|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 The Nail in the coffin... (Page 4)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: The Nail in the coffin... |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 12 December 2004 07:41 PM
  
quote: At one point I would have agreed but my respect has grown for Hawass after reading 2 of his books over the past year. Like our moderator, he shows a great passion for protecting his ancestors' legacy. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 12 December 2004 07:49 PM
quote: Thought Writes: How do you know that Hawass had ancestors that were Ancient Egyptians? This is akin to claiming that President George Bush had Native American ancestors. IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 12 December 2004 08:09 PM
quote: How do you know who your ancestors are? IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 12 December 2004 08:28 PM
quote: Thought Writes: I do not know where my ancestry stretches over 2,000 years ago. Genetics would be the only tool to help us with that. One should never assume. IP: Logged |
|
blackman Member Posts: 204 |
posted 12 December 2004 10:55 PM
quote: neo*geo, IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1528 |
posted 12 December 2004 11:34 PM
quote:
quote:Just noticed this one. Most likely Neo got his Two lands = red land and black land from Hawass, who in turn got it from Mertz, because I've read Hawass who repeats this rubbish in some of his poorly written articles. Diop is to Hawass as maat is to isofret. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
HERU Junior Member Posts: 22 |
posted 13 December 2004 08:42 AM
This is a little off topic but what the hell. Recently a book called "The Mammoth Book of Eyewitness: Ancient Egypt" was released last year and in the introduction the author refers to Nubia as "The Land of the Negro". Is this correct? Was Nubia really called "The Land of the Negro"? IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1528 |
posted 13 December 2004 09:15 AM
quote: It is completely incorrect. Negro is a Latin/Portugese term 1st used to describe people in the 16th century. It means black. In mdw ntr the word for black is kem. nub in mdw ntr means 'gold'. The Romans used 'nubia' to describe a region in Kemet (Ancient Egypt) where gold was mined. The ongoing effort to turn nubian or nehasy in a euphemism for negro or black, and to hide the fact that the word AE used to describe themselves -> kememu means precisely black people, constitute related efforts to quite literally, rewrite history. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 13 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 13 December 2004 01:03 PM
quote:
I think calling Nubia the land of the negro is Negro is a loaded term that really is meaningless. [This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 13 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Wally Member Posts: 495 |
posted 13 December 2004 03:54 PM
quote: Yeah, rasol... IP: Logged |
|
Wally Member Posts: 495 |
posted 13 December 2004 04:00 PM
quote: Looks like we're stuck with Nubia denoting all lands south of Egypt... nahas in Wolof means "worthless" You have to extrapolate on this one, I think; Why do the Amhara call the Oromo, Galla - a perjorative? [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 13 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
sunstorm2004 Member Posts: 226 |
posted 13 December 2004 07:26 PM
Heru, I've read some of that book as well. Always have a look at the date of the translation there. (Each entry has a bibliographic credit...) The translation of the passage you read is from the early 1900s, I think -- which explains a lot... A lot of the translations in that book are from that era. IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 13 December 2004 09:12 PM
quote: And the name of that royal guy PaNehesy who Whats the entry in a dictionary of the AE The Semitic root NHS meaning copper seems IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 2972 |
posted 13 December 2004 09:28 PM
quote: There was also a priest of the Aten called Pa-Nehsy. In the Bible there is a a person named Phineas[the Grecianized name of Nehsy]. IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 13 December 2004 10:07 PM
Pa Nehesy("The Nubian") was a common ancient Egyptian name. Names change meanings over time. While Nehesy may have initially been derogatory, it must have later became accepted, or perhaps never been derogatory at all. "Berber" was once a derogatory name and the ancient Egyptian word where Hebrew was most likely derived from, Habiru, was derogatory in antiquity. Btw, I sometimes go by the alias "panehesy" when posting online. [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 13 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 13 December 2004 10:21 PM
quote: Yes, the Hebrew version of PaNehesy is the IP: Logged |
|
Wally Member Posts: 495 |
posted 14 December 2004 01:49 PM
In *Budge's dictionary, we have the following Kemetian terms for these people(s): p344a p386a It is still my opinion that this name is one this people or peoples gave to themselves (and most likely a boastful one), but would later be used by the Kemetians to denote 'barbarians,' 'strangers'; a typically (even stereotypical) African convention. *Modern authors repeat the mantra that Budge's dictionary is 'woefully outdated' but if you compare their limited entries to those of Budge's, you find no significant differences! Nada...except that Budge will write Ati and the 'newbies' will write jtj for the word 'Iti' -go figure... [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
kembu Member Posts: 37 |
posted 14 December 2004 03:44 PM
