EgyptSearch Forums
Ancient Egypt and Egyptology Should we compare Ancient Nubia with AE? [i]More or less same[/i] [b]OR[/b]
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Author | Topic: Should we compare Ancient Nubia with AE? [i]More or less same[/i] [b]OR[/b] |
supercar Member Posts: 559 |
posted 30 July 2004 12:47 AM
Kenndo writes: "I agree,the two greatest would be nubia and egypt,but nubia more so because it was first and it's greater creative culture in merotic times,values, building and it became more powerful than egypt as well and it's greater impact on africa in the long run if you combine these things,but the question should be who became the most advanced,in ancient times,and the middle ages.IN ancient times that would be nubia in late ancient times,than axum would be second.other african cultures in terms of advancement would become more advanced than egypt as well AND MODERN africa would be more developed dispite the problems.IF EGYPT was still free and not under roman or arab rule it might have been on the level of other africa cultures today,but the nubians in egypt still have thier culture,and i feel sorry for the rest of the black egyptians who's culture is from ancient egypt." There are people who say that Nubian and AE civilizations are almost the same, and peoples from both civilization, have influenced one another in various time frames. Some argue that AE civilization poured into Nubia, and had a more profound influence, than the other way around. Others provide the counter argument, that the origins of AE can be traced to Nubia, and that Nubia did indeed have a profound influence on Egyptians, maybe more so than the other way around. Some advocate that since Nubian and AE civilizations are virtually an extension of one another, then it is not worthwhile to make a comparison between the two, as far as which one is greater. Then, of course, others insist that there are differences in detail that shouldnt be overlooked, which would determine the greater civilization of the two. Does this matter or not? IP: Logged |
ausar Moderator Posts: 2159 |
posted 30 July 2004 02:26 AM
I believe ,like Frank Joseph Yurco does,that Nubians on the pre-dyanstic era shared and developed a similar culture;however overtime the two began to drift apart and develop separately. During the dyanstic times some Nubians were friendly and others were more hostile to Egyptians. Definatley out of all the foreginers the Nubians adapted the most and lived amungst the Egyptians in relative peaces. We see othertimes when bitter conflicts between the two seem to dampen the friendship. Many pharoahs that reigned in Egypt in their propersity were of Nubian ancestry like the 12th dyansty for instance. Although these Nubians would have identified with Egypt culturally instead of Nubia.
IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 30 July 2004 05:54 AM
Both civilizations look the same but if you look closely they had many differences. I have seen the opinion that Nubia was just a remote part of Egypt like the Sinai peninsula, but I think that view diminishes some of the greatness of the Nubian people. They had many achievements seperate from Egypt and their culture lived on for centuries after dynastic Egypt faded away... IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 30 July 2004 06:57 AM
Nubia/Ta-Seti was ancestral to Kemet. Kemet was the daughter of Nubia. Nubia and Kemet were sisters. Nubia was the student of Kemet. Nubia and Kemet were mortal enemies. Kemet was an imperialist oppressor of Nubia. Nubia was the direct descendant of Kemet. * I think the division of civilization into Egypt and Nubia is confusing and inaccurate. The inaccuracies are intentional and perpetuate Pan European Egyptology, while disguising much terrible truth. (like the reality of why for 3,000 years Kemet is perpetually being divided between the delta and the South) I prefer the term Nile Valley civilizations (compare with Mesopotamia), and then sort out with accuracy the political, religious and other distinctions, which are often quite complicated and do not, for most of history "divide neatly" into Egypt and Nubia. I have heard scholars say they wish Africans would 'stick to Nubia'. Paws off Egypt! lol. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2004).] IP: Logged |
homeylu Member Posts: 454 |
posted 30 July 2004 08:53 AM
Rasol from that you link you posted, Diops confirmed that the individuals marching in front of the Pharoah are Nubian warriors, as the insignia they are carrying- symbol of Jackal and Sparrow Hawk are both Nubia totems. And classical author Herodotus wrote Darn, did I quote something about Black skin? Oh well IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 30 July 2004 10:43 AM
Who were the ancient Nubians: quote:www.nubianet.org Nubianet is probably the most comprehensive resource for Nubianology online... IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 30 July 2004 02:17 PM
