tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post141462196034323787..comments2024-03-21T12:27:14.795+00:00Comments on Norse and Viking Ramblings: Let's Debate Female Viking Warriors Yet AgainViqueenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05144146397028019725noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-33348456485709295302022-04-30T20:29:14.886+01:002022-04-30T20:29:14.886+01:00I see here a great lot of theatrics and acrobatics...I see here a great lot of theatrics and acrobatics to justify a BIAS held by individuals that no female warriors could have existed. I also see *historians*, who rely almost strictly on -- typically biased or otherwise culturally influenced, and frequently incomplete, inaccurate, or interpretive -- written accounts of others, demanding that interpretation of *physical evidence* be held to a higher standard than their OWN area of study.<br />In fact, archaeology DOES strive to do so, and also seems to UPDATE it's interpretations based on new evidence.<br />A commenter here literally stated that only MEN with warrior grace goods should be seen as warriors and that the standards should be different for women. This bias is exactly why it takes DNA studies to change the discourse about a SINGLE skeleton.<br />As noted above, the skeletal remains were marked at the time of excavation - as is normal practice in archaeology, and has been for a very long time. <br />As for the demand that referencing the accepted previous works of other experts and professionals is "not enough," it, too, is disingenuous. A simple look around this very website shows that is exactly the method of the author, herself.<br />Simply put, ALL evidence -- historical writings of various sources, archaeology, genetics, etc -- points to there being FEW, but still some, females who were either warriors or acted as leaders and strategists (generals, essentially). This is not an unheard of phenomenon across the world. It is rare -- and no one here nor in any publication has suggested otherwise -- but it does occur.Angela Gregoire Graynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-68684084336772752202020-01-18T14:48:40.422+00:002020-01-18T14:48:40.422+00:00Exactly. The chain of custody was broken. You can...Exactly. The chain of custody was broken. You can't arbitrarily take bones from a site on bags, knowing they're mixed up, and then just simply choose. <br />Writhing this as a "breakthrough discovery " is dishonest and just as inexcusable as any tabloid spreading misinformation. Dialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344141983067365027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-9636109557666881652020-01-18T14:32:06.178+00:002020-01-18T14:32:06.178+00:00Let's be direct and honest.
This article sho...Let's be direct and honest. <br /><br />This article should have never been published with the title it has.<br /><br />All this debate is moot.<br /><br />The chain of custody for the evidence from the burial site, in this case the bones, cannot be accounted for. It is a broken chain a custy and has been broken for over a 100 years.<br /><br />It is impossible at this point for them to validate and confirm the bones tested are in fact the same bones from that burial site. It has already been noted in the supporting Documents of the paper, that there was some doubt as to the bones being properly labeled, and there were multiple examples of cross contamination of bones being with cremated sites, and multiple people's bones being in bags only supposed to having one person.<br /><br />You cannot publish a paper honestly and ethically, claiming to have proven there was a female buried in that site, when it is impossible to confirm or prove that the bones tested were in fact from that site. This is making a statement as if fact, based solely on speculation and wishful thinking.<br /><br />It is dishonest and unethical. It goes far below the standards of any sound science whatsoever, and the fact that it has caused a firestorm of debate and articles all over the Internet by those ignorant of this fact, has done nothing but spread misinformation and further proliferate ignorant thinking all because of wishful thinking. There is such a drive to somehow prove the existence of female Warriors from the past, that those with this ideology and world view are willing to what should be fact based studies,to instead become contaminated and turned into nothing but tabloid pseudo junk articles wrapped in the guise of being proven through science, when in reality it is anything but.<br /><br />You have people all over claiming this proves the claims to be true, and TV shows like History Channel's Vikings, which erroneously has shield maidens running around everywhere as if commonplace, Is now being claimed as historical fact because of absurd papers such as this jumping to conclusions that aren't supported or backed up by any facts whatsoever.<br /><br />Aside from the fact that you can totally provide reasonable explanations as to the contents within graves, and it has been proven that grave contents doesn't necessarily have any relevance as to the person and what they did in life.