Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Smenkhare
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:00 am    Post subject: Smenkhare Reply with quote

How much do scholars know about Smenkhare? Is there solid evidence for his existance or is this a male name for a female?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smenkhare is depicted as a male pharaoh in the tomb of Meryre in Amarna. Smenkhare is shown standing before the window of appearance and is awarding Meryre if I remember correctly.
Smenkhare is accompanied by Queen Meritaten and Smenkhare is clearly depicted as a male.

Info I gathered a while ago:
Some of the inscriptions/scenes mentioning Smenkhare are:
1. Inscription in the tomb of Meryre II in Amarna, showing Smenkhare with Great Royal Wife Meritaten. Smenkhare and Meritaten are shown before the window of appearance while awarding Meryre with the golden collars often seen in these types of scenes. The position of Smenkhare and Meritaten with the palace with the window of appearance shown behind them is rather peculiar.
2. An Amarna Block reused in Hermopolis. No (surviving) image, but the names of Smenkhare and Meritaten appear together on this block.
3. A wine docket mentioning “Year 1: wine of the estate of Smenkh[ka]re”
4. A calcite Jar in the Tomb of Tutankhamen. The inscription was expunged but can be reconstructed and mentions Akhenaten as well as Ankhkheperure, the son of Re, Smenkhare holy-of-manifestations.
_________________
Math and Art: http://mathematicsaroundus.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

one thing i always wondered about those depictions of smenhkare and meritaten, -and something most people favouring him as nefertiti thoery- may have pointed out, but is it possible smenhkare was a woman portrayed as a man? i myself believe he was an older brother of tutankhamun, but recalling hatshepsut's actions earlier in the dynasty, is the depiction enough to identify him as a man?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
one thing i always wondered about those depictions of smenhkare and meritaten, -and something most people favouring him as nefertiti thoery- may have pointed out, but is it possible smenhkare was a woman portrayed as a man? i myself believe he was an older brother of tutankhamun, but recalling hatshepsut's actions earlier in the dynasty, is the depiction enough to identify him as a man?


James Allen noted in his article

Allen, J. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

...The Nefer-neferu-aton set is the only one associated with Akhenaton, either in the epithets of the names themselves or in conjunction with Akhenaton's cartouches. It seems likely that the individual to whom these names refer is a woman. Her sex is clearly indicated by the feminine variants of the prenomen (A2a and B) and seems to be shown on the "Coregency" stela as well.

A priori, it is likely that this woman is Nefertiti in the role of pharaoh and (probably) coregent with Akhenaton. Her pharaonic prerogatives already as Akhenaton's queen - culminating in the Pase stela and the unfinished Berlin stela - are well enough known, and she is the only woman in the Amarna and immediate post-Amarna period that can be shown to have such prerogatives. Nfr-nfrw-jtn is used by her as a title when she is queen, and only in her name is the jtn element reversed. Reversal does not occur in the name of the princess Nefer-neferu-aton the Younger, nor in other royal women's names compounded with jtn. Reversal does not appear in the prenomen nfr-nfrw-jtn plus epithet evidently because there is no determinative for it to face. In the one instance in which a determinative is present (C2c), there is (partial) reversal: the exception would seem to prove both the status of the orthography and the link with Nefertiti.

By contrast, the Smenkh-ka-re set is never linked with Akhenaton, either by epithet or by juxtaposed cartouches. No hard evidence exists as to the sex of the king who used these names. The scene from Meri-re's tomb is sketchy and could conceivably represent a female pharaoh; gay Robins has recently shown that association with a Chief Queen does not necessarily indicate that the king in question is male. Pictorial evidence for two male coregents is equally ambiguous. At the same time, however, there is also no evidence to indicate firmly that the king called Smenkh-ka-re "Holy of Forms" was a woman, since all feminine instances of the prenomen are linked with the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names.