I remember a while back i talked to tim kendall of the boston museum .I SAID to him if he agree with some africanist scholars and nubian ones if nubia really had a written language before the 8th cen. b.c. IN the book the destruction of black civilization,chancellor said that picture writing was formed much earlier,and i ask tim does that count as writing,he said no,but others nubian and african scholars said yes,but tim is not a really a scholar on nubian history but he writes on the subject and wrote a book on the kerma period.scholars do have egyptian writing in nubia use by some nubians in the kerma period before the 8th cen. b.c.,and like i said new things always come up,and we could read the writings of the nubians after the meroitic period,but much more has to be put out there or deciphered ,and read in books.I blame the scholars on this and the civil war in the sudan.I AGREE that nubia started out more advanced than egypt since nubia was first,but egypt later was on the same level and on average pass the nubians,for awhile,than the nubians really started to be on the same level again in the new kingdom from the conquered regions of upper and lower nubia,but that was when they were conquered,and learned new things from egypt and when they broke away they may have some writings but they really started using it in the 8th cen. b.c.,and gave egypt some new ideas and they progress further,but nubia really started progressing further than ancient egypt in meroitic times, and later up to now.southern nubia led the way from meroe and meriotic ideas went to lower and upper nubia and beyond.we must study nubia but egypt is still part of african history,and we can't let most OF ancient egypt go and some parts of later egypt because africans still live there today but i do not want to claim egypt under rulers that are not african .we must study the african parts of egypt even today with nubia. [This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 30 July 2004).] IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 30 July 2004 10:42 PM
I ALMOST forgot to mention as well that we could read some of the meroitic script,but the longest parts and most of the scripts we can't read yet,hopefully one day we could,but there is slow progress,and scholars use computers today.that is one way of during it ,but it will take time,and to study more of the african languages related to meroitic and later nubian. IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 30 July 2004 11:08 PM
quote: It's amazing to think that in WWII, the greatest minds in the "west" went to work creating encrypted codes for military communications (such as the german enigma machine), only to have those codes broken by the intensive efforts of their wartime enemies. Meanwhile, an ancient African writing system has remained indecipherable! IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 31 July 2004 09:07 AM
quote: Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Nubians were Asiatic, it would be a matter of common knowledge repeated in every textbook that "Egypt was founded by Nubians", who united the country by conquering the delta. As there is more proof for that, than half of the largely speculative assumptions that make up much of modern "Egyptology". But Nubians = African. Therefore such a view is not "acceptable". IP: Logged |
supercar Member Posts: 559 |
posted 31 July 2004 07:17 PM
If I am not mistaken, I feel a hint of politically correctness on this panel so far. It seems as though, some are trying to avoid calling one civilization better than the other. Instead, I hear people speak of Egyptian civilization having progressed relatively faster than the Nubian one at one point, and then Nubia catching up and even outlasting the dynastic Egypt. Maybe it is just about being frank. Is what is said here so far, really the extent of what each person thinks? Personally, I think if there is to be any comparison between the two, the differences in detail should be considered, but also based on particular time frames. In other words, since they were both great civilizations, and had "similar" cultures to some extent, emphasis should be placed on periods in which either played a relatively greater or more influencial role than the other! This would not negate the greatness of either party in the process, because contact had been constantly maintained between the two cultures, that in some ways as expressed by one poster earlier, there can't be a clear cut demarcation between the two. Nubia for one, extended from Sudan to the southernmost part of Egypt! [This message has been edited by supercar (edited 31 July 2004).] IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 01 August 2004 03:38 AM