quote: I seriously doubt whether Hawass has ancient Egyptian ancestry. The guy is obviously Arab-looking with some possible non-Arab mixture. It could be he has some tenuous connection somewhere. Who knows? But if he is claiming ancient Egyptian ancestry because he is a modern Egyptian, that shouldn't be a problem. I know a lot of Euro-Americans claiming Native American ancestry. Fact is, the ancient Egyptians are ancestors of the land and, at least, some of the modern Egyptian population. The only problem I have with Hawass is his obvious parlaying to Eurocentrism. Who could blame him. He would like to have the fat paycheck from Western white tourists fantasizing about a white Kemet (no pun intended). Of course, he realizes that acknowledging historical accuracy about the race of the ancient Egyptians could cost him his job. IP: Logged |
|
lamin Member Posts: 83 |
posted 14 December 2004 06:24 PM
For Kembu: I don't think it's so much about white tourists fantasising about a white Kemet. It's more that they will be turned off by the idea of an African or black Kemet. It's the usual "anything but black" syndrome at work here. The unspoken meaning of the ongoing debate about the ethnicity of the AE's is just this: the implicit(and not so implicit on certain websites like newnation.com and stormfront.org) ideology is that people of African descent are not as biologically evolved as those of European and Eurasian descent and proof of this--as they claim--is that Africans "have never produced civilization". This was the view of well-known historians like Arnold Toynbee, Hugh Trevor Roper, and others. There are also contemporary psychometricians others who constantly hammer on the theme that "blacks are less cognitively able than any other racial group". [See the journal "Mankind Quarterly"]The present comparative economic state of blacks in the world is supposed to confirm this hypothesis. So any solid proof that the AE's and their Nubian kith and kin produced what the West calls "civilisation" would tend to make lots of scholars nervous about their implicitly or overtly held racial paradigm.
IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 06:54 PM
There seems to be 3 schools of thought: 1. Egyptians have not changed dramatically over the past 5000 years and the black Africans of Egypt were mainly Nubians 2. Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African 3. Egypt was entirely a black African country atleast until the 7th century AD I fall into category #2 and I have no problem with the direction Egyptology is going in. For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things? [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 07:06 PM
quote: I can't say what Hawass' ancestry is but he definately doesn't look "Arab" if you what you are referring to is the typical Arab look and Hawass doesn't sound like an Arab name. Even if he does have recent Arab ancestry, there's still a high likelihood that he is directly descended from ancient Egyptians.
quote: I claim West African ancestry even though my grandfather has blue eyes and blonde hair. I can claim European ancestry as well but I choose not to. How you look doesn't have anything to do with your distant ancestry. It only shows who your recent ancestors are.
quote: Perhaps it doesn't matter to him. As it shouldn't be a major concern to anyone who is genuinely interested in ancient Egypt. IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 14 December 2004 07:24 PM
quote:
Thanks for the actual dictionary entries from Can anyone post entries from other dictionaries IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1528 |
posted 14 December 2004 07:27 PM
Neo, you appear to be saying that Kemet was founded by Black Africans, but that it does not meet your definition of 'fully black'. I would say that the 1st part of your statement is true...and the second part hendges upon an ultimately irrelevant and aribitrary attempt to qualify the truth and so soften the impact. I would argue the point, except that I know that the end result would be to make the truth more unpleasant to you, and so...leave you with no choice emotionally but to reject it. So, I'll leave well enought alone. IP: Logged |
|
supercar Member Posts: 1182 |
posted 14 December 2004 07:48 PM
That was the whole point of a previous thread concerning the title of "racial purity". European societies are full of mixed populations, from different continents, and yet the euphemism for these countries is that they are white societies. The heterogeneity seems to hold more power only when it comes to African states, that have anything to do with accomplishments. This relates to something Lamin said earlier, about motives behind maintenance of racial hierarchies. Yes, Ancient Egypt was heterogeneous, so was Ancient Greece, and Rome. Yet that never seems to have an impact on the latter. IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 07:48 PM
quote: It doesn't matter what you think my intention is. It's how I percieve the data and history I observed to be. You are free to percieve something otherwise. The internet is a free market of ideas... IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1528 |
posted 14 December 2004 08:01 PM
quote:I agree. My comment pertained to the data, which you aknowledged and.... quote:, to your qualified acceptance (perception) of the data, which is somewhat arbitrary, and does not not seem to me to be worth debating, since I believe it would result in your rejecting the data. However if you insist on debating the soundness of what you 'perceive' to be 'fully black' IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 08:25 PM
quote: When you open topics of racial purity, don't be surprised if people percieve you to be racially biased. Racial purity is one element that fueled Adolph Hitler's propaganda.
