"Previously, researchers had misidentified skeletons as male simply because they were buried with their swords and shields. By studying osteological signs of gender within the bones themselves, researchers discovered that approximately half of the remains were actually female warriors, given a proper burial with their weapons."
Did any of you actually read the study (which was originally written in 2011) and not this slanted article? Or the OP which did not include a source? It specifically said in the study that this was a colony and half the settlers were women. Never referring to anyone specifically as a warrior.
Various types of evidence have been used in the search for Norse migrants to eastern England in the latter ninth century. Most of the data gives the impression that Norse females were far outnumbered by males. But using burials that are most certainly Norse and that have also been sexed osteologically provides very different results for the ratio of male to female Norse migrants. Indeed, it suggests that female migration may have been as significant as male, and that Norse women were in England from the earliest stages of the migration, including during the campaigning period from 865.
The only documented Norse immigrants to eastern England before 900 were members of what the primary sources refer to as two ‘great armies’, one campaigning from 865 to 878, and the other from 892 to 896.7 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records four instances of Norse warriors settling following these two campaigning periods. The earlier army won itself homelands by conquering three Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and the Norse settlement of these kingdoms is recorded in 876, 877, and 879.8 If the 890s army had also hoped to win itself territory to settle in it was unsuccessful, but in 896 some members of the army settled in the Norse controlled areas of Northumbria and East Anglia.9 There is no mention of women and children in connection with the earlier campaign, but they were part of the 890s army. During its campaigns women and children are mentioned on four occasions. Minors are mentioned twice, once implying that there were a number of children captured in London by the Anglo-Saxons, and later in the same entry two sons of the Norse leader Hæsten are recorded.10 Hæsten’s wife and other women are also mentioned as having been captured,11 while later there are two accounts of women associated with the 890s army remaining in East Anglia.12 As Hæsten arrived in England with an army in 892,13 it is thought that his wife and sons recorded in 893 must have accompanied him from Francia as he had not been in England long enough to have gained Anglo-Saxon sons.14 Whether his wife was Norse or Frankish cannot be determined, but there are records of Norse warriors in Francia with Norse wives.15 It is likely that at least some of the other women and children mentioned in connection with the 890s army also arrived with the army. This minimal information from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle indicates that there were some women accompanying male Norse warriors in England, as they did in other parts of the Norse world.16 It would be expected that some of the women and children were amongst those Norse that settled in East Anglia and Northumbria in 896, but this remains conjecture. In either event, the slender evidence in the written record suggests that any female settlers were greatly outnumbered by males.
As you see from the study article from 2011. There were women and children along with the armies and settlers.