matthew wrote:...do I take it you have in mind the so-called tomb of the Etruscan Prince, which contained two shelves, one skeleton buried with a spear beside it, presumed to be male, and the other with jewelry and small containers, presumed to be his wife ?One thing I notice is that every artifact from a tomb is assumed to have *belonged* to the person buried in that chamber. That's not necessarily an unreasonable place to start, but taking it as fact seems very dangerous to me. Other cultures have buried men with women's objects, and vice versa.
It turned out that the 'male' was a middle aged female, and the 'wife' was male ! Modern archaeologists now reckon on determinng bone analysis before jumping to conclusions from artifact finds.....
I'm also reminded of a grave from Britain that was concluded to be an Egyptian priestess of Isis AND a gladiatrix, simply because of an Isis amulet (something like that) and a lamp with a gladiator image on it. Both items, of course, were and are hugely common things, and have nothing to do with what the deceased (owner or not) actually was or did in real life. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that the 50-year-old ladies I (used to) work with are members of a professional football team, clearly shown by the number of Washington Redskins items on their desks!
So I'm just a little uncomfortable about the "Combat Queen" in Chamber 1 of Tomb II, though certainly a couple of ladies like that did exist. And both could be right--that could be a Warrior Princess, but the gorytos and greaves may not be *hers*.
Great knee pictures, by the way. Curiouser and curiouser...
Matthew