What changed in 2016 and 2017 was the introduction of a type of evidence — ancient genomics — that was not susceptible to the same interpretive circularity. You cannot decide in advance what chromosomes a skeleton will have.
—
## What the Genomic Study Claimed
The 2017 paper made claims that went beyond the chromosomal finding itself, and it is important to distinguish those claims from the finding they were built on.
The chromosomal result — XX, no Y — is the most robustly supported conclusion of the study. Two independent samples from the same individual, both yielding the same genomic result, with contamination checks in place: this is a well-supported finding.
The additional interpretive claims — that this individual was a “high-ranking officer,” a “professional warrior,” a “military leader” — rest on the grave assemblage, not the DNA. The researchers argued that the combination of weapons, horses, gaming pieces positioned in the occupant’s lap, and location adjacent to the garrison was consistent with a high-ranking military figure. Hedenstierna-Jonson was quoted saying the gaming set suggested an officer who worked with tactics and strategy. Jakobsson called the finding the first formal genetic confirmation of a female Viking warrior.
These interpretive claims are supported by the archaeological context but are not proven by it. A grave’s contents reflect the burial practices of those who created it. They may reflect what the deceased did in life. They may reflect what the family or community chose to signal about the deceased’s identity or status. They may reflect both, or neither. Archaeological interpretation of this kind involves reasoning from physical objects to social meaning — reasoning that is legitimate and necessary but that carries uncertainty.