NUBIA was greater at first,but egypt advanced the knowledge,more so in the old,middle and new kingdom.IN THE SAME time periods of the old,middle,and new kingdom egypt was the greatest civilization.Art,math,science,morals,etc became more developed in egypt. Nubia took this updated knowledge in the new kingdom period,but it became more widespread in the 8th cen.b.c. and in the 7th cen. b.c . Iron was made but not use and bronze was still mainly used.SOME NEW forms Armies were more better developed,the better use of the sail,a water clock,sunclock,and a independent advancement in science,medicine,math,technology,writing,art,fashion,engineering,building, the water wheel and other things i have not mention here.From the book destruction of black civilization-the africans met the challenge by constructing a national system of reservoirs,new forms of architectural art that found expression in their beautiful statues,temples,palaces,columns,pyramids and other great buildings.IN ANOTHER STUDY A SCHOLAR SAID ,most folks could read in nubia.IN THE BOOK the destruction of black civilization,chancellor williams,a great african scholar,said the reservoirs were more significant than the monuments important as these were in hiding the black man's intellecectual achievments in the invention of writing deep under the sands and MR.WILLIAMS rates the reservoirs as the supreme achievement because he said they reflect the real measure of african man as he met the challenge to survival head-on,with a constructive counter-attack against the adverse forces of earth,sun, and sky.The irrigation system,made reasonably effective with thier oxen-powered wheels,was a part of this challenge to adverse circumstances-FROM CHANCELLOR WILLIAMS.THE GREAT AFRICAN SCHOLAR AND SOME INFO FROM HIM BELOW.SOME OTHER INFO WAS TAKEN FROM OTHER AFRICAN AND NUBIAN HISTORY BOOKS OR SCHOLARS. THERE WAS A education advancement as well,and more needs to be learn about this great period in african history.THAT IS Why nubian and african scholars have said that the meriotic period in nubia is greater than any period in egypt's history. CHRISTIAN nubia was more advanced than the meroitic and richer but had less greater independent achievements,but morals were more developed,government as well and a greater use of steel to protect the kingdoms from outsiders and widespread building and new great buildings as well, and new art. A new nubian script was created,using greek with some meriotic letters but it was in nubian,and other scripts were used as well.IT WAS a richer region than in the past and more folks could read and write and the standard of living was higher, and there were drainage and CENTRAL water systems,PUBLIC LATRINES, and more developed math,science,medicine, widespread use of steel and terrace farming that was irrigated by water wheels constructed for high places,wide avenues lined with palm trees,public baths, countless craft industries,huge farms with extensive pastures where camels,horses,oxen,cows,sheep,goats and pigs could be seen grazing lazily,magnificent stone and brick palaces,temples,churches,cathedrals, government buildings and the massive brickmaking industry had led to homes of brick and stone in cities,towns,and villiages-brick houses,and larger houses for the great common people.There were some OTHER things as well,but not mention here. THE muslim period was great but not as great and great creative things happen today dealing with the culture. SO if you take the meroitic,christian periods alone or combine them,they would be the greater than any period in egyptian history,past or present.IF you add the muslim,kerma ,early or modern periods,this would make nubian civilization even greater and it is all black and african. IN THE LINK BELOW IT DOES NOT MENTION THAT AFTER CHRISTAIN NUBIA WAS THE MUSLIM PERIOD RULED MOSTLY BY NUBIANS,AND THE ETHIOPIANS THAT CONQUERED SOME PARTS OF THE MEROE REGION FOR ONLY A SHORT TIME WERE THE AXUMITES AND IT REALLY WAS MORE OF A RAID BECAUSE THIER CONQUEST WAS SHORT AND THAN THEY WERE KICKED OUT BY THE NUBIANS.JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP BEFORE ANYONE CLICK BELOW. [This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 01 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 01 August 2004 08:09 AM
PLEASE READ SOME OF NEW THE INFO I PUT IN TODAY,LOOK ABOVE.SOME OF THE INFO IS FROM CHANCELLOR WILLIAMS BOOK AND OTHER AFRICAN AND NUBIAN HISTORY BOOKS.THE SAME INFO is from afro-centric and mainstream african history books,but one view puts a spin on it,and the other is just history and culture,but with dealing with nubia they mostly both correct,and there is some errors in most or maybe all history books,but the info i have written here is accurate,or like i just said, correct. [This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 01 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 01 August 2004 11:25 AM
All good links, thanks. Everything has some kind of spin. Even Nubiannet.org has a certain spin. I've never read anything about Nubia or Egypt that could be called "definitive". When you begin by using names that do not actually correspond to the orignal names for the states in question...you are already 'knee deep' in 'spin'. IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 01 August 2004 01:01 PM
We've only barely scratched the surface on Nubianology. There is a lot more to be discovered buried under the sand in Sudan. There is a lot we may never know because of how much had been lost in the destruction of the great library of Alexandria... IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 01 August 2004 04:39 PM
