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 

King Neferuneferuaten & the changing of names
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:04 pm    Post subject: King Neferuneferuaten & the changing of names Reply with quote

(This is an extensive re-write of an earlier post that was embedded, perhaps inappropriately, in another Amarna thread.)

The earlier theory that Nefertiti; (Ankhkheperure)|-(Neferneferuaten)|; and (Ankhkheperure)|-(Smenkhkare)| were all one and the same person never appealed to me for one important reason: all those name-changes. How to account for them? Why would they all have been necessary?

The more recent - and to my mind infinitely preferable - theory (initially proposed by James P Allen in 1988, and confirmed by Allen & Marc Gabolde in 2004) is that Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare were two separate people: the former female, the latter male. But then the question arose: who was Neferneferuaten?

There seem to be two main candidates: Nefertiti and Meritaten, both GRWs, both arguably "beloved" or "desired/chosen by Waenre", both "effective for their husbands" (ie Akhenaten and Smenkhkare respectively). But there seems to me to be one rather simple factor that overrides all the other questions: the name. While we almost universally talk of Queen "Nefertiti", she had had already become "Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti" by Akhenaten's Year 5. Her estate, from which wine was delivered to Akhetaten, was called "The House of Neferneferuaten" (Aldred, 1988, p227) suggesting that, in less formal contexts, this name had effectively displaced the double-barelled name, eclipsing the original Nefertiti element. As Akhenaten's GRW, she was generally known as Queen Neferneferuaten. So what is more natural than to assume that, adopting the prenomen Ankh(t)Kheperure, she became King Neferneferuaten? Everyone would have recongized her as who she was: the Queen who had become King.

The alternative is that Queen Meritaten abandoned her own given name and adopted her mother's. Can we think of a precedent or plausible reason for this? My view is that Pharaonic folk - not unlike ourselves - changed their personal names (nomen) only rarely, and only for definite reasons:

Amenhotep IV became Akhenaten to lose the Amen connection and promote the Aten.
Nefertiti became Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti to acquire an "Aten-friendly" name (but was able to retain her old "neutral" name since it wasn't offensive to Atenist theology).
Tutankhuaten became Tutankhamen to lose the Aten connection.
Ankhesenpaaten became Akhesenamun for the same reason.
And there may be other name changes during the period - all of the same Atenist/Amunist nature: for example the famous Horemheb may have been known as General Paatenheb during the Amarna years (Dodson, 2009, p109).

But Meritaten's own name was perfectly "Atenist," so there is no theological motive for changing it. I'm sure she loved her mother, but people, especially kings and queens, seldom entirely supress their own identity for that reason; there are other ways of showing respect. So, what's the gain? Other than confusing her subjects ... and future Egyptologists?

Are there any other precedents for 18th (or other) Dynasty name-changes that are relevant to this discussion? (With apologies if this question has been raised previously, as it is difficult to suppose that it hasn't.)

References

Aldred, C., 1988 - Akhenaten King of Egypt, Thames & Hudson;
Dodson, A., 2009 - Amarna Sunset, The American University in Cairo Press;
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent post. Can't really argue with anything you said Very Happy

I don't know of any other case where a woman takes power and completely abandons her original name. It's clear Maatkare was previously known as Hatshepsut, Sebeknofru doesn't loose her name and neither does Tawosret. They may gain others in addition, but the identity of the woman is not obscured.

I do find the conjecture that Neferneferuaten was Nefertiti appealing because of that reason. The other alternative is that it was Neferneferuaten-tasherit, but why she would supplant her two older living sisters is beyond me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I see it the problems with identifying Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti are A, there is evidence that she predeceased her husband; B, that there is evidence that Smenkhkara was Akhenaten's immediate successor; and C there is NO evidence of any co-regent at Akhetaten.

If Nefertiti died before Akhenaten and Smenkhkara then she obviously cannot be King Neferneferuaten. Meritaten, eldest daughter of one king and consort of the other would clearly be in the best position to take the throne. She might have deliberately adopted her mother's praenomen out of a desire to usurp Nefertiti's unique partnership with Akhenaten. The 'effective for her husband' title does suggest something of the kind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
Excellent post.