quote: I disagree. Most of the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration. However, you do have an argument for ethnic diversity although, not a very strong one. Africa is a diverse continent to begin with. Heterogeneity applies to Africa and the Near East because most countries in those regions are "ethnically" heterogeneous and have been since antiquity. For example. It is correct to say that the US was founded by white Europeans. It is incorrect to say Americans are a white European people. For that to be true you have to overlook millions of people of other races and ethnicities even though 70-80% of Americans are of European descent. Ancient Egypt wasn't diverse in the same way the US is but nevertheless they weren't homogeneous.
quote: Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges to prove a point. IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 08:30 PM
quote: I didn't use the term "fully black" and I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my posts. I take it that you don't have a response to my question. Just as I thought. IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 14 December 2004 08:43 PM
quote: Bravo! Whenever I put that out I continue by We all know why AE and no other ancient IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 1528 |
posted 14 December 2004 08:49 PM
quote:I think Egyptology should be gradually eliminated, and can be over time by relentless application of erudite scholarship which challenges Egyptological dogma. The concept of an 'ology', a branch of science devoted to a particular country is a bad idea. It de-normalises Kemet and subjects it to the biases of a self serving priesthood and its essentially Pan Europeanist ideology. The best way to challenge the profane [wst] priesthood of Egyptology is to keep pressing the debate, forcing the field open, and challenging its root assumptions. Many Egyptologists are not very knowledgable about Egypt. If you read them, it's amazing how much some of them will say, that is mere dumb repettition parroting what others have said, but having given it little actual thought. The Nile Valley and it's various nations should be studied as an integrated part of African history, and qualified 'experts' in academia should be required to have knowledge of African culture in general. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Wally Member Posts: 495 |
posted 14 December 2004 09:16 PM
"For those who don't approve of the current state of Egyptology, what changes would you like to see made to improve things?"
quote: Amen! [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
lamin Member Posts: 83 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:20 PM
For: Neo*Geo The claim that the racial diversity in Europe is due to recent immigration could be debated. William Ripley wrote a text titled "The Races of Europe"(1899) in which he argued that there were 3 distinct races in Europe: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean with other permuataions here and there---Jewish, Slav, Basque, etc.
The basis for this racial would seem to derive from the Sykes model: at different times different male and female lineages made their way into Europe. Sykes actually did the mtDNA part of these temporally(45KYA to 10KYA) distinct treks into Europe. And of course there were the later Mongol incursions into Eastern Europe and the much more recent Moorish and Arab settlements in the Iberain peninsula. In fact Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree of 26 European populations show that the greatest genetic distances are between Dutch, Danish, and English---and Greek, Sardinian and Lapp. So what should one make of this re discussions concerning ancient Greek civilisation? But Africa is the most genetically diverse of the continents ONLY BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE THERE THE LONGEST--not because they happen to look different. The evenness of the environment--tropical and subtropical-saw to it though that physical surface traits remain relatively uniform. This means that the genetic diversity of Africa is not something one discovers mascroscopically but mainly by DNA analysis. IP: Logged |
|
supercar Member Posts: 1182 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:32 PM
quote: You forget that you are the one who opened this can of worms by talking of “entirely" Black. What kind of trash is that? What you are doing is classic 18th century racist tactic: count on presence of foreign groups in Ancient Egypt to explain away why it shouldn’t be considered an African civilization, much less black. Again, Hitler was a student of the very mindset that you are adopting!
