quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The 9 Bows were a generic collective of the 9 most hostile enemies of united Kmt, though not all them were foreign! Indeed depending on the time period, there were rebels from one or both of the Two Lands that make up Egypt therefore having either Ta-Shemau or Ta-Mehu on the list of 9 Bows is not unusual nor would it be some sort of error or mistake.
So the figure labeled as Ta-Shemau is NOT Nubian but an Upper Egyptian and the figure Ta-Mehu is NOT Asiatic but an actual Lower Egyptian both are enemies of the crown and therefore state.
The Enemies of Ancient Egypt The earliest depictions we have of Egyptian kings portray the motif of prostrate foreigners as a symbol of Egyptian supremacy over the rest of mankind. For example, the Narmer Palette shows the king in his efforts to rid the world of such aberrations as the "vile Asiatic". Here, we find the trampling of the "Nine Bows", as the Egyptian referred to their enemies, as a vivid embodiment of the king's supremacy over foreigners (and sometimes even other Egyptians). The figure "nine" represented three times three, which was the "plurality of Pluralities", thus designating the entirety of all enemies.
There was another thread in which we discussed the members of the 9 Bows in the above picture. Hopefully someone can pull up the link but in the meanwhile here is another translation of the list (from right to left):
Ta-Shemau as appear in Nine bows are not understood by scholars and it cannot be assumed a general term for Upper Egyptians in 9 bows scenes like this. It's an upper Egyptian tomb, it cannot be assumed that they intend, "here this bound figure is one of us"
Additionally these cartouches should not be assumed as to correspond with the figures behind them
The problem with using Ramesses II's version of the 9 bows as evidence that the cartouches don't always align with the hieroglyphics is: 1) There's a century gap between his reign and the reign of Tiye and Amenhotep III. Artistic conventions may have changed during these times, so we can't assume that because the cartouches doesn't align in Ramesses II's version, they don't align in Amenhotep's. 2)There seems to be consistency between the hieorglyphics and cartouches in Amenhotep's version. This is supported by the Libyan(Tehenu), who's not only labeled as one but also consistently visually depicted with fair skin and a sidelock in other depictions, such as Ramesses III's book of gates. If we assume that the cartouches don't align with the hieroglyphics why do we this trend?
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: The problem with using Ramesses II's version of the 9 bows as evidence that the cartouches don't always align with the hieroglyphics is: 1) There's a century gap between his reign and the reign of Tiye and Amenhotep III. Artistic conventions may have changed during these times, so we can't assume that because the cartouches doesn't align in Ramesses II's version, they don't align in Amenhotep's. 2)There seems to be consistency between the hieorglyphics and cartouches in Amenhotep's version. This is supported by the Libyan(Tehenu), who's not only labeled as one but also consistently visually depicted with fair skin and a sidelock in other depictions, such as Ramesses III's book of gates. If we assume that the cartouches don't align with the hieroglyphics why do we this trend?
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] How about another example for further reference?
I showed this other photo of the Rameses II to show it's condition too poor to assesses anything
and you are also saying "There's a century gap between his (Rameses II's) reign and the reign of Tiye and Amenhotep III "
If that's the case why are you now showing a picture based on Rameses III which is even further apart and is not even a depiction of the Nine Bows?
Note as I said before some figures in the tomb of Kheruef and Anen, such as the Libyan, do correspond to the text order but other figures do not And one scene in a tomb should be understood in context of other figures in other scenes from the same tomb
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: How about another example for further reference?
https://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/fitzwilliam/index_2.htm The Nine Bows This is an ancient term that collectively referred to the enemies of Ancient Egypt. The name could originate from the use of Bows by their enemies and the ritual breaking of bows of defeated foes - but the actual reason is not known. The actual enemies that this refers could be adjusted to reflect the current contact with neighbours and their relations with them - we can include Asiatic, Sand Dwellers, Nubians and even lower and upper Egyptians.
