The term *skjaldmær* itself is the subject of ongoing scholarly discussion. Jesch’s argument — that there is no conclusive evidence the term existed during the Viking Age and that it may have been coined in the thirteenth century, contemporary with the sagas that use it — highlights a methodological problem in using later literary texts as evidence for earlier social realities.
This does not mean female warriors did not exist. It means that the literary tradition that describes them is not a reliable historical record of the Viking Age. The saga tradition is valuable, but as literature and mythology, not as journalism. Hervor fighting her way to her father’s cursed sword in *Hervarar saga* is a compelling story. It is not a documented event.
The case of Bj 581 is different from the literary tradition in a crucial way: it is physical evidence, directly from the period in question. The bones are tenth century. The weapons are tenth century. The DNA came from those bones. This is not a later tradition remembering or inventing the past. It is the past’s own material record.
But even material evidence requires interpretation. The grave is physical. The conclusion that it holds a warrior is interpretive. And the step from “one grave” to “shield maidens were real” is the step that Jesch and other scholars resist — not because they deny the find, but because they see a pattern of overreading in how the find has been discussed.
—
## The Asymmetry Argument: What Would We Accept for a Man?