quote: What difference does it make when Europe started receiving these migrants. The point was that European societies are really multi-racial societies, and yet it the euphemism of these societies being white isn’t lost on any clear headed person. Southern Europeans had mixed populations in ancient times too, yet with your double standard attitude, don’t take that into account. Plus, it’s not like in Ancient Egypt, immigrants were immediately present in great numbers, this is something that happened over specific time frames. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called immigrants. It is time to use your head. [This message has been edited by supercar (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:42 PM
quote: Egypt is a unique case but you make yourself sound like you've studied no other world history. The civilizations of Mesopotamia are described as heterogeneous. The Roman empire was heterogeneous. Governors and Roman soldiers were made up of men from local populations. IP: Logged |
|
anacalypsis Member Posts: 85 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:48 PM
quote: Number 2 seems like a good choice, but in a way the 1st part somewhat disqualifies the latter. To say that AE were founded by black africans but the population was NEVER entirely black, is to suggest that even the 1st dynasty was NEVER entirely black, and thus those others (non-black african AEs) could have been there all along and in any quantity. From there one can go on to say that those others could have been the driving force behind the dynasties' great achievements.. So the door is left wide open there… Now for instance, knowing what you know about the greeks exposure and subsequent influences from the africans and near by easterns, would you say that the Greek populous was NEVER entirely white europeans...and thus were a mix population of peoples throughout the Greek achievement period???? Would you say that??(not a rhetorical question) IP: Logged |
|
anacalypsis Member Posts: 85 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:53 PM
quote: As for what I would like to see in the future of Egyptology is..... I think this is important for the same reason it was important for... the indigenous south african population to know that their ancestors built ancient Zimbabwe, and not the dutch or mid easterns as once was theorized. the swahili people of the east african coast were responsible for the beautiful medieval coral towns that dotted along the east african coast and not the arabs. Also that the Swahili were responsible for the great voyages that brought goods for the African interior all the way to the far east---as established by British historians (lead by Mark Horton) on their study of the medieval Indian ocean trade.. the meso-american were responsible for the ancient american civilizations and not some lost tribe of whites or Atlantians. Honestly, how can you truly know a people--ancient or modern--until you know what they were and where they came from???????? I mean, once upon a time it was thought that AE just sprung up, whole and complete, out of nowhere owing nothing to any outside source. But as you can see, looking towards inner africa for an AE origin has made our understanding of the AEs that much better. Imagine if blind prejudice won out and they ignored Africa and focused on the middle east for an AE origin. Where would we be? So knowing who and what they were…ethnically, racially, etc, (like we know about the Greeks, Chinese, Meso-Americans) is important towards developing and understanding the WHOLE picture.. Just my 2cents Neo*geo IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 10:57 PM
quote: Sigh... It's trash that I did not type. Go back and find where I typed "fully black". My original statement was: "Egypt's founders were black African but Egypt's population was never entirely black African"
quote: You're no longer a newbie so you can't use ignorance as an excuse for misrepresenting my point of view. You know fully well that it is my opinion that Egyptians have always been an African people. I could just as easily repost posts from old topics but I wont waste my time.
quote: Don't play dumb now. IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:02 PM
quote:
Like, have you even read Toynbees unrevised IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:15 PM
quote: I left it open for a reason. While it is clear that ruiling families from upper Egypt(most likely black Africans) estabilished the uniting of lower and upper Egypt, it's not a given that the populations of upper and lower Egypt were ethnically or racially the same.
quote: I don't buy the African colonization theory for ancient Greece and neither does most of academia. Greece doesn't compare to Egypt in terms of phenotypical diversity. Where it's clear from the inconsistency of phenotypes in Egypt that the population has been affected by centuries of foeirn immigration, there is more consistency in Greece. Egyptians get mistaken for people of other ethnicities often. You can't say the same for Greek people. IP: Logged |
|
alTakruri Member Posts: 254 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:23 PM
This is what you proliferate when you parrot heterogenous Egypt without vigorously campaigning Abaza style all over the net for heterogenous Mesopotamia, Rome, etc. ========================================= Professor Arnold J. Toynbee’s, A Study of History is considered a classic in In the words of Toynbee, ”The Black race has not helped to create any civilization, Arnold J. Toynbee IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:37 PM
quote: What school teaches Mesopotamian civilizations as "white?" What school or college did you attend? I was always taught that these were ethnically diverse peoples, not black, white, or yellow.
quote: I don't like to argue. I like to discuss. Understand that the Roman empire and "Rome" are not the same. The empire was all of the nations they conqeured. Their occupying forces were not all made up of Romans.
quote: I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. It seems like quite a few people have spent time debating on websites like Stormfront.com. I stay away from places like that. There's no sense in debating with people like that. To be honest I don't know what the world at large thinks of ancient civilizations outside of the classrooms I've been in. The average person get his knowledge of ancient civs from movies like "the Mummy" or "Alexander." You can't really have intellectual discussions with people who have a limited knowledge of the subject.
quote: No I haven't but I may read it in the future... IP: Logged |
|
supercar Member Posts: 1182 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:39 PM
quote: You might want to check notes before replying. The notes were edited. But in any case if it makes you feel better: trash thinking of “entirely” black African.
quote: You are right that one would know your viewpoint, if it reflected coherent thinking. But since you obviously didn’t comprehend what was said earlier, I’ll repeat again: You resort to 18th century tactics, such as focusing too much on foreign presence to downplay emphasis on an African civilization, much less black. In your case, you focus on this heterogeneity, so as to dampen any claim that it is a black African civilization, this despite acknowledging that black Africans were founders.
quote: You aren’t playing dumb; it is a natural thing for you. So, I am not sure that if I played dumb for you, it would enhance your comprehension ability . But hopefully repetition would make some headway: European societies are multi-racial. However, those societies being considered “white” has become a euphemism. Moreover, European societies, particularly southern European ones, were heterogeneous in ancient times; something you are not familiar with, as evidenced by your earlier claim. IP: Logged |
|
ausar Moderator Posts: 2972 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:40 PM
The reason for Toynabee's actions was because he considered the Shilluk people in Southern Sudan to be the founders of ancient Egypt. During the time of Toynabee the infamous Hamitic myth plagued academia and Toynabee was a product of his time. I wonder why Toynabee would not include Aksum as a black civlization or Meroe which clearly these two would have even been considered so during his time. Unfortunately,Toynabee never saw a Shilluk,nor did he fully understand the archaeological progress of ancient Egyptian civlization. There were others in Toynabee's own time like Randal MacIver and V. Gordon Childe that contended the early populations of pre-dyanstic Kmt[Egypt] such as the Badarian,and Naqada cultures were negriod. Sir Grafton Smith even believed the early Beja people were responsible,but he never considered them to be negriod but Hamitic. It's all part of the Hamitic myth. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:50 PM
quote: Thought Posts: "As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from Sub-Saharan to North Africa and the Levant. The Levantine population of farmers that dispersed into Europe during and after the Neolithic carried these African Group III M35/M215 lineages, together with a cluster of Group VI lineages characterized by M172 and M201 mutations." IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:51 PM
alTakruri - The best example you could give is a quote from 1946? Seems quite outdated. Not that those ideas are completely gone from academia. We've seen books like "The Bell Curve" written in the past few years that express similar sentiments. However, it's understandble how those ideas were prevalent in earlier times. The West had only been introduced to Egyptology 200 years ago and has only begun to scratch the surface in regards to discovering other African civilizations. I'll agree that racism played a role in the early efforts of Egyptologists to supress the indigenous African origins of the civilization. But a new generation of archaeologists are opening the door to history from Meroe to Timbuktu. Progress is slow but we're making progress. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:54 PM
quote: Thought Writes: The "local" populations were heterogenous as well. IP: Logged |
|
neo*geo Member Posts: 777 |
posted 14 December 2004 11:57 PM
quote: This is nothing new. The population of Europe originated from about seven women of the Near East. In other words, African genes were carried to Europe via the Middle East. The "Out of Africa" theory is pretty widely accepted now. [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 14 December 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 15 December 2004 12:01 AM
quote: Thought Writes: The Egyptians have OBVIOUSLY change based upon the scientific data. Thought Posts: Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 15 December 2004 12:07 AM
quote: Thought Writes; This is a good example of why when one does not know, one should seek teachers. The Out-Of-Africa migration refers to the movement of humans out out Africa during the Early Glacial (50,000 ky) period. The spread of E3b or M35 linages relates to the MESOLITHIC (10,000 ky) movement of East Africans around the circum-mediterranean basin. The Out-Of-Africa migration was responsable for the peopling of the entire globe. The spread of M35 lineages mainly relates to the colonization of the Fertile Crescent and Mediterranean region during the early Holocene (recent epoch). IP: Logged |
|
Thought2 Member Posts: 824 |
posted 15 December 2004 12:11 AM
quote: Thought Writes: Greece has been diverse since the early Neolithic period. In fact, the Greek Neolithic was introduced from the Levant by populations that had physical affinities with modern East African groups. IP: Logged |
, I suppose we can. Your call.This topic is 5 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 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