The block, a base for a statue of Rameses II, has the traditional enemies of Egypt represented on the sides of the block - personified as bound and kneeling captives.. They were therefore symbolically beneath the feet of the king and under his control. From the front of the block they are (right-left):
1. Hanuenbu (northernmost foreigners) 2. Shat (a Land in Nubia) 3. Tashema (Upper Egypt, the south land) 4. Sekhet-lamu (the people of the desert oases) 5. Ta-Mehu (Lower Egypt, the Delta) 6. Pedjet Shut (foreign barbarians) 7. Tehenu (Libyans) 8. Iuntyw Seti (natives of Nubia) 9. Mentiu Setet (Nomads of Asia) 10. Khet Hesy (Hittites)
Seems to be the same order, with name variations of the same ethnicities
Again, the same order, same ethnicities with name variations (although one might argue about what name concepts are proper within each match)
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a New Year yet Lioness still retains bad habits.
She claims the bound enemies do not match the cartouches but provides no evidence other than her own opinion on what? Looks??
She has yet to prove that this Ta-Shemau (Upper Egyptian) is "Nubian" as she claims.
Even though he closely resembles an Upper Egyptian queen in hairstyle and complexion.
The same is true with the Ta-Mehu prisoner whom she claims is "Aiatic".
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Even though he closely resembles an Upper Egyptian queen in hairstyle and complexion.
The same is true with the Ta-Mehu prisoner whom she claims is "Aiatic".
Above, a wooden sculpture Of Queen Tiye wearing a headdress and with no paint indicating skin tone
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No offense, but that has to be one of the dumbest if not thee dumbest strawdoll arguments I've heard in this forum! LOL
In regards to Tiye's bust, when did I mention anything about her complexion being painted? In fact since when does a figure have to be painted to portray a complexion, especially since various shades of wood can do just nicely to emulate real skin tones?!
So unless you can prove to me that the wooden bust whose eyes and eyebrows are indeed painted, somehow doesn't match the skin tone of the person it is modeled after you, can understand why I take a lot of what you say with criticism. Just like how you failed to prove that the figure labeled Ta-Shemau is actually 'Nubian' and the one labeled Ta-Mehu is 'Asiatic'.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No offense, but that has to be one of the dumbest if not thee dumbest strawdoll arguments I've heard in this forum! LOL
In regards to Tiye's bust, when did I mention anything about her complexion being painted? In fact since when does a figure have to be painted to portray a complexion, especially since various shades of wood can do just nicely to emulate real skin tones?!
You said " he closely resembles an Upper Egyptian queen in hairstyle and complexion." You assume a piece of stone or wood is selected because it's the color of somebody's skin. So I said there is "no paint indicating skin tone" it's dumb to assume that without paint there was intention by the artist, that the wood color matched her skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
She claims the bound enemies do not match the cartouches but provides no evidence other than her own opinion on what? Looks??
She has yet to prove that this Ta-Shemau (Upper Egyptian) is "Nubian" as she claims.
Even though he closely resembles an Upper Egyptian queen in hairstyle and complexion.
Here you talk about hair when you know it's not hair, it's a beaded wig Tiye is wearing Why are you doing this?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
how you failed to prove that the figure labeled Ta-Shemau is actually 'Nubian' and the one labeled Ta-Mehu is 'Asiatic'.
There's no way to prove it However I have seen a huge amount of New Kingdom and other art and that figure is consistent with a Nubians relative to the other figures in such captives scene (although I can't say it with absolute certainty). But you continue to ignore this middle figure below with the glyph for a Nubian in addition to further questionable correspondences, the first figure also not looking like an Aegean
__________________________ 2nd from the right, tomb of Kheruef
This is an Upper Nubian? If it's not or any other one is not, it suggests that for the whole nine we cant rely on definitive links between a particular figure and the glyph in the cartouche or the standard sequence. It doesn't' mean they are ALL not corresponding it means some may not be. However at all the tombs we have looked at, officials under Amenhotep and even the Rameses II, 9 Bow lists presented so far have the same order
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
There was another thread in which we discussed the members of the 9 Bows in the above picture. Hopefully someone can pull up the link but in the meanwhile here is another translation of the list
(from right to left):
1. Haw-nbu (Island folk)
2. Satju (Nubians)
3. Ta-Shema (Upper Egyptians)
4. Skhtju-jm (Oasis Dwellers)
5. Ta-Mehu (Lower Egyptians)
6. Pdtju-Su (Eastern [desert] Archers)
7. Tehenu (Libyans)
8. Juntju-ztj (Nubians)
9. Mentiu nu-satet?
Are you telling us that list in in the same order as the figures?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I showed this other photo of the Rameses II to show it's condition too poor to assesses anything
and you are also saying "There's a century gap between his (Rameses II's) reign and the reign of Tiye and Amenhotep III "
If that's the case why are you now showing a picture based on Rameses III which is even further apart and is not even a depiction of the Nine Bows?
