|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 Hatshepsut
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Hatshepsut |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 02 December 2003 07:31 AM
  
I was at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC over the weekend and found something interesting. I was admiring the white statue of a seated Hatshepsut with my 7 years old son and started to read the titulary on each side of her throne to him. The left side was inscribed with her "good god" prenomen (good god , lord of the two lands, crowned in truth, beloved, Ma'at-Ka-Re). The right side was inscribed with the "Son of Re" prenomen, however, it read "Sa.t Re". The 't' in Sa.t representing the femine form of the word. Even though Hatshepsut took on the male persona of the pharaoh, false beard and all, her titulary was still inscribed with feminine forms of words. Interesting! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Amun Member Posts: 284 |
posted 02 December 2003 07:47 AM
Most Egyptians in her time were illiterate so the images were more powerful than the words. IP: Logged |
|
Kem-Au Member Posts: 379 |
posted 02 December 2003 08:44 AM
I saw that exibit. It was facinating. Btw Neb, can you read the glyphs? IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 02 December 2003 11:31 AM
Amun, I am aware through out most of AE only about 1% of the population was literate. The statue I am refering to is a truer 'feminine' representation of Hatshepsut seated and wearing the nemes headcloth compared to most of the other sculptures of the Pharaoh. After taking a second look online at this statue I noticed the left side of the throne is also inscribed with the feminine forms of the words (Neter.t Nefer Neb.t Taui Ma'at-Ka-Re ...) again the ".t" denoting the femine form of the words (glyphs). Perhaps I have over looked it in the past, but I don't recall the femine forms of her titulary present in other statues or carvings of her. Plus she is more frequently shown with a masculine physique (no breasts) in most other statues. I wonder at what period of her reign is this statue from. Here is a link to a pic of this statue.By clicking on the image you can zoom in. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Neb-Ma'at-Re (edited 02 December 2003).] [This message has been edited by Neb-Ma'at-Re (edited 02 December 2003).] IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 02 December 2003 11:39 AM
Kem, I can read some glyphs but am in no way an expert. Mostly the different titles of Pharaohs, their names, names of gods. These types of things appear quite frequently and become easy to identify. These things can be self taught with almost any 'learn to read heiroglyphs' books that are available today with little effort.I couldn't just pick of some obscure papyrus and read it off without taking some time to actually decipher it with a few books at hand. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 866 |
posted 02 December 2003 12:58 PM
I believe that litteracy in the Old Kingdom was at it's higest compared to other times throughout the Egyptian's history. During the Middle Kingdom we have evidence of what peasent life was like because there is various letters written by peasents so we have a more general frame of reference to use than the Old Kingdom period. Often,peasents would allow other scribes to write letters for them for a certain price. Letters would be correspondence to others as a form of communication. This was a common pratice during the Middle Kingdom. Most likley this is where texts like the Eloquent Peasent come from. I think it would be an error to say that only 1% of the population was illiterate. It really depends which era in Egyptian history you are talking about. IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 02 December 2003 02:31 PM
"I believe that litteracy in the Old Kingdom was at it's higest compared to other times throughout the Egyptian's history." "I think it would be an error to say that only 1% of the population was illiterate." Ausar, I wrote that about only 1% of the population was LITERATE(educated) not ILLITERATE(uneducated). But I do agree that this most likely changed through out AE history. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 02 December 2003 03:24 PM
The greatest Egyptian Queen lady-ruler of the dynasty-18 pictures herself naked but with 'no breasts', against the nature of women to show their ultimate feminine beauty! That's very interesting indeed! Also, >the ".t" denoting the feminine form of the words (glyphs)< is a very interesting theory. It means that all AE rulers whom names include [X1] or (.t) are women, like (imn-m-Hat) for instance! Or may be king (tut) or king (mn-phti-ra), etc! I thought that the feminine egg [H8] or the woman [B1] graphemes are the Hieroglyphic indications of the 'feminine form'! Isn't this a picture for a young man?! IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 02 December 2003 07:48 PM