<br /> <br />There is so much speculation being thrown around as if fact, it is absolutely nauseating and depressing to see that people involved in research that should be considering every possible explanation before coming to a conclusion, is throwing Critical thinking to the wind in order to push a political or ideological narrative.<br /><br />When it comes to this particular case however, all the arguing is moot because the bones cannot be proven to be from the burial site in the first place, so it was a complete waste of time and a ridiculous paper to write. It proves nothing whatsoever.<br /><br />If you had a prosecutor come in to try to prosecute somebody accused of murder, but the chain of custody was broken and there is no way to validate the evidence as being legitimate and from the crime scene, do you think they would declare him guilty and use that evidence as fact? Of course not.<br /><br />Anyone acting as if this somehow proves anything at all, is ignoring fact based evidence in favor of wanting to prove somehow an ideological narrative or world belief and is grasping at anything they can to do so.<br /><br />Dialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11344141983067365027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-79143368096223654542019-01-13T20:03:50.548+00:002019-01-13T20:03:50.548+00:00Some comments on Weapons. Swords were considered ...Some comments on Weapons. Swords were considered inferior to Spears. Alexander the Great when his spear was broken, left the group he was leading to get a new spear, even through he still had his sword.<br />Now, when we get to the Roman Empire, you see the sword upgrade, but in two ways. First, was in the Greek report of the two spears the Romans carried and that once both spears were gone, the Roman Soldier would NOT retreat like Alexander the Great but stay in his place and fought with his sword. Many people on the net had taken this to mean Roman Maniples and Centuries primary weapon was their sword, but based on the Greek reports I believe the smaller spear was a javelin and thrown but the other spear was used as a pike and only when it was lost, broke or had to be dropped for both sides were to close to use them, the Romans would NOT go get another spear but stay in place and used their sword. <br />The other purpose of the Sword from Roman Times onward was as a symbol of command. The leader of a Company or Battalion of troops would hold his sword over his head as something the rest of the men under his command and see AND FOLLOW. This used of the sword was done as late as the US Civil War, where General Albert Johnston put up his sword and picked up a cup to tell his men this was all the lot he was going to get till they won the battle and used the Cup as a he would have used a sword for his men to follow him and to direct any attack by pointing the cup/Sword in any one direction.<br />This was well established practice, so well established that by the 1700s the British were no longing sharpening their swords, but left the, blunt for they were used to direct troops NOT to be actually used in combat.<br />Thus the sword buried with this person may just be a sword used to direct others not for actual use, i.e a symbol of rank not something to be used in actual combat. Thus the spear may be more important then the sword, but even spears can be symbols of rank. Paul Mentzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11903333833762725813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-29893690733262134792018-12-23T00:32:29.861+00:002018-12-23T00:32:29.861+00:00Wow, Hydroxide has gone from defending a work base...Wow, Hydroxide has gone from defending a work based on what I consider to be profoundly dishonest grounds to psychoanalyzing their critics. Or are they using divination to determine other people's motives? Well, never mind that.<br /><br />The point of the original blog post is that in addition to their presumably sound scientific work identifying the remains as being those of a woman, the authors make the strong claim that the remains were those of a warrior, a claim not addressed, let alone supported by their evidence. Instead, Mr or Ms Hydroxide claims that the subject's profession was not a subject of the paper at all! Well, of course not, the authors do explicitly state what their aims were and they didn't include determining if the remains belonged to a warrior. They just assume that they do because somebody else said so.<br /><br />But, you see, when wandering outside one's field one becomes vulnerable to misunderstanding or misapplying the results of other fields. The responsible thing to do then is to have the work reviewed by someone/s in that field; or perhaps just note that the question is of interest to (let's say) archaeologists, express a pious wish that the current work will prove useful to them, and leave it at that. All which is unfortunate, because this paper is indeed of interest and the popular misunderstanding distracts from its actual results; but it would be irresponsible to let the popular misunderstanding pass refuted. While the identification of the body as both female and Nordic is good information, those are in the end mere facts. The authors' methodological conclusion--that outdated assumptions concerning gender and the interpretation of archaeological context have lead researchers astray, and a broader view is required--are quite well taken, I think, and quite important.<br /><br />If one is going to declare a "female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics," one had better be able to sustain both the woman and the warrior parts. But one isn't, is one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-34363129756996680342018-12-10T22:53:21.519+00:002018-12-10T22:53:21.519+00:00@Hydroxide