Here's another good site about Nubia: http://www.numibia.net/nubia/ There are also links to other sites about Nubia http://www.numibia.net/nubia/links.htm
quote: [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 01 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 01 August 2004 08:30 PM
quote:
IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 01 August 2004 08:35 PM
quote: Nubians were big mercenaries so I wouldn't doubt that they LIVED in places like ancient Israel or ancient Greece and Rome. I've even read about Nubian style burials being found in Carthage. However, I can't imagine those places still having Nubian populations today. Do you know of any present-day Nubian communites outside Egypt and Sudan? [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 01 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 01 August 2004 08:41 PM
BY the way the numbers for the nubians reach around 15 to 20 million in the past but the reason the number was lower in 1956,is because of the wars with the brits,arabs , others and other factors.numbers might have been higher even in 1956,but now they are growing again. IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 01 August 2004 08:43 PM
quote: yes,america,kenya,uganda,ethiopia,places in europe and africa,southwest asia, south africa and other places that i can't recall now.uganda has over 100,000. [This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 01 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
Kem-Au Member Posts: 714 |
posted 03 August 2004 09:05 AM
quote: Ausar, I agree that there were two similar cultures that gradually evolved into more distinct cultures in pre-dynastic time (though there were probably more than two cultures), but I think we need to be careful when comparing cultures in Egypt with cultures in the modern Sudan. First in both Egypt and Nubia, different people held power at different times. Also, when do we determine that these civilizations ended? Is it when they are no longer ruled by native people, ie the Assyrians in Egypt, or when there are strong cultural shifts ie the Arabs gaining power in both regions? The reason I say this is because while both regions had their distinctive features, the lives of the common people may not have been all that different. For example, they seemed to have had each other's back in conflict. We know that certain Nubians would come to the aid of Egyptians in a crisis. And we now at least have reason to believe that Egypt to led missions to liberate certain Nubians from other people we probably also called Nubians. Also Egyptians felt that Nubians were the closest of all foreigners to the gods. I simply don't think we know how long the cultures lasted becuase they may have moved back and forth amongst each other. Some Egyptians could have moved south, some Nubians north. Our modern language could be confusing things. Perhaps if we were a little more specific. And I don't see how we could possibly measure which civilization was greater. IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 03 August 2004 10:05 AM
One area that I'd like to know more about are Egypt's conquests of Nubia. I only know of this happeneing twice in history, once in the Middle Kingdom and once at the start of the New Kingdom. The Kushite Nubians seemed to have put up heavy resistance to the Egyptians in the war started by Kamose because it took almost 100 years for the Kushites to be defeated. From their heavy resistance to Egyptian rule, it seems they had pretty strong differences from the Egyptians... IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 03 August 2004 11:23 AM
Medjay Policemen in Egypt: quote:http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/war2.htm IP: Logged |
blackman Member Posts: 110 |
posted 03 August 2004 11:50 AM
quote: Neo, The Americans are/were an extension of British people. Just because two people fight doesn't mean they are that different. However, I know people like to constantly show the Egyptians fought Nubians to try and show a dislike and overlook/forget the conflicts with non-Afircans. IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 03 August 2004 12:00 PM
quote: I'm fully aware of the conflicts with other non-Africans and also the fact that Nubians assimilated to Egyptian society much more frequently, and easier than other ethnic groups. However, the Kushites came from upper Nubia so they were likely to be less "Egyptianized" than lower Nubian tribe like the Medjay. Nubians even fought alongside Egyptians in their wars in Nubia. I think the Kushites just wanted to be independent from Egypt. IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 03 August 2004 12:20 PM
quote: Correct. Just another way of trying to imply that Kemet is non-African. And of course the fundemental nature of the "two-lands" conflict....the essential "Egyptian" conflict is purposefully disguised. IP: Logged |
supercar Member Posts: 559 |
posted 03 August 2004 01:58 PM