I just found this on the Met Museum website describing the statue of Hatshepsut: "Traditionally, the rulers of Egypt were male. Consequently, when Hatshepsut assumed the titles and functions of king she was portrayed in royal male costumes. Such representations were political statements, not reflections of the way she actually looked. In this finely carved sculpture she sits upon a throne and wears the royal kilt and the striped nemes (NEM-iss) headdress with the uraeus (cobra) and is bare chested like a man. However, she does not wear the royal beard, and the proportions of her body are delicate and feminine. Reading from the top down, the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the left side of the throne say "the good goddess" and "lady of the Two Lands" (Upper and Lower Egypt). On the right side Hatshepsut is described as the "daughter of Re." Small hemisphere glyphs (for "t") indicate the female gender of these royal titles. It is thought that while the main sanctuary of the temple was dedicated to the god Amun-Re, this sculpture of the queen was placed in that chamber on the south side of the temple, where Hatshepsut's personal funerary cult had its place." ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 03 December 2003 03:00 AM
This is the real 'greatness' of the traditional faked Egyptology. They find a special formula for every exception in the haphazard rules they put themselves, either in reading Hieroglyphs, king names or other countless depictions. The highly respected Egyptian royal Queen allows herself to be pictured naked with (no breasts) just to prove that she is a 'male' king but not a queen! What a theory and what an explanation?! Could anyone imagine that this may happen with the great queen of England?! Then: >>however, she does not wear the royal beard<< which means simply that this statue "is Not for a Royal Character"! How she wants to prove that she is a 'male king' then she denies that she is a royal member by not wearing the royal beard?!! We, the Egyptians, are asked to believe all these lay theories that harm and distort our great history and great Ancient Egyptian characters!! IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 03 December 2003 07:56 AM
"The highly respected Egyptian royal Queen allows herself to be pictured naked with (no breasts) just to prove that she is a 'male' king but not a queen! What a theory and what an explanation?! Could anyone imagine that this may happen with the great queen of England?!" If you know anything about the role of the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, and I'm assuming you do, you know that this position was always reserved for men, as well as any ancient civivlization. Certainly the queens of Egypt held power but not nearly to the extent of the Pharaoh. The paharaoh was always portrayed with a masculiner and fit physique to project the image of strength, not only over the peoples of Egypt, but over the enemies of Egypt. When Hatshepsut's husband, Thutmoses II died, Thutmoses III was the heir to the throne. Since he was only a child and certainly not capable of ruling a nation, Queen Hatshepsut was appointed co-regent to her young stepson Thutmoses III. In knowing he would grow and take over the throne someday and her power would diminish, she declared herself pharaoh to gain full and total control over Egypt. She did this by claiming she was born of 'Amun'. The story goes that Amun appeared to her mother in the form of her father Amenhotep II and thus she was conceived from Amun himself. Although woman's rights were more prevelent in Egypt in comparison to most other ancient civilizations, a woman "as a woman" could not project the power that a male ruler could. But a woman "as a male" would project the image of a strong monarch. So by having images of her as a male with no breasts and false beard with a masculine physic ensured her power.It was purely and utterely a politcal ploy on her part to obtain full and total control over the land of Egypt, and it worked for over 20 years! As sad is it is, even with the extent that womans rights have come in the last century in many nations, there are very few and far between female rulers/heads of state in comparison to men. This is not to say that woman are not capable, but is a reflection of the minset of the majority of the 'male' world. You ask "could anyone imagine if this were to happen with the great queen of