Either, therefore, the Smenkh-ka-re set of names represents a later stage in the career of the female pharaoh Nefer-neferu-aton, or it belongs to a separate individual. Proponents of Nefertiti's kingship have argued vigorously for the first interpretation, claiming that "there is as yet no valid evidence that a youth called Smenkh-ka-re existed." But the evidence itself does not demand an identification of Smenkh-ka-re with Nefer-neferu-aton, and in fact the insistence that the two sets of names must belong to a single individual only weakens each case.

Arguments for a male Nefer-neferu-aton run into difficulty with the clear feminine variants of the prenomen. Krauss's solution, assigning these variants to Merit-aton as queen regnant, has no firm supporting evidence, and the evidence that does exist is much less compelling than that linking the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names as a whole with Nefertiti.

Arguments for a female Smenkh-ka-re, on the other hand, are based primarily on the use of anx-xprw-ra as prenomen. As shown above, however, there is a clear distinction between this use and that of the same name in the Nefer-neferu-aton set of names. Any other argumentation is essentially from silence - for example, that absence of the epithets using Akhenaton's names reflects that king's death. In any case, the burial in Tomb 55 must constitute a major impediment to any theory based on a single female pharaoh. While no inscriptional evidence remains to connect this burial with the king called Smenkh-ka-re, who else could it be?

SOME CONCLUSIONS

When all the evidence is assembled, weighted, and analyzed without prejudice toward one or another opposing viewpoint, it seems clear that there is strong support for both the theory of Nefertiti's kingship and the existence of a male pharaoh between Akhenaton and Tutankhamun.

Nefer-neferu-aton is the name used by Nefertiti, first as queen and then as pharaoh. The Pawah graffito from TT 139 assigns her at least three years in the latter role.44 The association of her cartouches - and figure - with Akhenaton suggest that at least part of her reign was as coregent. The association of Merit-aton with both pharaohs as Chief Queen suggests that she assumed this role coincident with Nefertiti's elevation, to serve as queen (arguably for the first time) in her mother's stead. Whether she performed this role for both kings and - for Akhenaton - in more than just a ritual sense, is really a moot point. What is significant is that this period, of about three years, is most probably the period of Merit-aton's prominence in the Amarna letters.

If King Nefer-neferu-aton served at all as Akhenaton's coregent, her rule may not have lasted much beyond the death of the senior king, since docket 279 from Amarna seems to link Akhenaton's last year (17) with Year 1 of another pharaoh. In that case, the Pawah graffito of Nefer-neferu-aton's Year 3 suggests a return to "normalcy" already at the close of, or immediately following , Akhenaton's reign. It is possible that the coregency represented a real division of powers: Akhenaton as pharaoh in Amarna and in foreign affairs (which would explain the coregent's absence - if not accidental - from the Amarna letters), and Nefer-neferu-aton ruling the rest of Egypt.

Smenkh-ka-re's accession probably took place within months of Akhenaton's death, if not immediately (certainly the case if "Year 1" of docket 279 is his). The new king took both Neferneferu-aton's throne name (without its reference to Akhenaton) and Merit-aton as Chief Queen. The reason for the choice of Nefertiti's throne name is a matter of conjecture. Like the marriage to Merit-aton, it undoubtedly reflected the line of succession. But even more, it may have been chosen to emphasize the legitimacy of Smenkh-ka-re's claim against that of Akhenaton's "chosen" (mr) coregent.

Smenkh-ka-re ruled at Amarna: his known monuments are all from there and from Memphis. His highest known date is Year 1 on a wine-jar docket from Amarna, but his reign may have lasted as much as three years.

(Allen 1994: 15-17)

One should also follow-up this article with Allen's further theory in the Amarna Succession (PDF).