Thanks Very Happy
anneke wrote:
The other alternative is that it was Neferneferuaten-tasherit, but why she would supplant her two older living sisters is beyond me.

Well I guess it's not impossible that Meritaten had already died. But then, I agree, Ankhesenpaaten - later to become Ankhesenamun - would have had seniority.

And anyway, if my reconing is correct (and it may not be) then Neferneferuaten-ta-sherit wouldn't have been much older than Tutankhuaten himself. Why would a girl of that age take the throne in preference to him? Unless I am mistaken, all the other examples of women taking on the titles of king are due to the fact that the crown prince is too young to assume the role. An older woman takes on the role in place of/as regent for the young heir.
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
As I see it the problems with identifying Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti are A, there is evidence that she predeceased her husband;

That's the fragment of the ushabti. But that evidence is highly contentious: it's only valid if we can be sure that this ushabti was made after Nefertiti's death, and therefore crystallises her final titles and rank, and was not simply made at a particular time but not ultimately used. We simply don't know, pace Aldred (1988) et. al. And since we know that other funerary equipment was often made for one person, not used for them, and reused for someone else - Tutankhamun's and the occupant of KV55 for example - I'm not sure we have any grounds to be be too dogmatic about the ushabti.
Meretseger wrote:
B, that there is evidence that Smenkhkara was Akhenaten's immediate successor;
Could you elaborate?
Meretseger wrote:
and C there is NO evidence of any co-regent at Akhetaten.
No sure evidence, maybe, but aren't there tantalising suggestions that there may have been?

Meretseger wrote:
Meritaten, eldest daughter of one king and consort of the other would clearly be in the best position to take the throne. She might have deliberately adopted her mother's praenomen out of a desire to usurp Nefertiti's unique partnership with Akhenaten.

I've just re-read the relevant portion of Aidan Dodson's book and it strikes me that we have absolute evidence that Neferneferuaten can't be Meritaten. In the entrance to Tutankhamun's tomb, a single strip from a box was found with the names - in succession - of King (Neferkheperure-Waenre)| - (Akhenaten)|, followed by King (Akhkheperure-mery-Neferkheperure)| - (Neferneferuaten-mery-waenre)|, followed by Great Royal Wife (Meritaten)|. (see pp 34 & 37) Neferneferuaten and Meritaten can't be the same person.

Interestingly, in 1988, Cyril Aldred had two reasons for rejecting the idea that Nefertiti survived to become Neferneferuaten. The first was the ushabti fragment, and the second was the prenomen Ankhkheperure "has been generally recognized since the days of Petrie's discoveries at Amaran as that of the young king whose nomen was Smenkhkare. Now, according to this new theory, he must be eliminated entirely from the family..." (p.229) But since Allen and Gabolde have shown that two kings used the same prenomen, this objection simply dissolves. We can have both Neferneferuaten and Smenkhkare. Leaving only the contenious ushabti fragment.

If King Neferneferuaten isn't Smenkhkare and isn't Meritaten and isn't Neferneferuaten-ta-sherit she has to be Queen Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, because otherwise we've painted ourselves into a pretty corner and she can hardly be anyone!

As to that common prenomen, I would speculatively suggest that as Nefertiti took on the throne (after Smekhkare's death) as Akhenaten's co-regent in place of Smenkhkare's natural successor Tutankhaten - she effectively saw her role as a continuation of Smenkhkare's reign - taking his place as a sort of understudy - until his son was able to rule. Why any of this was necessary while Akhenaten was alive - if he was alive - is another matter for speculation. I have my own theory: by this stage he was physically or mentally very fragile - perhaps both; hence the pressing need to have a competent co-ruler at all times.


References

Aldred, C., 1988 - Akhenaten King of Egypt, Thames & Hudson;
Dodson, A., 2009 - Amarna Sunset, The American University in Cairo Press;
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For as far as I understand it we don't really know at all when Neferneferuaten ruled.