England?" No I can't simply because the royal family no longer holds full and total power over England, and even when they did the The queens of England held more power over their nation than the queens of Egypt. I don't necessarily think it is an adequate comparison. It is all relevent to the time, nation, and the mindset of the civilization in which they ruled. "Then: >>however, she does not wear the royal beard<< which means simply that this statue "is Not for a Royal Character"! " I think that perhaps this statue was made in the later years of her reign when the fact that she was really a woman may have become a bit more accepted, and as the description from my last email states "It is thought that while the main sanctuary of the temple was dedicated to the god Amun-Re, this sculpture of the queen was placed in that chamber on the south side of the temple, where Hatshepsut's personal funerary cult had its place." "We, the Egyptians, are asked to believe all these lay theories that harm and distort our great history and great Ancient Egyptian characters!!" I then ask you my friend, what is your theory on why Hatshepsut portrayed her self as a male pharaoh, if you do not believe these "lay theories that harm and distort your great history and great Ancient Egyptian characters"? ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 03 December 2003 09:02 AM
Thank you for your kind answer. I'm quite aware of the traditional story of the Egyptian Queen (Hatshepsut!!) which is a mixture of few facts and many invented imaginations of some Egyptologists. For example: >>She did this by claiming she was born of 'Amun'. The story goes that Amun appeared to her mother in the form of her father Amenhotep II and thus she was conceived from Amun himself<< Please, could you supply me with the Hieroglyphic texts that confirm this imaginary story? >>So by having images of her as a male with no breasts and false beard with a masculine physic ensured her power<< Did AE Pharaohs ensure their powers by images and pictures? Does an image of a woman-like male with no breasts ensure power? or excites disgust? >>what is your theory on why Hatshepsut portrayed her self as a male pharaoh<< Queen (Hatshepsut!) never portrayed herself as a 'male'. Being the 'king' she used the usual AE Hieroglyphic symbology to say that she is the 'ruler'. For example she portrayed herself as a recumbent lion with a beard but with her face appearing like a real beautiful woman. Here she wanted to say: I'm the 'king', I'm the 'sponsor' or 'guardian', I fully devote myself to the Lord, BUT I'm a Real Beautiful Woman. It is only Hieroglyphic symbology that misleads some non-versed Egyptologists to let them think that she portrayed herself as a 'male'!! I don't think that any normal woman, even if she is a ruler, wishes to be portrayed as a 'male'!! Second, please let's read the name of this famous queen according to the traditional rules of Egyptology. It reads in Hieroglyphs like this: [M17-Y5:N35-W9:X1-E4:X1-A50-Z3]. According to Gardiner phonations this reads as: [imn-khnmt-Hat-shps] Why [imn] and [khnmt] parts of the name were omitted? Then from where this additional (.ut) came from? Then are these phonations really correct? Is the real name of this great queen: IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 866 |
posted 03 December 2003 10:48 AM
Actually,if you notice the traditional scenes you get the impression that the size of the female and male in the soceity were of the same size. As opposed to Mesopotamian soceity where females were depicted as smaller than the traditional rulers. This is true for commoner and royalthy alike.
IP: Logged |
|
Osiris II Junior Member Posts: 16 |
posted 03 December 2003 03:26 PM
Alsaawadawi-4, you ask for hieroglyphs that confirm the born or Amun story--read any copy of the text that Hapshepsut had carved into the walls of her funerary temple. To say that a statue of a woman with no breasts promotes disgust is to completely miss the point of the statue itself. Unfortunately, in our society--and in ancient Egyptian society as well--a woman could not hold the same power as a man who was Pharoah. Hapshepsut had herself portrayed with male features to show that she had every right to rule. Amun had given her that right. She was not saying that she was a man, but that her god had given a woman the right to rule as a man. Any sybolizim you can find in the spelling of her name is, at best, unimportant. No matter how her name was spelled, the fact remains that she, herself, had statues made--of herself--as a male. IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 03 December 2003 04:45 PM