The pertinent points are these:

...Insofar as can be determined, the primary element in the nomen of a pharaoh always corresponds to the name he (or she) bore before coming to the throne; from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward, epithets were usually added to this name in the pharaoh’s cartouche, but Akhenaten provides the only example of a complete and consistent change of the nomen’s primary element, and even he used his birth name, Amenhotep, at his accession. The evidence of this tradition argues that the coregent bore the name Neferneferuaten before her coronation, and since it now seems clear that the coregent was not Nefertiti, she must have been the only other woman known by that name: Akhenaten’s fourth daughter, Neferneferuaten Jr.

To judge from the epithet “effective for her husband,” Neferneferuaten served as Akh-enaten’s wife as well as his coregent. Meritaten, in turn, filled the role of the coregent’s (or coregents’) chief queen, while Ankhesenpaaten acted as senior “king’s daughter,” the function formerly exercised by Meritaten. Akhenaten’s motive for the promotion of his youngest surviving daughter over her two older sisters can only be the subject of speculation. If she was in fact his wife, he may yet have hoped to produce a male heir, which neither Meritaten nor Ankhesenpaaten had given him; her status as coregent would also enhance the claim of any son born to such a union. Should he succeed Akhenaten while still a child, the presence of a senior coregent would serve to safeguard that right, as Hatshepsut’s coregency had done for Thutmose III earlier in the dynasty. If the union produced no son, however, Akhenaten could still count on a successor from his own direct lineage.

The calculations argued above indicate that Neferneferuaten Jr.’s three older sisters were born by Regnal Year 4. If she was born within a year of them, as seems likely, she would have turned thirteen in Regnal Year 16–17, allowing her to serve as the prospective mother of Akhenaten’s heir. Her appointment as coregent probably dates to the same one- or two-year period. Part of her three-year reign must then have occurred after the death of Akhenaten. It is undoubtedly within that period of sole rule that her association with the traditional gods appeared, along with her Osirian epithet Axt n h(j).s “effective for her husband” and her less common “Akhenaten-less” cartouches. This in turn places the short reign of Smenkhkare after that of Akhenaten (and her). Since Smenkhkare probably ruled less than a year, Tutankhamun’s accession can therefore be dated more narrowly to sometime between one and two years after the death of Akhenaten, and his birth to Akhenaten’s Regnal Year 9 or 10.

On the basis of the arguments advanced here, neither Smenkhkare nor Tutankhamun could have received their right to the throne by descent from Akhenaten or any of his wives or daughters. Tutankhamun’s status before his accession as the son of a king can therefore derive only from Smenkhkare. The probability that the body from KV 55 is that of Smenkhkare enhances this relationship, since physical examination has indicated that its owner was a close relative of Tutankhamun.

Smenkhkare’s adoption of the primary element of Neferneferuaten’s prenomen and of her chief queen, Meritaten, as his own, as well as the juxtaposition of his name with Akhenaten’s on the vase from Tutankhamun’s tomb, all seem clearly designed to enhance the legitimacy of his claim as Akhenaten’s successor. Tutankhamun followed the same course by taking Ankhesenpaaten as his chief queen. The right of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun to the succession, however, may not have been based merely on these marriages.

Although Tutankhamun’s designation of Amenhotep III as “his father” is not a literal statement of his parentage, it does indicate that he regarded that king as an ancestor. The model coffin found in his tomb, containing a lock of hair from Amenhotep III’s queen, Tiya, looks like a family heirloom and suggests that the term “his father” had more than just religious meaning. Tutankhamun’s ties to the family of Amenhotep III are underlined by a surveying instrument dedicated to Amenhotep’s father, Thutmose IV. Inscriptions on both sides of the object describe Tutankhamun as



“he who renews the monument of ..., Lord of the Two Lands, MENKHEPERURE.”

Only two interpretations of the signs preceding nb tAwj “Lord of the Two Lands” seem possible: jt jt.f “his father’s father” or jt jt jt.f “his father’s father’s father.” The former would identify Thutmose IV as Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and the latter as his great-grandfather. The epithet’s unusual character suggests that it was meant literally: had Tutankhamun merely intended to honor Thutmose IV as an illustrious ancestor, he would undoubtedly have used the more common term jt.f “his father.” Of the two readings, the first is ruled out by the evidence that Tutankhamun’s father was probably Smenkhkare, who was born at the earliest thirty years after the death of Thutmose IV; by the same measure, his mother is not likely to have been a daughter of that king.