Note as I said before some figures in the tomb of Kheruef and Anen, such as the Libyan, do correspond to the text order but other figures do not And one scene in a tomb should be understood in context of other figures in other scenes from the same tomb [/QB]
I brought up Rameses III as evidence that the hieroglyphics and the cartouche for the Libyan align(but since that has already been established). We could support the depiction of the Upper Egyptian as being accurate by bringing up Rameses III's book of gates once more, or cranial studies done on such populations. To be honest, the only depiction that supports the cartouches not aligning with the hieroglyphics is the upper Nubian, everyone else seems to align. The Aegean may have not been a Minoan for example, but still a person from that region/a group that arrived later on. Maybe there was an invasion/migration in upper Nubia that resulted in people that looked like that man inhabiting there.
Posts: 80 | From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2022
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There's no way to prove it However I have seen a huge amount of New Kingdom and other art and that figure is consistent with a Nubians relative to the other figures in such captives scene (although I can't say it with absolute certainty). But you continue to ignore this middle figure below with the glyph for a Nubian in addition to further questionable correspondences, the first figure also not looking like an Aegean
__________________________ 2nd from the right, tomb of Kheruef
This is an Upper Nubian? If it's not or any other one is not, it suggests that for the whole nine we cant rely on definitive links between a particular figure and the glyph in the cartouche or the standard sequence. It doesn't' mean they are ALL not corresponding it means some may not be. However at all the tombs we have looked at, officials under Amenhotep and even the Rameses II, 9 Bow lists presented so far have the same order
Ah. I get what you're saying now. You say the first figure doesn't look "Aegean" even though his label is "Haw-nebu" means North Islands. No doubt the Aegean image you have in your head is that of a Keftiu which is a Cretan? However his label is not Keftiu but the more vague Haw-nebu which just means 'Northern Islands' so we don't know which island. It's possible he could represent a Cyprian since ancient Cypriotes were quite dark in color and sported beards as well.
As for the Shatyu, which I confused for the Lower Nubian Satiu, indeed Shat was a land in Upper Egypt. As for him "not looking Upper Nubian" do you think this because he does not look like stereotypical southern Sudanese?? Of course the paint on that one is very much eroded and faded but once could see that the original coloring was a light brown similar to modern Habesha Ethiopians who live at the same latitude as southern Sudanese. Again, your conjecture is based on YOUR presumptions on ancient peoples you know nothing about except stereotypes!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
At last look I concluded three of the Ramesses ethnic subscenes appear mistaken. Their labels do not match their norm depictions in other Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 tomb paintings.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: There's no way to prove it However I have seen a huge amount of New Kingdom and other art and that figure is consistent with a Nubians relative to the other figures in such captives scene (although I can't say it with absolute certainty). But you continue to ignore this middle figure below with the glyph for a Nubian in addition to further questionable correspondences, the first figure also not looking like an Aegean
__________________________ 2nd from the right, tomb of Kheruef
This is an Upper Nubian? If it's not or any other one is not, it suggests that for the whole nine we cant rely on definitive links between a particular figure and the glyph in the cartouche or the standard sequence. It doesn't' mean they are ALL not corresponding it means some may not be. However at all the tombs we have looked at, officials under Amenhotep and even the Rameses II, 9 Bow lists presented so far have the same order
Ah. I get what you're saying now. You say the first figure doesn't look "Aegean" even though his label is "Haw-nebu" means North Islands. No doubt the Aegean image you have in your head is that of a Keftiu which is a Cretan? However his label is not Keftiu but the more vague Haw-nebu which just means 'Northern Islands' so we don't know which island. It's possible he could represent a Cyprian since ancient Cypriotes were quite dark in color and sported beards as well.
As for the Shatyu, which I confused for the Lower Nubian Satiu, indeed Shat was a land in Upper Egypt. As for him "not looking Upper Nubian" do you think this because he does not look like stereotypical southern Sudanese?? Of course the paint on that one is very much eroded and faded but once could see that the original coloring was a light brown similar to modern Habesha Ethiopians who live at the same latitude as southern Sudanese. Again, your conjecture is based on YOUR presumptions on ancient peoples you know nothing about except stereotypes!