"Queen (Hatshepsut!) never portrayed herself as a 'male'. Being the 'king' she used the usual AE Hieroglyphic symbology to say that she is the 'ruler'." Ex. - Here are two links with a photos of a knealing Hatshepsut making an offereing (to Amun?). It can clearly be seen that these separate but very similar statues (side by side at the Met in NYC) are masculine images without female breasts and bering a false beard(note:she is not wearing a false beard because she is female. Many pharoahs also wore false beards. It is purely symbolic.) http://www.geocities.com/princenexus/article2.htm http://arts.lausd.k12.ca.us/history/egypt/images/a-1268.jpg "Why [imn] and [khnmt] parts of the name were omitted? Then from where this additional (.ut) came from? Then are these phonations really correct? Is the real name of this great queen: Yes it is her full name, however, It would not be read Amun-Khnumet-Hatshepsut. It would be read Hatshepsut-Khnumet-Amun(the name of the god pronounced last). It translates to "Foremost of Female Nobles, Joined with Amun". When actually viewing her name in heiroglyphs you will notice the small half round circle in front of the seated figure. The seated figure is the symbol for noble.The 3 dashes behind the figure gives the 'u' sound is plural (nobles) and the small half round circle (.t) makes the symbol feminine (female nobles). The term "Amun-Khnumet (Joined with Amun)" is not often encluded when speaking her name simply because it is not necessary. If you were to look at Tut-Ankh-Amun's cartouche you will see that below the glyphs for "Tut-Ankh-Amun" (Living image of Amun)" are symbols for "Ruler of Was(Thebes)". When saying his name we don't say "Tut-Ankh-Amun, Ruler of Thebes" do we??!! Nefertiti's full name is "Nefer-Neferuaten-Nefertiti" but we refer to her as Nefertiti. Plus, pharaohs always had two names and two cartouches (excluding some of the very first pharaohs). One name was the 'birth name' and one was the 'throne' name. Her birth name was "Hatshepsut-Khnumet-Amun". But this is not what the people of Egypt and people of foreign lands knew her by. Instead she was known to these people as "Ma'at-Kha-Re(Ma'at is the Kha of Ra(Re)" her throne name, which has no ".t" to distinguish a female gender. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Neb-Ma'at-Re (edited 03 December 2003).] [This message has been edited by Neb-Ma'at-Re (edited 03 December 2003).] IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 03 December 2003 07:35 PM
>>She did this by claiming she was born of 'Amun'. The story goes that Amun appeared to her mother in the form of her father Amenhotep II and thus she was conceived from Amun himself<< oops. My mistake. Her father was not Amenhotep II but rather Thutmoses I. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 04 December 2003 12:42 AM
The two links you quoted proves definitely the correctness of my statement that queen (Hatshepsut!) never portrayed herself as a 'male'. These statues or depictions are symbolic showing a True man figure holding two (nw) [W24] bottles kneeling down in prayers position. The (nw) bottle here means (nwr = light). I explained this picture on my website under deciphering of AE pictures. This picture was repeated many times thru different AE eras to confirm the meaning of this AE famous religious statement "prayers bring you out from darkness to light". It has nothing to do with queen (Hatshepsut!) portraying herself as a 'male'. This proves also that some Egyptologists are not able yet to read the Egyptian Hieroglyphs correctly. Sorry, I can't agree with your explanation about the name of this queen, either in phonation or meaning. [M17-Y5:N35] could Never be read as 'Amun'. It is (imn). The three vertical dashes [Z3] do not read as (u). This is just a guess. [X1] or (.t) do not necessarily denote a female gender. I explained this many times before. There are thousands of Egyptian words that end with [X1] but having not female gender. If Hieroglyphs speak about a 'real' woman or a goddess or a queen then we should have here [X1:H8] or (.t) joined to the woman-egg grapheme. Or it uses [B1] the woman grapheme, or [B7] the queen grapheme as in the case of queen (titi!). IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 04 December 2003 06:43 AM
quote: You've got to be kidding me, right? Your saying that these statues of Hatshepsut, of which you agree are of a male figure, are not Hatshepsut as a male. You say they are a symbolic showing of a 'True man' holding the(nw) bottles in prayer position. It is not just any 'True man'it is the image of a Pharaoh!!!!! So I guess your saying that Hatshepsut, while she was ruling as Pharaoh, just had some generic statues made in the image of some anonymous Pharaoh. Sorry I don't buy it.
