Read the response by Judith Jesch - it's very entertaining, and informative. http://norseandviking.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... t.html?m=1
So, let's summarise:
1. They may not have the correct body, as the labelling and storage of the bones was haphazard in the C19th
2. The presence of weapons alone does not make someone a warrior, as it could be a symbol of status
3. Despite 'a full osteological and contextual analysis' of the bones by one of the authors, they provide no evidence of enhanced muscle mass or repetitive wear and tear on the skeleton from warrior activities, and they state that there is no sign of any injury on the skeleton
So yet again we return to the basic problem - until such time as we find written reference to female warriors, or we find a skeleton which shows multiple healed weapon injuries alongside clear evidence of regular strenuous physical activity, the jury remains convinced that they did not exist.