Not a princess

Funny how any ancient woman buried with a ring or a knife or a horse or two is called Princess when they dig her up. Even when the second paragraph of a report or article explains that actually, she probably isn't a princess. Why is this? I agree that a woman buried with jewelry and weapons must have been Someone to have been buried in state. But why do so many people jump to the conclusion that she was a princess? What do people mean when they call someone a princess? Is it simply shorthand for "woman obviously of high status?" Does calling female remains those of a princess confer special worth and prestige to the find, and therefore to the finder? Is the grave of a woman inherently of less interest than that of a man, so researchers have to promote her status by suggesting that she is of royal descent?

Still, this article about the remains of a woman found in Siberia is fascinating for all that archaeologists were able to learn about her, including the fact that she had cancer and that she had amazing tattoos.

I could be simply misperceiving the frequency of princesses in archaeological finds. Or maybe there is a media tendency to exalt the status of a body to generate more exciting headlines. Has anyone ever done any research to determine the ratio of female remains called princess to the ratio of male remains called prince (or more likely, king) in newspapers/blogs/archaeological reports?