quote: I would consider the destruction of the "native" political system as the "decline" of the civilization, because the culture will live on in one form or the other. In Egypt, it is well known that foreigners ruled at some point in time but they didn't change the Egyptian Pharaonic system. However, we see this change after the Roman rule and the coming of new conquerors who took it upon themselves to destroy the pharaonic political structure and system. The pharaonic system was deeply tied to the Kemetian religion, and the priests were very influencial in the political system. The same was true for Ancient Nubia. In the case of Nubia and Kemet, the new imperialist rulers sought to change the identity of these people by superficially calling them "Arabs". I say superficial, because speaking the conquerors' language(s) and adopting their religion, rarely kills the traditions and true identity of the conquered people. Hence, knowing fully well that the the political structure of both civilizations was connected to their religous institutions, the imperialists decided to break down the religous traditions, and introduce their own political system and relgious institutions. This would only result in the end of the political structure set up by the natives, but not totally highjack their culture. Since civilization is a combination of cultural and technological development, I would say that those civilizations "declined" rather than to say they "ended", when the indigenous political structure, which was often tied to the traditional religion, were disrupted and the conquerors sought to change the identity of the natives so as to promote their imperialist goals! IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 03 August 2004 06:12 PM
TH E NUBIAN political system has not ended but did decline in modern times,and some nubians are semi- free with the africans of southern sudan.THE culture did not deline,because after meroe,there was post meroe than christian and muslim nubia,and those periods were not as great but more advanced.get the book the kingdom of alwa and the kingdom of kush by derek welsby.another one is the medieval kingdoms of nubia, by him.look it up on the internet.LIKE i said before, the arabs never took over all of the sudan,and the nubians in early modern times took back most of it.it was the british who gave it to the arabs and now they fight with the africans,and a nubian did rule the sudan between 1968 and 1985.THE NUBIAN civilization and culture is still here and even thier older faith mix with islam.they even control some areas in the sudan,with the arabs and other africans,so some are semi- independent. zulu civilization under white rule in south africa still existed and it is still here today and more advanced.most AFRICAN civilizations of the past are still here even if thier group have little or major control of thier states .example-the swahili civilization is still here but they do not control kenya,and have little control where there are at, but other african groups control kenya.THE SWAHILI also live in other east african states by the way. THE EGYPTIANS INVADED ONLY LOWER NUBIA during the middle kingdom of egypt,but kerma in upper nubia was getting stronger,and ancient egypt invaded upper and lower nubia but failed to get southern nubia.southern nubia is where meroe later would be built.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 03 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
ausar Moderator Posts: 2159 |
posted 03 August 2004 06:44 PM
Here is some quotes from Frank Joseph Yurco that might be useful:
The reason for the virulence of the Egyptian attack on Kush in early The capture of this message drove home the plight of Egypt. Already Thus there is no need to invoke racial hatred, in Thutmose hanging the Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco
If in C-Group, the local Nubians were able to create a mini-state by Most sincerely, IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 03 August 2004 11:09 PM
quote:
One reason it is clear that peoples like Emily Vermeule are dishonest is because given the way they think (ie - racial animus is natural), it is impossible for them to not see the nature of the two lands conflict. And isn't it odd, that the so called Ethoipian Dynasty (25th) has such reverence for old Narmer? http://www.websn.com/Pride/Pride/pharaoh_menes.htm By contrast, few of the non-African rulers had any reverence for the original Pharoahs for the same reasons that the Arab rulers don't revere them today. People like Emily Vermeule simply practise a modern version of tomb raiding, equivelant to hacking the noses off the statues...so as to eliminate history that they find "threatening" to the Aryan race myths that go by the name of "Classical" history. IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 03 August 2004 11:28 PM
quote: We have to be careful not to use the name "Cushite." Just because Nefertari was a Nubian doesn't mean she came from the Kushite kingdom from southern Sudan. The lower Nubians were always friendly to Egyptians. Most of the hostile Nubians came from upper Nubia. Even though the Kushites would later unite with Egypt in the 25th dynasty, they were warring with the Thebeans during the New Kingdom.
