I think a big part of the author's issue is the focus on current anthropological "study" rather than historical anthropological science – both when it comes to

I think a big part of the author's issue is the focus on current anthropological "study" rather than historical anthropological science – both when it comes to the things studied (their issue with the talk you mention) but also when it comes to priorities, e.g. caring too much (my impression of author's opinion) about whether or not something is sacred / etc. Clearly the author is a person that likes anthropology for what it can tell us about history and the past and prefers to do this in a way that is as strongly scientific as possible (read: falsifiable). Whether or not her version of anthropology is the right one is up to the reader. As with a lot of modern science there is a lot of jockying for funding, and Weiss is potentially venting frustration that such things are getting funding in place of work she finds more important / productive.