The actual scientific report mentioned by the article heavily implies that the person is probably of Finnic or Sami origin and that such mixed gender role burials are not as unheard on among those people.
This is supported by their jewelry being of prominent local origin and style and nothing in the burial being supportive of a real nordic origin beyond minute cultural syncretism.
I’d also mention that the conditions of the burial are not actually consistent with a high status norse religious burial, due to lack of accompanying sacrifices like animals or slaves. This is at best some kind of middle class burial they scrapped together.
Secondarily, they were not buried with a sword, the sword was buried later between their grave and then covered up (Which seems emblematic of trying to seal the grave tbh, as if people thought it might rise as a draugr – Supportive of them having a bad reputation or as a safety precaution for a deliberate humiliation of the burial conditions.) and then buried with an unhilted sword on their person (meaning unknown with speculation it may have been deliberate as an insult due to their condition).
If we assume that this is a Norse XXY Burial with good reputation, it seems likely to me that this person was probably one of those sorts who displayed severe anatomical resemblances to women and that they were presumed and raised to be such. Its possible that this was kept as a family secret until death, leading to a post-mortem awareness of the condition and subsequent steps taken to “seal” the grave afterwards.
There is literally no chance that a “Non-Binary” individual would have been openly accepted in the Norse world. There is a term for this, its Nith, and constitutes the highest of religious crimes.
Secondarily, There is not such thing as a Germanic Shaman. Let me repeat, There is not such thing as a Germanic Shaman. The Germanic people did not practice Animistic beliefs and shamanism was not a religious custom. This is a form of denigratory primitivism by assuming that “primitive and pagan” cultures all behave the same way and hold roughly the same beliefs.
Warning note:This post is not intended to argue against varṇāśrama,but is meant as a preliminary inquiry into the how people viewed themselves in an idealized hierarchical setup.
Anandabhatta presented the Ballālacarita to the influential Kayastha landlord of Nabadwip (navadvīpādhipati) Buddhimanta Khan in 1510 CE. In the 23rd chapter of the second part of the Ballālacarita he is clearly aware of various lines with well recognized kṣatriya and vaiṣya status that are clearly lines of the recent Kaliyuga and not some pre-Mahapadma-Nanda or pre-Paraśurāma era.(some notable kṣatriya lines of unambiguously this era that he names seems to be: Mauryas,Chauhans,Paramaras,Chalukyas,Silharas,etc). He lists the kṣatriya lines as Sūryavaṃśin,Candravamśin,descendants of Kadru and Vinātā and from Prithu. He also names a Candravamśi line of vaiśyas and gives a partial contemporary list of famous vaiśya communities before scathingly mentioning the suvarṇa-vāniks,who were reduced to śudra status by Ballālasena in the course of their conflict with him. Raghunandana is born in 1510 CE with his literary activity centred in Nabadwip(and presumably patronized by the same influential Kayastha landlords’ line) and lived uptil 1580(using Kane’s dating at the time). Given the changing political scenario at that time(Bengal coming under Mughal rule) it is more likely he recieved local Kayastha landlord patronage(which was influential and powerful enough to integrate even Rajputs from outside Bengal into it:The case of Purandar Basu Khan integrating the Rajput chieftains Surasimha and Rudrasimha into the Kayastha samaj of Western Bengal(Dakshin Rarh)) rather than needing to Muslim patronage. He(Raghunandana) likely did not have access to the same resources as Anandabhatta and thus stated,extrapolating from what he saw around him in his specific region of Bengal that there were no varṇas except brāhmaṇas and śudras (and he extrapolates this situation backward to being in vogue since the time of Mahāpadma Nanda the son of Mahānandin). I do not have enough data to speculate on why he did not have more data about jātis of other regions and their statuses or the social setups of other prāntas. I am reproducing his quotation from Kane’s work below(from the Śuddhitattva).
[I am summarizing HV Stietencorn’s work over here]. I am also assuming that the readers are familiar with the legends and lore surrounding indradyumna and puri
The indradyumna legends,like a lot of other ones of our plays and purANas is a stellar example of telescoping of multiple rulers into the activity of a single figure. Here,the activities of three rulers are telescoped into this indrdadyumna period:
A conqueror who builds a temple(yayAti I)
Settles down with his ministers in coastal Odisha(yayAti II)
Decay of the temple of puruShottama/nIlamAdhava(late somavaMshi period)
A [new] conqueror comes,finds this tradition decayed and builds a new temple for puruShottama(anantavarman choDagA~Ngadeva)
About this first temple(build between 949-959CE),we now discuss on the possibilities of the mUrti installed,which are:
A shilAmaya(sculpted in stone) image of nIlamAdhava standing(mostly) alone
A shIlAmaya image of kamalA-puruShottama(also occasionally called nIlamAdhava)
A dAru-rUpi(wooden) vigraha of puruShottama alone
A dAru-rUpi vigraha of puruShottama and shrI
A dAru-rUpi vigraha of puruShottama,balabhadra and subhadrA
It is found that the deities described as dAru-rUpi start appearing in literary descriptions around ga~NgA period from the 1200s onwards(passages in the skAnda and brahma purANa,tantrayAmala and mAdaLA pA~njI),which leaves us with the first two as possibilities. And out of the first two,it is the first image which is the image most likely to have been established in the first puruShottama temple of Puri,as it is the image of this type which is noted in literary sources(and plastic evidence of such images carved in bluish-black muguni stone also exist). This original nIlamAdhava is described in the brahma purANa thus
An example of such an image,as in the general template above has been given from that same work to illustrate of a template to concieve of the original nIlamAdhava in the first temple to puruShottama at Puri.
There are three main aspects of the decline of Śaiva siddhānta tāntrika systems and confining it to mainly the Tamil lands
Loss of patronage in the North due to Muslim invasions+active iconoclasm by them.The last rulers who could do this(patronage) to some extent in the North would be the family in which Rani Durgavati married in.
When Vijayanagara came to power,it elevated the Telugu smārta-s and disenfranchised the Ādiśaivas(replacing them with Telugu brāhmaṇas).
After the very brief revival it enjoyed due to people like Arumuga Navalar,it became a tool in the hands of Dravidianist ideologues who distorted it out of it contexts.
However,the works of Sekkizhar,and the works of Sundarar and Nambiyandar Nambi ensured that the system survived in the popular devotional consciousness in those lands even after their patronage declined.