"[X1] or (.t) do not necessarily denote a female gender. I explained this many times before. There are thousands of Egyptian words that end with [X1] but having not female gender. If Hieroglyphs speak about a 'real' woman or a goddess or a queen then we should have here [X1:H8] or (.t) joined to the woman-egg grapheme. Or it uses [B1] the woman grapheme, or [B7] the queen grapheme as in the case of queen (titi!)." You are correct that there are thousands of words that use the "t" symbol but do not denote female gender. They are used as phontetic complements as many alphabetical symbols are, but because there is not "t" sound in the symbol "Shps" it is not a complementary symbol and is used as a gender symbol. The use as a gender symbol can clearly be seen in the statue is i spoke of in the original post on this thread. Similar prenomen of Pharoahs (Neter Nefer, Sa Re) do not include the "t" symbol. However in this particular statute of a female depiction of Hatshepsut they do!!!!! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 04 December 2003 09:28 AM
I'm sorry to say this, but all your explanations are non-scientific and non-professional. You said before: >> however, It would not be read Amun-Khnumet-Hatshepsut. It would be read Hatshepsut-Khnumet-Amun (the name of the god pronounced last)<< Then you say now: >>Amenhotep I-IV<<. Why don't you say "hotepAmen" according to your rule, or (Hat-em-Amun) or (Hat-em-Amen) instead of (Amen-em-Hat), etc! You see, there is NO Rule in reading names of kings in traditional Egyptology. In fact, it is a whole mess! Then you say: >>However you or anyone else chooses to pronounce them (Imn, Imen, Amen, Amun) it is the same three glyphs with the same meanings!!!<< This is again a non-professional statement. It is like saying that anyone can read the English word (ill) as (all) or (ell) or (yell)!!!! Here we have different meaning in each case, but for you they are all the same. Please, let me repeat it again: [M17-Y5:N35] could never be read as 'Amun' or 'Amen' and it does NOT mean god 'Amen'! (i) is not (a) in the Egyptian language. This is the first principles in reading Egyptian Hieroglyphs! Then you say: >>It is not just any 'True man' it is the image of a Pharaoh!<< Not all such figures are images of pharaohs. The image you quoted in particular include the crook scepter [S38] attached to the 'nm-s' headdress. Could you really read this Hieroglyphic combination? I tell you. It means "truthful believing men". This statement confirms my explanation that the "the truthful believing men" kneel down in prayers position to refer to the AE famous religious statement "prayers get you out from darkness to light". All that has Nothing to do with queen (Hatshepsut!) exposing herself as a 'male'! BTW, thank you for this rare and amazing picture because it includes [S38] which has a great meaning to me. Regarding the three vertical dashes [Z3] why don't you track some words including it in any professional Hieroglyphic dictionary and write down their phones then judge it? For example: in Wallis Budge EHD p.2b we find the word: [G1-M17-M17-X1:N38-Z3]. He offered it the phonetic value (ait), why didn't he read it as (aitu). Also on page 7.a we find: [G1-D21:E23-M17-M17-Z3]. He read it as (arri), why didn't he read it as (arriu). I can go on reading hundreds of such examples. Again there is No Rule here but a mess! IP: Logged |
|
Neb-Ma'at-Re Member Posts: 80 |
posted 04 December 2003 02:49 PM
You wrote: "I'm sorry to say this, but all your explanations are non-scientific and non-professional.[[M17-Y5:N35] could never be read as 'Amun' or 'Amen' and it does NOT mean god 'Amen'! (i) is not (a) in the Egyptian language. It is (imn). The three vertical dashes [Z3] do not read as (u). This is just a guess."