The inscription therefore honors Thutmose IV as Tutankhamun’s great-grandfather. This in turn identifies his grandfather or grandmother as a child of Thutmose IV, who must be either Amenhotep III or one of that king’s siblings. Although Amenhotep III had several sisters (or half-sisters), and possibly also brothers (or half-brothers), any of whom could have been grandparents of Tutankhamun, the lock of Queen Tiya’s hair buried with Tutankhamun argues that Amenhotep III himself was Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and Tiya his grandmother. His father, Smenkhkare, was therefore a son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiya, and a younger brother of Akhenaten.


I don't think, from the arguments presented by Allen over these two articles, that the argument there "...was never a male king called Smenkhkare" is very valid. Some scholars, specifically Harris (1973) and Samson (1978), have tried to argue this, but I think Allen's position reflects what most Egyptologists today think was actually the case.

Reference:

Allen, J. 1994. Nefertiti and Smenkh-ka-re. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 7-17.

______. 2007. The Amarna Succession. In P. Brand and L. Cooper, eds., Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Volume 37. Leiden: Brill. (Forthcoming in 2009). (Online).

Harris, J. R. 1973. Nefertiti rediviva. Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen) 35: 5-13.

________. 1973. Nefernefruaten. Göttinger Miszellen 4: 15-17.

Samson, J. 1978. Amarna. City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti as Pharaoh. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd,

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought that Smenkhare might be Akhenaten's younger brother, not Tutankhamun's, and I thought that most people believed Tutankhamun was Akhenaten's son
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 557
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
I don't think, from the arguments presented by Allen over these two articles, that the argument there "...was never a male king called Smenkhkare" is very valid. Some scholars, specifically Harris (1973) and Samson (1978), have tried to argue this, but I think Allen's position reflects what most Egyptologists today think was actually the case.


That said, I'd still like to note that indisputable images of Smenkhkare are hard to come by. I believe the most-frequently-cited image, showing an Amarna king with an Amarna queen, is completely without inscription, and has been argued to represent Tutankhamen and Ankhesenamen as well as Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

(Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chillie:
the lock of Queen Tiya’s hair buried with Tutankhamun argues that Amenhotep III himself was Tutankhamun’s grandfather, and Tiya his grandmother. His father, Smenkhkare, was therefore a son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiya, and a younger brother of Akhenaten.

As stated by neseret, in her excellent posting above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
neseret wrote:
I don't think, from the arguments presented by Allen over these two articles, that the argument there "...was never a male king called Smenkhkare" is very valid. Some scholars, specifically Harris (1973) and Samson (1978), have tried to argue this, but I think Allen's position reflects what most Egyptologists today think was actually the case.


That said, I'd still like to note that indisputable images of Smenkhkare are hard to come by. I believe the most-frequently-cited image, showing an Amarna king with an Amarna queen, is completely without inscription, and has been argued to represent Tutankhamen and Ankhesenamen as well as Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

(Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course.)


The problem with such an argument is that the inscription beside the imagery of the Amarna king and queen in the tomb of Meryre at Amarna was definitively identified as Meritaten and Smenkhkare in Lepisus' Denkmäler (1849-1859). specifically Denkmäler III, Plate 99. de Garies Davies noted this in his rendering of the Meryre scene, and showed the cartouches as found in the Denkmäler III, Pl. 99.

Here are the cartouches as found in Meryra's tomb, showing the image of the king and queen rewarding Meryra, and as recorded by Lepsius about 1850 or so:



The cartouches are now gone, but Lepsius recorded them before they were destroyed, and as such De Garies Davies used these cartouches to identify the king and queen in the scene as Smenkhkare and Meritaten in his rendering of the scene.

