> without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. But that's her point. She, the author, doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is

> without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. But that's her point. She, the author, doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is female. What she has an issue with is the paper stepping beyond its bounds of expertise (in her view) and claiming the body is of a high ranking warrior. In making that claim it makes use of context that, as a professor of Viking studies, happens to be within her professional purview. TBH as a criticism of an academic paper by an academic, it being technically pedantic strikes me as a positive thing. Also, it's quite nice that she explicitly excludes herself from commentary on the DNA evidence due to lack of expertise. Not something you see a lot of.