The entire discussion section is dedica...@Hydroxide<br />The entire discussion section is dedicated to argumentation for the interpretation that the body belongs to a high ranking female warrior. The sentence: "Furthermore, the exclusive grave goods and two horses are worthy of an individual with responsibilities concerning strategy and battle tactics." is repeated in two places. The conclusion is: "This study shows how the combination of ancient genomics, isotope analyses and archaeology can contribute to the rewriting of our understanding of social organization concerning gender, mobility and occupation patterns in past societies." The authors clearly go beyond the research questions you pose in their interpretations, even though the experimental work is limited only for studying these questions. The interpretations in the discussion section are not drawn from the references, but instead are made to challenge the existing interpretations made in the referred articles, although the conducted experimental study does not provide any support to these arguments. The criticism is therefore justified.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-6537468736428992022018-11-21T17:48:58.077+00:002018-11-21T17:48:58.077+00:00"When men are found in graves with those grav..."When men are found in graves with those grave-goods and laid out that way it's always assumed to have been a warrior and chieftain " <br /><br />That is because it is a valid assumption. The overwhelming majority, like a million to one, of warriors in world history have been male, why would you question? The whole reason anyone is interested is because this is so extraordinarily unusual. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-41421219800189547762018-09-10T13:09:36.835+01:002018-09-10T13:09:36.835+01:00I'm sorry, but this is not the way good scienc...I'm sorry, but this is not the way good science should work. If you are citing previous literature, you should be flagging whether there are any ambiguities in the said cited literature, and if you are not capable of making that assessment, you should not cite it, or the very least be up front about this (putting material is the Supp Info is not being "up front"), so that the readers will know they need to make their own informed judgment. This is particularly the case when the literature being cited is so essential to the contextualization of the study's results that the authors choose to stress the "female Viking warrior" interpretation in the article's title. Other readers here have highlighted these points, and your responses to them are patently misdirection. But thank you for providing some nice examples of motivated reasoning and logic fails for my undergraduate "Bad Science" module this coming semester.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-53322087552207452742018-09-10T12:59:57.151+01:002018-09-10T12:59:57.151+01:00A lot of special pleading here in defense of this ...A lot of special pleading here in defense of this study. Most readers will see through it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-21716437868344804732018-07-06T00:11:33.736+01:002018-07-06T00:11:33.736+01:00I liked your article all the more when I discovere...I liked your article all the more when I discovered you were female. Maybe she was a warrior (but with out trauma?), maybe not. The central problem is that leap of faith, weapons and horse notwithstanding. If there had been women warriors, percentage-wise they would be rare, and for good reason: weight-class and bone to muscle ratio. No matter how skilled a mythological or Hollywood-depicted female warrior, she would be overcome by a male from a higher weight class in short order. <br />Sadly, the A&E Vikings series has a lot of females believing Ragnar's beautiful wife was holding her own in vicious hand-to-hand combat. (Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?)<br />Even if the bones in that grave were from a female there's too much conjecture about the analysis, the more so when you explain the bones may have not been properly catalogued when removed from grave site(s).<br />And even if that diminutive skeleton was a female warrior, one skeleton doesn't a battalion of 10-20,000 warriors make.ElaineinMDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-17843833838620426672018-01-20T03:25:35.708+00:002018-01-20T03:25:35.708+00:00Wasn't it written in the findings that the bon...Wasn't it written in the findings that the bones analyzed were pen marked Bj581? From the original dig?