> Apologies for long delay, I was away for a while and have been catching up
> since.

Not a problem. =)

> Was this one of those cultures where inheritance was divided between ALL
> the children, so that as time went on, farms became too small to support
> the family?  I think that's been a motivator for emigration or raiding to
> supplement the income.

If the spouse (male or female) still lived, it would inherit everything of
value. Otherwise, it would pass on to the eldest child, regardless of
gender.

> There's some thought that Siberian shamans were homosexuals, perhaps for
> similar reasons.

Actually, it seems Viking men could not choose a woman's role in general,
only when they chose to become Seidmenn (wizards).

> Did the Vikings have to make a formal declaration of how they wanted to be
> treated, and could they change their minds afterwards?  And, it sounds like
> Viking women could have chosen to be warriors.  Was that allowed in theory,
> or did society draw the line there?

I'm guessing the clothing style, equipment and jewelry would distinguish
them. By custom, they would carry a shield as well. Changing back appears
to be unheard of.

Viking women that chose to be treated like men would not, socially
speaking, be seen as a woman that acted like a man. She would be seen as a
man. They could, and did, participate in warfare, and were expected to
rally with the men in case of emergencies such as fires, attacks, etc.. as
well as laying down their lives for the regular women and children.

There is a reason for the term "maiden of the shield".

> Apparently it's statistically true that tall men have more sex, more
> partners, and father more children.  "New Scientist" assumed
that perhaps
> there was some limiting factor on height as people didn't seem to be getting
> taller.  I'm not so sure they're right; some mediaeval lead coffins in the
> crypt of a local castle look far too small for today's people.

Tallness is a sign of good health. Romans were much taller than medieval
peasants. This is due to nutrition and other factors.

What I'm saying is that some form of selection continues to exist, but that
selection might have nothing to do with actual evolution. Being tall does
not really give you any advantage other than the attraction in modern
society. It does not advance the species.

Currently, selection favours attractive sheep and vicious wolves. Neither
advances our species as a whole, since we're past the hunter-gatherer
phase.

> I sort of wonder if Bob's point is true, though, in that the macho types
> would simply come home and do as they liked, as those at home wouldn't be
> able to physically oppose them.

The guards would throw them out, if they weren't gutted on the spot. And
the lady of the land was not exactly like modern women, physically
speaking. She would likely give him a sound knock over the head with
something hard.

When the men wanted to build a warship to go raiding, the lady of the land
could refuse, because she ran the finances, and had the key to the
treasury.

Of course, a violent misogynist could defy all customs and break the laws,
but that would be dealt with rather harshly.

> As we have noted here before, usenet is overwhelming in volume, even apart
> from spam, viruses, etc.  Quite a few people have mentioned the better
> manners of Fidonet  :-)

Yep. "If you came to the Internet looking for civil, intellectual
conversation and debate, you came to the wrong place." - Unknown

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5