Reference:

de Garies Davies, N. 1905. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II: The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt. F. L. Griffith. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Lepsius, C. R. 1971-1974 (1849-1859). Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Erste Abteilung. (VII Vols.) Genève: Éditions de Belles-Lettres.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris that's what I thought too, and I thought Tut was Akhenaten's son.

If the images in Meri Re's tomb are positively identified as Smenkhare and Meritaten, then what is the dispute? So, Akhenaten died, then Nefertiti and Meritaten ruled for a brief time (or Nefertiti was Akhenaten's co-regent and kept her oldest daughter with her), then Smenkhare and Meritaten for a couple months, then Tut?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Osiris II
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1752

PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In "The Armana Succession" Brand and Cooper post the idea that Tutankhamen was the son of Smenkhare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Osiris II wrote:
In "The Armana Succession" Brand and Cooper post the idea that Tutankhamen was the son of Smenkhare.


which is a good idea, but if the mummy in kv 55 is a 20 year old male, and it is smenkhare, that idea goes out the window. the mummy and tut are either father and son or brothers from the blood typing done. i would think they were brothers. two brothers marrying sisters is more sense than smenkhare and poss. meritaten having tut, and then he marries his aunt.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 1033
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Osiris II wrote:
In "The Armana Succession" Brand and Cooper post the idea that Tutankhamen was the son of Smenkhare.


which is a good idea, but if the mummy in kv 55 is a 20 year old male, and it is smenkhare, that idea goes out the window. the mummy and tut are either father and son or brothers from the blood typing done. i would think they were brothers. two brothers marrying sisters is more sense than smenkhare and poss. meritaten having tut, and then he marries his aunt.


FWIW, the body in KV 55, which is serologically related to Tutankhamun as either brother or father (Harrison, Connolly, et al. 1969), is aged to between 20-25 years (Filer 2000), so having a son who is about 9 years old at his father's death is not outside the realms of possibility - if one understands that marriages for males could take place in ancient Egypt as young as 10-12 years age, and 8-12 years of age for females (Janssen and Janssen 2007), when sexual maturity begins.

How long it would be before a viable birth was possible may not have been very long, considering the locale (that is to say, that children who live within the hotter tropic zones, with its higher temps, tend to mature earlier than children living further north or south. Menses, for example, can set in as early as 7 years of age in such cultures, even today.)

Reference:

Filer, J. 2000. The KV 55 body: the facts. Egyptian Archaeology 17/Autumn: 13-14.

Harrison, R. G., R. C. Connolly, et al. 1969. Kinship of Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun Demonstrated Serologically. Nature 224/October 25, 1969: 325-326.

Janssen, R. M. and J. J. Janssen 2007. Growing Up and Getting Old in Ancient Egypt. London: Golden House Publications.

HTH.
_________________
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies
Doctoral Programme [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i guess it's a possibility, but we have no evidence do we? and im sure the mummy in kv 55 is under 25 years, which automatically excludes akhenaten.
anyone saying that the mummy is older than 25 is trying to get in hawass' good graces. everyone conveniently forgets there was mummy fragments in akhentens tomb at amarna when it was discovered. they didnt survive though. is ther any evidence at amarne, apart from akhenaten, of a male burial? is it possible that smenkhare was buried in thebes or memphis before being moved to the valley of the kings?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 557
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neseret wrote:
The problem with such an argument is that the inscription beside the imagery of the Amarna king and queen in the tomb of Meryre at Amarna was definitively identified as Meritaten and Smenkhkare in Lepisus' Denkmäler (1849-1859). specifically Denkmäler III, Plate 99. de Garies Davies noted this in his rendering of the Meryre scene, and showed the cartouches as found in the Denkmäler III, Pl. 99.


Huh! I'd not run into that before...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chillie
Account Suspended


Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 345
Location: New Jersey brrrrrr

PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about the suggestion that Smenkhare is Tutankhamun's father?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group