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13263989943322401770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-75159093403315610542017-10-03T14:10:14.015+01:002017-10-03T14:10:14.015+01:00Thanks for this article, Judith! It's a relief...Thanks for this article, Judith! It's a relief! After seing all those people on social medias sharing links to articles about the Viking woman warrior, I felt like I was the only one who noticed the pretemptious interpretation of those DNA analysis. <br /><br />What made me more frustrated is that even Osteoarchaeology experts (from Leiden university, one of the best in the world) posted on facebook the link to the article. And, when I expressed my doubts about the study (the same ones you have), nobody replied. If I, who am just a normal Archaeology graduate and a postgraduate History student, have been able to immediately find irregularities in that publication, how is it possible that supposedly 'expert' people could have the nerve to write and to publish it?!<br /><br />Once more, thanks!<br />Mauro Baraussenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-44956109696986180442017-09-20T18:32:36.649+01:002017-09-20T18:32:36.649+01:00Fair enough and maybe the authors didn't creat...Fair enough and maybe the authors didn't create the title of the article but if it was an exclusively genetic article, than I think most people from humanities background would endorse Judith Jesch's point above that it would have been better to avoid the notion that you have "proved" what is in reality an archaeological interpretation of old material gathered at a time when record keeping was not that of modern standards. medIrishstudierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16105193976826785811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-56000505633249999722017-09-17T13:17:18.339+01:002017-09-17T13:17:18.339+01:00All the philosophical ramblings above is of little...All the philosophical ramblings above is of little value in relation to this topic until the main points has been fully adressed: [1] Is it for certain that the analysed bones (a tooth and a humerus) are from the right grave (Bj581), or can they have been mixed up with bones from other graves? [2] If there are uncertainties related to the origin of the analysed bones, what are the details of this uncertainty? [3] All potential uncertainties has to be painstakingly presented and methods to remedy these needs to be attempted. If the uncertainties can not be alleviated, the relevant science here will be forever flawed. DNA analysis has no value if you have analysed the wrong bones. (In addition we also need to feel fairly certain that grave Bj581 only contained a single individual.)<br /><br />Vegard VikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-64775691161211470152017-09-15T23:17:53.559+01:002017-09-15T23:17:53.559+01:00"Even as a total layperson the overuse of &qu..."Even as a total layperson the overuse of "warrior" in the article irked me a bit, and I'm glad that actual professionals feel the same way."<br /><br />Actual professionals in what? She admits she's not a scientist and the article is a scientific article. The use of "warrior" in the article is referenced. Practically everything she criticises as an untowards interpretation is not an interpretation of the authors, but one they adopted from established research.Hydroxidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-53928362944799285142017-09-15T23:15:33.430+01:002017-09-15T23:15:33.430+01:00@Tona Aspusa and Anonymous
Sorry, but yes, they ha...@Tona Aspusa and Anonymous<br />Sorry, but yes, they have a basis for that statement. Once more, it's not their own idea, it's one they have referenced and is based on previous research not by them. It's not their job and not their responsibility to recheck every bit of research done previously. That's why you reference points that have been established previousy, and the identification as a warrior has been referenced many times in the introduction. That's how academic writing works. That's why we have references. Practically every single point criticised is not the interpretation of the authors, but frequently double-referenced, state of the research held for half a century or more. If you have a problem with that interpretation, you should address those publications. So yes, you can say "I write A, B, C" but only claim C as my own finding, when you solidly reference A and B - as the authors have done.<br /><br />@Unknown<br /><br />Thank you, but having a PhD in sciences, I know very much what a discussion section is. Its purpose is not the least to discuss the meaning of your results against their context. And you happily ignore that the identification as a warrior is already done in the introduction ("One warrior grave, Bj 581, stands out as exceptionally well-furnished and completeOne warrior grave, Bj 581, stands out as exceptionally well-furnished and complete (Arbman, 1941; Thålin-Bergman, 1986) ). <br /><br />Your suggestion that "If they didn't intentionally seek to confirm or disprove previous research, they shouldn't have evoked it in the first place." demonstrates a rather poor understanding of scientific publishing on your part. Context matters. And they did seek to confirm previous research, namely the osteological analysis. <br /> <br />As for the rest of your statement, given the fact that you accuse them of failing to consider