The lead researcher’s own 2017 institutional release noted this carefully: the grave goods do not constitute proof that the individual actually fought, led troops, or held a specific rank. They constitute evidence for an interpretation that the researchers found compelling.
The distinction matters, and it matters specifically because the news coverage that followed the 2017 publication often did not make it. Headlines described the finding as confirming a female warrior, as proving that shield maidens were real, as establishing that women fought alongside men in Viking Age battles. These claims went beyond what the evidence supported, and they generated a sharp scholarly response.
—
## The Critical Reception: What Scholars Objected To
The publication of the 2017 paper in September of that year produced immediate and intense academic debate. Several scholars with expertise in Viking Age archaeology and Norse studies raised specific objections.
Judith Jesch, professor of Norse Studies at the University of Nottingham and a leading authority on Viking Age literacy and culture, offered the most publicly prominent critique. She argued that the researchers had too readily moved from the sex determination to the warrior interpretation — that the gaming pieces as evidence of “military command” was speculative, and that the leap from “biologically female” to “female warrior” required more substantiation than the grave contents alone could provide. She also raised concerns about the paper’s use of textual sources and what she characterized as insufficient engagement with alternative interpretations. Notably, she praised the 2019 follow-up paper for adopting a more cautious tone.