Meretseger wrote:
As I see it the problems with identifying Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti are A, there is evidence that she predeceased her husband; B, that there is evidence that Smenkhkara was Akhenaten's immediate successor; and C there is NO evidence of any co-regent at Akhetaten.


A: The only thing we could point to is the ushabti inscribed for the GRW Nefertiti, but I have never seen any other evidence that she died during the reign of Akhenaten. No coffin, no funerary scenes in the royal tomb (compared to Meketaten's for instance), no funerary items (like the part of a shrine for Tiye found in KV 55) that places her death during the reign of Akhenaten.

There are other instances where there seem to have been votive shabtis: One for Queen Bentanath in Saqqara while she's known to have been buried in the Valley of the Queens for instance.

B: I agree with Smenkhare succeeding Akhenaten, but that does not have much relevance wrt to Neferneferuaten's tenure. Merely means she either has to be a co-regent from the time of Akhenaten or a regent for Tut or ruler preceding him.

C: Well, the "evidence" is controversial. There is the stela with Akhenaten with a queen on his lap and another stela with 2 rulers (maybe Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten?) It's true that there is no incontrovertible evidence, but there is nothing that makes the scenario impossible either.


It's interesting just how intractable this period is Very Happy
I'm personally just not clear at all if Neferneferuaten ever ruled independently or if she was always a co-regent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Austendw
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 34
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
B: I agree with Smenkhare succeeding Akhenaten, but that does not have much relevance wrt to Neferneferuaten's tenure. Merely means she either has to be a co-regent from the time of Akhenaten or a regent for Tut or ruler preceding him.

But the graffito in TT139 is very relevant here: It is dated to year 3 of King (Ankhkheperure-mery...)| - (Neferneferuaten-merit-A...)| but refers to the Temple of (Ankhkheperure)|. This second Ankhkheperure (simply that, without any further epithet) must be Smenkhkare - who therefore must already have assumed the throne (by assuming the prenomen). Doesn't this imply that Smenkhkare's rule cannot have post-dated Neferneferuaten's kingship?
_________________
Call me Ishmael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
Quote:
Meritaten, eldest daughter of one king and consort of the other would clearly be in the best position to take the throne.

If King Neferneferuaten doesn't = Nefertiti, how is it possible to explain away the Pharaonic objects with Nefertiti's face/body profile found in Tut's tomb i.e. the coffinettes and the figure/s on the panther? Those faces and figures can in no way be construed as Meritaten.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what evidence is there that Smenkhare was Ankhenatens immediate successor? most books I have read that are recent list him only as a successor. Also what I have read just indicates that Nefertiti was no longer mentioned at the end of her husbands reign. I wish I could remember where I read recently that 1 theory out there had 3-4 people ruling between Ankhenaten and Tutankhamen. My belief is that it went Ankhenaten- Nefertiti, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, since it seems the easy fit. 2nd place idea for me is Ankhenaten, Smenkhare, Meritaten, Tutankhamen. I am beginning to like this idea more since I think KV55 is Smenkhare, and KV55= Tuts father. I like the logic of Ankhenaten, then Tuts daddy(some evidence he ruled and was male), Meritaten(maybe Tuts mom maybe not), his main wife out lives her husband, takes the throne as king, dies and then Tut. just MHO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Austendw wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
As I see it the problems with identifying Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti are A, there is evidence that she predeceased her husband;

That's the fragment of the ushabti. But that evidence is highly contentious: it's only valid if we can be sure that this ushabti was made after Nefertiti's death, and therefore crystallises her final titles and rank, and was not simply made at a particular time but not ultimately used. We simply don't know, pace Aldred (1988) et. al. And since we know that other funerary equipment was often made for one person, not used for them, and reused for someone else - Tutankhamun's and the occupant of KV55 for example - I'm not sure we have any grounds to be be too dogmatic about the ushabti.


Aldred also describes a relief fragment from Hermopolis or Memphis in which Akhenaten is shown worshipping the Aten accompanied by two adult daughters, presumably Meritaten and Ankhesenpaaten, and by Kiya and her daughter. The absence of Nefertiti strongly suggests she was dead before the end of Akhenaten's reign. The fact is she pretty much disappears afte the death of Meketaten c. year 14. This was once explained away by identifying her with Smenkhkara but KV55 argues against that.