alternative perspectives, despite the fact that they do precisely that, it's not really worthwhile going any further. They explicitly point out the consequences for the interpretation of this and other graves and whether the presence of weapons alone is sufficient to assess a body (not just this body) as a warrior and a man, as has been practiced for more than a century. <br /><br />You clearly have an axe to grind and are willing to resort to fabrication in that crusade. Your accusation of disingenuous and unscientific behavior, I'm afraid, is projection.Hydroxidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-82330854566399861882017-09-15T18:01:46.754+01:002017-09-15T18:01:46.754+01:00How about the fact that their bag of bones contain...How about the fact that their bag of bones contained three femurs, which they admit but then refuse to speculate on what that means for the rest of their evidence? They just say they discarded the third one, and move on...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-54160800492928902682017-09-15T16:48:03.745+01:002017-09-15T16:48:03.745+01:00@Hydroxide
I don't think you understand what ...@Hydroxide<br /><br />I don't think you understand what a "Discussion" section is in an academic paper. If they were merely concerned about the sex and affinity of the remains, they would have left it at that. But they framed the study contextually, and that matters. In fact, by relying on previous studies for this context in their intro and discussion, they either assume the validity or illegitimacy of of said studies. If they didn't intentionally seek to confirm or disprove previous research, they shouldn't have evoked it in the first place. Also, considering the relationship with politics and funding, you'd be incredibly naive to presume something like "'previous arguments have ... neglected intersectional perspectives'" is weightless, meaningless. <br /><br />Let's not fool ourselves. While their findings may be legitimate, which isn't really even being questioned here, how the author's discuss those findings in the larger context of the discussion/debate surrounding the subject matter is important, which is well evidenced by how their finding is used. The failure to consider alternative perspectives (if it's even their place to consider any perspective at all!) regarding the historic/cultural nature of the subject is the ultimate confession and impact of their research, no matter how scientifically valid their methods. The only reason anyone even cares about the sex/affiliation of the subject is with respect to what it can tell us about history. So the author's were disingenuously (read: unscientifically) weighing in on an existing discussion and how they have done so is what's being debated here because, again, that's been the "real" impact of their study. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15205699665705252496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-62462053350723293302017-09-15T16:09:35.597+01:002017-09-15T16:09:35.597+01:00Thank you for your insights on this. As someone wh...Thank you for your insights on this. As someone who is passionate about "Viking" history, and who is known for that passion, I received more than a few requests for comment on the newly published study. This is all very reminiscent of last year's "half of viking warriors were women" media hype, all based on a study published in the same online journal that claimed half of Norse migrants were female. There is a longing for the concept of shield maidens to be true, a large portion of the general public want it to be true. It's as I always caution, history is too often bent and contorted to fit a specific narrative for political purposes. That's how the fascination with Vikings began, during the rise of nationalism and used as a device to reinforce the notion of divine purpose. Or something like that.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to respond to this renewed media hype about Viking warrior women.C.J. Adrienhttps://cjadrien.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-25040667592706798652017-09-15T16:03:12.192+01:002017-09-15T16:03:12.192+01:00@Hydroxide
The quote is still improper though. In...@Hydroxide<br /><br />The quote is still improper though. In academia you cannot say "well technically I wrote that my results showed x,y,z, but really my emphasis in that sentence is on Y." If you write down your results, it better be airtight. Their results showed that there was a female body in a grave that might have (or even was likely to have) belonged to a high ranking warrior according to previous studies. You cannot just say "grave Bj 581 on Birka was the burial of a high ranking female Viking warrior". This is a factual statement they had no basis for, since much of that sentence was not drawn from their results, and it even seems unlikely that a referenced study could have made a factual statement about the profession of whoever was buried in that grave. This is how you make people think certain things are confirmed facts, when they are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-54977165775590650902017-09-14T11:47:13.592+01:002017-09-14T11:47:13.592+01:00Interesting read, thank you Judith Jesch.
Even as ...Interesting read, thank you Judith Jesch.<br />Even as a total layperson the overuse of "warrior" in the article irked me a bit, and I'm glad that actual professionals feel the same way.<br /><br />If we bypass the issue of whether it's the right bones tied to the right grave (I did think the authors briefly touched on that), this brings up so many questions, both about the individual and the interpretation of grave goods in general.<br /><br />Again as a layperson I've always felt a bit skeptical about far reaching hypotheses based on grave goods, and wondered if these ideas maybe tell us more about the times when they were made, than about the situation prevailing at the time of burial. Humans are beings of great imagination, and once a picture if painted of what this or that means or symbolizes it is hard not only to dislodge that picture but also to prevent further ideas being built upon it. <br />Uncritically equating being buried with weapons as denoting a military profession could lead us to all kinds of weird ideas. Not to mention that unless we have an idea why grave goods were used in the first place, what the function of this custom was, all our speculations might lead us far into deep forests (I'm reminded of an old joke piece in Reader's Digest ca1968 which posits a 1967 motel room as a burial vault and goes into excrutiating detail about the symbolical meaning of each object). <br />So what is the meaning - and function - of weapons as grave goods? What is the meaning of jewellery? Pottery? Animals? Without knowing why and by whom decisions about burials were made, the only thing we could be even slightly certain of is approximate value.<br />But then when we bury someone today, can we really infer any hard facts about the buried person based on the price of the coffin? We actually can't, not without interviewing the actual persons making the arrangements.<br /><br />That said, why is the idea of a female "warrior", or at least a person not averse to violence so strange, almost repugnant? (Gah, I really hate the word "warrior", especially in a pre-modern Nordic context. It may have a well defined meaning among scholars of the period, but in general language the connotations just feels utterly wrong in the context.)<br />Are we maybe unthinkingly wanting to apply a dichotomy of violent - nurturing, just because it "feels right"? Are we influenced by a view of female violence as the ultimate taboo?<br /><br />If this is the right bones for the right grave, there is so much more I would like to know. Children. General health status. Cause of death. Possible familial relationships to other people buried at Birka. Possible familial relationships of the horses to other horses (actually, if you think about it, once DNA and isotope analysess gets even easier and cheaper applying them to domestic animals at a large scale might be extremely interesting). <br />Tona Aspsusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17578622328495783197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-77729467474938989202017-09-14T11:02:07.423+01:002017-09-14T11:02:07.423+01:00I sort of agree with you on this, but OTOH I found...I sort of agree with you on this, but OTOH I found it incredibly irritating that they tended to use "Female warrior" instead of "individual from Bj581", "our subject", "the buried female", or something like that. Once would have been enough of a hook for publicity, and then they could have used more precise and dry language thereafter.<br /><br />It doesn't really matter that they weren't the first to make the "female warrior" claim, since their work is almost exclusively about the "female" part of that - except for the naturally inconclusive absence of trauma they don't really touch on the "warrior" side of the claim. And I don't really see (in the absence of pathological findings of violent trauma) how they even could comment on the sociological part of "female warrior".Tona Aspsusahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17578622328495783197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-64504851893417587062017-09-14T05:08:00.545+01:002017-09-14T05:08:00.545+01:00Ditto!
~BetshildaDitto!<br />~BetshildaBetshildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913319450964676104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-91474133546918836682017-09-14T05:06:59.624+01:002017-09-14T05:06:59.624+01:00Haha, ditto!
~BetshildaHaha, ditto!<br />~BetshildaBetshildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03913319450964676104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1422935148755187067.post-14314072491427101692017-09-13T15:44:46.638+01:002017-09-13T15:44:46.638+01:00Great read. Thanks.Great read. Thanks.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03608756189835464816noreply@blogger.com