I found The Real Valkyrie to be a little bit confused. It was neither what I was expecting nor what I wanted. What I was expecting was analysis of grave Bj581 in Birka, Sweden, thought to be that of a woman. But this would have been no ordinary woman. Buried with weapons, and large for her day and age, she may have very well been a Viking warrior. And that is absolutely fascinating. I was hoping for a deep dive into the science behind trying to determine the sex of the skeleton, the layout of the tomb, what kind of items and clothing she was buried with, what (if anything) we can reconstruct about her life, and so on. And we do get that - sort of. But there's a whole other side to The Real Valkyrie that I really did not love.
The author of the book, Nancy Marie Brown, names the skeleton of Bj581 Hervor. This comes from the woman in the Saga of Hervor, a Norse saga possibly first written down around 1120. Brown weaves us through an imagined version of Hervor's life by beginning each chapter with a dramatized version of what could have happened, based on this saga, and filling readers in with the historical details. We meet people like Eirik Bloodaxe and his wife Gunnhild, Mother of Kings. We travel to Ireland, Orkney, York and even places further abroad, like Russia.
But, there's really no evidence for any of this, right? From what Brown writes, there's not much specifically we can gather from Bj581. So, we don't know who this woman was, or exactly what she did. Everything about the life of this 'Hervor' as constructed in the book is just an educated guess. That, to me, makes the book feel kind of pointless. If this had been contained to, say, a final chapter after examining as much as possible in detail from the specifics of the tomb, and then Brown offering her version of this woman's life, I would've been okay with it. But it's the majority of the book. And I feel bad for saying that, because the scholarship is excellent.
What we do know is that she was tall, well-fed, and although buried in Birka was not from there. The items she was buried with were not always local, suggesting she travelled extensively (though, I would expect one might be able to acquire at least some items through plunder, purchase or trade). Her tomb contained a plethora of weapons, and the skeletons of two sacrificed horses. It also has a very prominent location and was marked by a stone. So, this woman was both important and buried as a warrior.
The crux of Brown's book is that women could have indeed been Viking warriors, respected leaders in their own right. She examines Norse sagas, and concludes that while male figures are usually taken at face value, female figures (particularly warlike ones), are assumed to be mythical, or at the least extremely rare exceptions to the status quo. Indeed, the bones in Bj581 were always just assumed to be male - a male warrior. But Viking-era graves aren't necessarily gendered based on the objects buried inside, according to Brown. Our understanding of women's roles, she states, is shaped by the Christianization of Norse regions and Victorian perspectives.
I recently re-watched The Northman, and only this time learned that the woman in Bj581 is actually represented in the movie. She only makes two brief appearances: once at the head of a ship, and then riding through the Rus village after the raid. Director Robert Eggers makes a comment in the film commentary that's something like, 'can you imagine what this woman would have been like?' She really must have been remarkable, and Brown gives us some insight as to what that kind of life might have been. I wish this had been more solid history than fiction, though.
All that being said, the only reason I'm not rating this lower is because of the more general detailing of the Viking period: what they wore, what kind of games they played, what kind of ships they used, what their funerals were like. As I said, the scholarship is really excellent. These descriptions of Viking life added to help fill in the narrative are richly detailed and illuminating. And I certainly commend Brown on trying to detail the life of a possibly very unique woman, going off of very little. But I just didn't love that most of the book was basically a theory.