I agree that the rules on reading kings names may be a mess but since we don't exactly know the exact pronunciation or the order in which names were read, in sticking to traditional methods that put the name in an order that is in context with their meaning, Hatshepsut's full name would be read as I mentioned. Ramses II throne name User-Ma'at-Re Setep-en-Re does not appear in that order in his cartouche but it is read that way in keeping with the context and meaning of the words (glyphs), so do both of Tut's names (Tut-Ankh-amun, and Neb-Khepheru-Re) beacuse of the meanings of these symbols. Ok, look we can go back and forth on this forever and will still end up in the same place that we started. Even though I don't agree with you, I respect your thoughts and opinions, but we are spending a lot of energy trying to convince each other of something that neither of us will accept. The fact of the matter is, we are arguing over a language that has not been spoken for millenia and nither of us have solid evidence of how such names were read or pronounced. I extend my hand in peace. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 04 December 2003 04:04 PM
>>The fact of the matter is, we are arguing over a language that has not been spoken for millenia and neither of us have solid evidence of how such names were read or pronounced<< No, we the indigenous rural Egyptians have solid evidence of how such names were read and exactly pronounced but foreign peoples don't wish to listen. They only wish to listen to their own voices and believe only their biased and filtered points of view. It is hard for you to believe this unless you speak the 'real' Egyptian spoken language, which has never changed one bit from far pre-dynastic times up today! >>I extend my hand in peace<< Me also, I extend my hand in peace respecting all your traditional points of view from which I admit that I have learned much. I appreciate also your moderate and decent attitude. Thank you. [S29-S34] = peace Ossama Alsaadawi IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 866 |
posted 05 December 2003 07:21 AM
''The fact of the matter is, we are arguing over a language that has not been spoken for millenia and nither of us have solid evidence of how such names were read or pronounced. I extend my hand in peace.'' I am not of the belief that the ancient Kemetian[Egyptian] language is dead. I believe,like Alsaadawi,that rual areas still pocess a great deal of their indigenous language. The only problem is that few scholars have even attempted to reserch the rual Sa3eadi in Upper Egypt. More reserch must be conducted to find this out. Alsaadawi,are you familar with Antonio Loprieno? He has a book entitled ''Ancient Egyptian: a Linguistic Introduction''. Do you think that Budge is a little outdated? IP: Logged |
|
Alsaadawi-4 Junior Member Posts: 14 |
posted 05 December 2003 10:56 AM
Ausar, yes I'm quite aware of the works of Prof. Antonio Loprieno and many other great Profs of Egyptian language. Wallis Budge is the most 'honest' great Egyptologist and linguist ever shown in the field of Egyptian language. There is no comparable dictionary written in English to his great EHD. Even the German Worterbuch, which is also very great, has not reached the scientific level of Wallis Budge EHD. I'm not speaking about the correctness of his translations but in fact I'm speaking about the huge volume of Hieroglyphic words and expressions he gathered together with the names of AE kings and towns. It is an amazing historical effort that goes beyond capabilities of many specialized scholars. His work saves a lot of precious times searching after some words or expressions. It is really good to find most of them in one great reference. I deeply respect this great man. Sir Gardiner also made a great work by filing and listing most of the important AE Hieroglyphs in English alpha-numeric coding to make them much easier to be handled and recognized without the need to draw them as real graphemes and without the need to use the horrible wrong phonations of the glyphs. Also there are many other great men in the field who helped the Egyptian language be known in a better way. No, Wallis Budge is not outdated and will never be. IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 866 |
posted 05 December 2003 12:22 PM
What do you recommend a novice person,such as myself,do to learn the Mdu Ntr[hieropglypics?] I really would love to teach myself,and so I would like to know materials to start from. IP: Logged |
|
Wally Junior Member Posts: 18 |
posted 05 December 2003 12:48 PM
quote: The right side was inscribed with the "Son of Re" prenomen, however, it read "Sa.t Re". The 't' in Sa.t representing the femine form of the word. Please consider the following which may serve to clarify matters: Reference my: geocities.com/wally_mo/names.html Thanks IP: Logged |
|
Wally Junior Member Posts: 18 |
posted 05 December 2003 01:46 PM
Addendum for further clarification: Sa(sah)(Egyptian) = man;male;son Sa.t(seh)(Egyptian) = woman;female;daughter Ht = Het = in front;foremost;first IP: Logged |
All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EgyptSearch!
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c