Ah, I forgot about modern Ethiopians. I agree with you that the upper Nubian may have been Habesha, I guess it's easy to forget Africa's genetic diversity, and how different borders were back then.
Posts: 80 | From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2022
| IP: Logged |
At last look I concluded three of the Ramesses ethnic subscenes appear mistaken. Their labels do not match their norm depictions in other Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 tomb paintings.
While this may be true, I'm sure Tukuler would agree that the cartouches seem to align with the hieroglyphics in Amenhotep's version of the 9 bows.
Posts: 80 | From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2022
| IP: Logged |
At last look I concluded three of the Ramesses ethnic subscenes appear mistaken. Their labels do not match their norm depictions in other Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 tomb paintings.
While this may be true, I'm sure Tukuler would agree that the cartouches seem to align with the hieroglyphics in Amenhotep's version of the 9 bows.
what tomb are you referring to?
Also I hope you realize what you are saying here:
if he is saying that three of the Book of Gates scenes at Ramesses III appear mistaken
and then if he were to say that cartouches in another tomb align with these mistakes , then both scenes would be mistaken like somebody copied what was already an error to somewhere else
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
At last look I concluded three of the Ramesses ethnic subscenes appear mistaken. Their labels do not match their norm depictions in other Gate of Teka Hra scene 30 tomb paintings.
While this may be true, I'm sure Tukuler would agree that the cartouches seem to align with the hieroglyphics in Amenhotep's version of the 9 bows.
what tomb are you referring to?
Also I hope you realize what you are saying here:
if he is saying that three of the Book of Gates scenes at Ramesses II appear mistaken
and then if he were to say that cartouches in another tomb align with these mistakes , then both scenes would be mistaken like somebody copied what was already an error to somewhere else
I already stated that what's depicted on Ramesses II tombs aren't relevant to the Tomb of Kheruef. Given the time gap between them, and the fact that sufficient evidence has been provided that shows that the cartouches match the hieroglyphics in the Tomb of Kheruef(unlike Ramesses II's tombs). Your initial stance was that the Tomb of Kheruef wasn't reliable as the depiction of the upper Nubian and the depiction of the Haw-nebu didn't match their hieroglyphics. When it was pointed out that the upper Nubian may have been a Habesha Ethiopian, and the Haw-nebu a Cyprian. You changed the subject back to Ramesses II's tomb. To put things back on track do you have any new counter evidence against the cartouches in the Tomb of Kheruef being correct?
. _________________TOMB OF KHERUEF_______________________________________________TOMB OF ANEN
Tomb of Kheruef
1) Hau-Nebus (Aegean isles and others of the Mediterranean sea)
2) Shatyu (Upper Nubia)
3) Ta-shema (Upper Egypt )
4) Sheshtyu-im (inhabitants of the Oases)
5) Ta-Mehu (Lower Egypt )
6) the Peityu-shu (Desert of the East)
7) Tjehenu (Libyans)
8) Iuntyu-sety (Nubians)
9) Menttyunu-sedjet (Beduins of Asia).
_________________________________________
Tomb of Anen
1. Senger (Babylonian)
2. Kush (Nubian)
3. Naharin (Mittani)
4. Irm (Nubian)
5. Keftiu (Aegean/Mediterranean)
6. Iwntiw-Sti (Nubian)
7. Tjehenu (Libyan)
8. Mentiu Setet (Nubian)
9. Shasu (Bedouin)
_____________________________________
The Nine Bows at the Tomb Kheruef Only 8 and 7 have the same figures behind the glyphs in my opinion But, I believe, the rest are all repeating generic Asiatics (6 down to 1 and including 9) with one more Nubian, 3, randomly placed.
The Nine Bows at the Tomb of Anen however do match the glyph to the right of them and we can also see that these Nine bows described in the text are not all the same as the ones at Kheuef (no Ta-shema or Ta-Mehu). However at both tombs 7 is a Libyan, and next to him 8 a Nubian (although there are 4 different types of Nubian here, though these different types of Nubian are all depicted with the same figure type).