Meretseger wrote:
B, that there is evidence that Smenkhkara was Akhenaten's immediate successor;
Could you elaborate? [/quote]

I am referring to the well known reliefs in the tomb of Meryre (?) which shows a conventional scene of Akhenaten, Nefertitit and daughters on one wall and a similar one featuring Smenkhkara and Meritaten on another. To my mind at least this suggests a direct succession.

Meretseger wrote:
and C there is NO evidence of any co-regent at Akhetaten.
No sure evidence, maybe, but aren't there tantalising suggestions that there may have been? [/quote]

Anything 'might have been'. I'd like to see a relief of two kings worshipping in tandem or see a mention of a co-regent somewhere in the Amarna correspondance.

Meretseger wrote:
Meritaten, eldest daughter of one king and consort of the other would clearly be in the best position to take the throne. She might have deliberately adopted her mother's praenomen out of a desire to usurp Nefertiti's unique partnership with Akhenaten.

I've just re-read the relevant portion of Aidan Dodson's book and it strikes me that we have absolute evidence that Neferneferuaten can't be Meritaten. In the entrance to Tutankhamun's tomb, a single strip from a box was found with the names - in succession - of King (Neferkheperure-Waenre)| - (Akhenaten)|, followed by King (Akhkheperure-mery-Neferkheperure)| - (Neferneferuaten-mery-waenre)|, followed by Great Royal Wife (Meritaten)|. (see pp 34 & 37) Neferneferuaten and Meritaten can't be the same person. [/quote]

Unless Meritaten for some reason inscribed her two sets of titles in tandem with her father's. I'll have to have a look at what Dodson says.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
Meretseger wrote:
Quote:
Meritaten, eldest daughter of one king and consort of the other would clearly be in the best position to take the throne.

If King Neferneferuaten doesn't = Nefertiti, how is it possible to explain away the Pharaonic objects with Nefertiti's face/body profile found in Tut's tomb i.e. the coffinettes and the figure/s on the panther? Those faces and figures can in no way be construed as Meritaten.


I don't see why not. Certainly not based on facial appearance as Meritaten might well have resembled her mother.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

herper wrote:
what evidence is there that Smenkhare was Ankhenatens immediate successor? most books I have read that are recent list him only as a successor. Also what I have read just indicates that Nefertiti was no longer mentioned at the end of her husbands reign. I wish I could remember where I read recently that 1 theory out there had 3-4 people ruling between Ankhenaten and Tutankhamen. My belief is that it went Ankhenaten- Nefertiti, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, since it seems the easy fit. 2nd place idea for me is Ankhenaten, Smenkhare, Meritaten, Tutankhamen. I am beginning to like this idea more since I think KV55 is Smenkhare, and KV55= Tuts father. I like the logic of Ankhenaten, then Tuts daddy(some evidence he ruled and was male), Meritaten(maybe Tuts mom maybe not), his main wife out lives her husband, takes the throne as king, dies and then Tut. just MHO.


IMO the disappearence of Neferiti from the record is the strongest evidence for her death before Akhenaten's, unless we're going to revive the old 'disgrace and exile' theory. It's hard to explain Meritaten's relative prominence at the end of the reign unless she was replacing her mother and of course we can now be all but certain that Nefer did NOT metamorph into Smenkhkara!

There is NO mention of Nefer-neferuaten as co-regent in the Amarna letters - though a Mayati often identified with Meritaten IS mentioned in terms suggesting considerable political power (which makes me wonder about the identification). I would be perfectly happy to identify 'King Neferneferuaten' with Nefertiti if only it didn't seem clear that that king succeeded Smenkhkara at which time Nefertiti was apparently deceased.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anneke
Queen of Egypt
Queen of Egypt


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 9305

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:

IMO the disappearence of Neferiti from the record is the strongest evidence for her death before Akhenaten's, unless we're going to revive the old 'disgrace and exile' theory. It's hard to explain Meritaten's relative prominence at the end of the reign unless she was replacing her mother and of course we can now be all but certain that Nefer did NOT metamorph into Smenkhkara!

If Nefertiti became "king" that would explain why she never appeared as Queen anymore and Meritaten could have taken up that function at court. (playing devils advocate Smile )

Meretseger wrote:
There is NO mention of Nefer-neferuaten as co-regent in the Amarna letters - though a Mayati often identified with Meritaten IS mentioned in terms suggesting considerable political power (which makes me wonder about the identification).

I had not thought about that angle. Is there any mention of Nefernefruaten in the Amarna letters though? Or of Smenkhare for that matter?

Thinking of it another way: when does the correspondence we have stop?
Wikipedia states that there may be letters dating to possibly the 2nd year of Tutankhamen? In that case one could hope to maybe find some clues in these letters.

Not sure how complete the archive is though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
herper
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Posts: 229
Location: New Haven,CT USA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

after rereading this topic, I know have to favor the order as Ankhenaten, Smenkhare, Meritaten, Tutankhamen. It seems to fit with the Amarna Letters, known persons, in the right positions at the right times, and has less of a "what if this, this and this all happened just right" feel to it. Oh the joys of history!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neseret
Vizier
Vizier


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

PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

anneke wrote:
I had not thought about that angle. Is there any mention of Nefernefruaten in the Amarna letters though? Or of Smenkhare for that matter?


Simple answer: no. See more below.

anneke wrote:
Thinking of it another way: when does the correspondence we have stop? Wikipedia states that there may be letters dating to possibly the 2nd year of Tutankhamen? In that case one could hope to maybe find some clues in these letters.

Not sure how complete the archive is though.


Simple answer again: not very.

Together there are 382 tablets considered "Amarna tablets": 32 are not letters. Of the remaining 350 tablets, dating is problematic since the discussion of the Hittites, of whom we have a fair idea of their dating and activities, are only discussed in general terms and not by specific activities, to which dating can be definite (Moran 1992: XXXVIII). This has led to the "high, middle and low" argument as to their dating, and much of this hinges on the (you guessed it) "Egyptian Queen" correspondence (for a full discussion on the "Egyptian Queen" correspondence, see Murnane 1990).

The general consensus is that Nib-hurru-riya within that set of letters stands for /nb-xpr.w-ra/ (Tutankhamun), but some scholars (specifically Krauss 1978) wish to read "Nib-hurru-riya" as /nfr-xpr.w-ra/ (Akhenaten), though in other areas of the Amarna Letters this king is referred to as "Naph-hurru-riya." It appears agreed that Smenkhkare (and possibly "King Neferneferuaten," now that we know about this "king") is called A(na)-hurru-riya (Egyptian: /anx-xpr.w-ra/), based upon references in texts outside the Amarna Letters.

So, knowing who is referred to as A(na)-hurru-riya is actually of no help: since both kings used the same throne name, any reference in the Amarna Letters wouldn't be helpful. Sadly, according to Moran's translations, he found no letters addressed to A(na)-hurru-riya in the Amarna Letters.

This can means any number of things: a) we haven't found such missives yet, or b) no meaningful letters were exchanged between the Amarna vassals and these two ephemeral kings during the period (which is somewhat supported by a relative period of peace until Tutankhamun's reign, according to Hittite and other records), or c) the dating of the total archive may be off, based upon poor translations.

For more on the dating controversy of the Amarna Letters, see

Campbell, E. F. 1964. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters, with Special Reference to the Hypothetical Coregency of Amenophis III and Akhenaten. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Giles, F. J., J. B. Hennessey, et al. 1997. The Amarna Age: Western Asia. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 5. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

Giles, F. J. 2001. The Amarna Age: Egypt. Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies 6. Warminster: Aris and Philips Ltd.

kitchen, K. A. 1962. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs: A Study in Relative Chronology. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeological and Oriental Studies. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Krauss, R. 1978. Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 7. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag.

Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Murnane, W. J. 1990. The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations. SAOC 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

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
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 1 of 8

 
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