quote: Not odd at all... The author of that excerpt you posted is an idiot by the way. The wars between Egyptians and Nubians were no more racial than wars between Pakistan and India... [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 03 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
ausar Moderator Posts: 2159 |
posted 03 August 2004 11:44 PM
These are the same people who claim the word Nehsi means Negro when it translates in simply riverline Nubians. The Senworset III stela states that no Nehsi shall pass except to trade,but the foolish people take this to mean some Jim Crow situlation in Egypt. Which is foolish considering that the 12th dyansty which Senowrset III belonged to came from the modern region of Aswan. Even newer Egyptology books like Ian Shaw's Oxford Dictionary of Ancient Egypt uses the outdated James Henery Breasted translations to denote Nehsi meaning Negro. What a shamful road it has been for 19th and 20th century Egyptology.
IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 04 August 2004 12:06 AM
quote: Yes, they can't figure out why the country was called Kemet, (such a mystery!) but they've managed to translate a 15th century European racial slur ..... into ancient "Egyptian". Brilliant. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 365 |
posted 04 August 2004 12:07 AM
quote:
IP: Logged |
neo*geo Member Posts: 426 |
posted 04 August 2004 03:09 PM
Egyptian line of kingship continued briefly at Napata: "1. The Napatan Period After the expulsion of the Kushite court from Egypt by the invading Assyrian armies, the royal family regrouped in Nubia and consolidated its hold over all their lands south of Aswan. Although their armies were too weakened to attempt another assault on the north, the kings merely ignored their new Egyptian rivals of Dynasty 26 and continued to use all the proper Egyptian royal titles and to maintain steadfastly that they were the true kings of Egypt. By the late seventh century, the continued pretensions of the Kushites to the Egyptian throne must have become intolerable to the new Egyptian kings. Thus in 593 BC, with an army composed largely of Greek and Carian mercenaries, the pharaoh Psammeticus II invaded Kush. His troops met and destroyed a Kushite army south of the Third Cataract, while another force seems to have struck out across the Nubian Desert and launched a surprise attack on Napata, sacking and burning the city and destroying the palace and temples. The Kushite king Aspelta (ca. 600-580 BC), a grandson or great-grandson of Taharqa, apparently fled to Mero for safety. After his reign, however, our historical records become very scarce and our knowledge of historical events in Kush becomes very imperfect." IP: Logged |
kenndo Member Posts: 56 |
posted 04 August 2004 04:41 PM
quote: True,but much more writing came in during the meriotic period,and some of the meroitic we could read and we know more about the culture of the meriotic period than the napatan,but more needs do be done for meriotic.meriotic hieroglyphics were used and later a meriotic alphabet.some greek and roman scripts were found but only a small amount and egyptian hieroglyphics were still used but it was not the main writing system anymore and one reason the egyptian forces pulled back IS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT HOLD ON AND because they could not reach any further and take that chance. IP: Logged |
All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c