Also note, same glyph for Libyan at both tombs, throw stick and 3 pots. You will notice the throw stick on other bows in the Anen scene meaning foreigner but those 3 pots are distinctive, a pot is the phoneme "nw" that is part of the Libyan group transliterated Tehenu or Tjehenu. Those pots are not on any of the Book of Gates scenes such as at the Tomb of Seti I and other Book of Gates' scenes, different Libyans are indicated there although might be depicted looking similar physically
Temple of Rameses II at Abydos
Here's that other New Kingdom example, each glyph is a different one of the 9 bows, yet the figure behind each one is the same repeating Asiatic, representing a generic foreigner
_________________________
Higher resolution images of Nine Bows at Tomb of Kheruef with magnification option
posted
How does at least early (predynastic and early dynastic) skeletal material from upper and lower Egypt relate to each other? Can one see a difference? And how about DNA?
Here is a skeleton from Om El-Khelgan region in the Daqahliya governorate in the Nile delta, c 4000 - 3500 BC
posted
^ No DNA from predynastic or protodynastic remains are known or at least have been made available to the public but plenty of studies on skeletal remains from these periods. Here are just two below that are still very relevant:
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation by Barry Kemp, Published by Routledge December 12, 2005, pg. 12-- ..Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans.
"The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia" by Ahmed Batrawi, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, (75:1945, pp. 81-101; 76:1946, pp. 131-56) Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Lower Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion.
To lioness, the bowl hieroglyph is 'neb' which means container in general or specifically a person who contains i.e. 'lord', but was also used to mean 'island' ie. one that contains land surrounded by water hence the plural nebu means islands and the prefix haw means 'northern'. The Agean Islands were not ethnically homogeneous but comprised of various groups. Similarly, one cannot make generalizations on Africans with an Upper Egyptian being "too dark" or an Upper Nubian being "too light" and then claiming the depictions are "mistakes"! LOLPosts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also note, same glyph for Libyan at both tombs (Kheruef and Anen), throw stick and 3 pots. You will notice the throw stick on other bows in the Anen scene meaning foreigner but those 3 pots are distinctive, a pot is the phoneme "nw" that is part of the Libyan group transliterated Tehenu or Tjehenu. Those pots are not on any of the Book of Gates scenes such as at the Tomb of Seti I and other Book of Gates' scenes, different Libyans are indicated there although might be depicted looking similar physically
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
To lioness, the bowl hieroglyph is 'neb'
No, the glyph for Libyan on both tombs aside from the throw stick is NOT nb (Gardiner W10)
Instead, the glyph IS nw (W24A) three pots and is used as a phoneme
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Also note, same glyph for Libyan at both tombs (Kheruef and Anen), throw stick and 3 pots. You will notice the throw stick on other bows in the Anen scene meaning foreigner but those 3 pots are distinctive, a pot is the phoneme "nw" that is part of the Libyan group transliterated Tehenu or Tjehenu. Those pots are not on any of the Book of Gates scenes such as at the Tomb of Seti I and other Book of Gates' scenes, different Libyans are indicated there although might be depicted looking similar physically
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
To lioness, the bowl hieroglyph is 'neb'
No, the glyph for Libyan on both tombs aside from the throw stick is NOT nb (Gardiner W10)
Instead, the glyph IS nw (W24A) three pots and is used as a phoneme
I spent time looking into the history of the Tehenu and other Libyans, it's possible that they decided to change up the hieroglyphics after the appearance of the people changed over time, but most scholars agree that the side locked person is a Libyan despite these changes. Also your statement that the Lower Egyptian is actually a levantine person makes little sense as he looks nothing like the levantine groups depicted by the Egyptians. He's shirtless(similar to the Egyptians) and he lacks facial hair.
Posts: 80 | From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2022
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: Also your statement that the Lower Egyptian is actually a levantine person makes little sense as he looks nothing like the levantine groups depicted by the Egyptians. He's shirtless(similar to the Egyptians) and he lacks facial hair.
Just, looking at these, not trying to look at the glyphs how would you describe them as per resembling typical depictions in other art of the various groups ?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Which leads me back to the topic of this thread in that the earliest dynastic depictions of Delta folk come from the Narmer Palette showing the conquest of the Delta people.
Yet notice how the Delta people bear a striking resemblance to the earliest depictions of Libyans.
or why some Old Kingdom Libyans have the hairs above their brow styled into a waret (ureaus) shape?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
2nd from the right, tomb of Kheruef 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic