| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Palmyra
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Palmyra

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Kirghiz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kirghiz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Palmyra
    Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 14:05
Have you ever seen the pictures of Palmyra?  This city is a magnificent place for research and study of eastern roman empire. I was surprised when I saw the pictures.







Edited by Kirghiz - 01 Jun 2011 at 14:22
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 17:23
Wow! Nice pics!
Since I am visiting Antioch often, I had a plan next time to visit Syria. Unfortunately, things are a bit worrying there now, but with the first chance I would like to visit this city!
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 18:17
Palmyra was a built by Greco-Arabs (settled Arab triebs who adopted Greek as their official language) and had little to do with Romans. The architecture is more like that of the Greek colonies on the Orontos than that of Baalbek or Bosra (the two main Roman cities of the era).
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 19:55
The theatre is very much done in a Roman style actually (and the building in the picture above it). Note the decorative, non functional, columns.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Kirghiz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kirghiz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2011 at 20:14
Actually it has been a Roman province and then in a brief time was independent, but came back under roman rule again. 
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2011 at 01:54
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Palmyra was a built by Greco-Arabs (settled Arab triebs who adopted Greek as their official language) and had little to do with Romans. The architecture is more like that of the Greek colonies on the Orontos than that of Baalbek or Bosra (the two main Roman cities of the era).
 
Al-Jassas


Nonsense Al! They are all Greek LOL
I'm kidding... Basically who ever designed those buildings had a fine taste.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jun 2011 at 07:43
Nonsense is correct, the surviving major architecture of Palmyra is classic Roman imperial as found littering the landscapes of the Southern Mediterranean Basin from Emerita Augusta through Leptis Magna and points Eastward. The bulk of the ruins have dates from the 2nd century and into the 3rd but by then the expansion of the Sassanids had begun to erode the economic foundations of the city. The remants of the walls around the archaeological site date to the times of Diocletian!  By then it was more a military outpost than a commercial entrepot.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jan 2012 at 19:44
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Palmyra was a built by Greco-Arabs (settled Arab triebs who adopted Greek as their official language) and had little to do with Romans. The architecture is more like that of the Greek colonies on the Orontos than that of Baalbek or Bosra (the two main Roman cities of the era).
 
Al-Jassas

Actually their Lingua Franca was Aramaic, not Greek. Although they did use Greek in some things, most of their commerce and governance was done in Aramaic. They were probably tri-lingual, speaking Arabic in their homes, Aramaic in the workplace and Greek when dealing with regional authorities.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jan 2012 at 08:10
Was Arabic even a commoner's tongue that area?  the language WAS a mixture of Aramaic and other semitic languages until the Islamic era, was it not?
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jan 2012 at 21:30
Yes Arabic was spoken by bedouin tribes all throughout the Middle East long before the Islamic era, even as far north as southern Anatolia.

Some of those tribes settled down and established kingdoms/empires like Palmyra, Nabataea etc.

We can tell from their names and even from some inscriptions that they were Arabic speakers.

The idea that Arabs remained strictly in the Arabian peninsula until the Islamic expansion is not accurate. In fact some archaeologists of the region, like Dr Juris Zarins, suggest that Arab tribes have been migrating out of the peninsula in waves since time immemorial, arriving first as marauders, then settling on the fringes, and eventually being absorbed into the urban civilisations of the fertile crescent, and that Aramaeans, Hebrews, Amorites etc. were some of the much older waves of migration that went through this process.

Considering the relationship between the Arabic language and the languages of those peoples, it seems quite likely this could've occurred. As Aramaic, Hebrew etc. are pretty much like creolised versions of Arabic, that probably formed when these early Semitic speakers mixed with the existing populations in the fertile crescent, and their language was affected by them, becoming quite simplified.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 09:49
So essentially you're claiming that Bedouin Arabs were the common city dwellers of Palmyra.  And that Hebrew and Aramaic are as good as Arabic. Correct?

Edited by Zagros - 09 Jan 2012 at 09:50
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2012 at 21:44
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

So essentially you're claiming that Bedouin Arabs were the common city dwellers of Palmyra.

Bedouin by its very definition means a non-city-dweller. Not sure where you came across this idea. I said it was spoken by Bedouin tribes who eventually settled down and formed kingdoms such as those of Palmyra & Nabataea. At which point they ceased being Bedouins.

I don't think this is really in dispute. Do you have information that suggests otherwise?

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

And that Hebrew and Aramaic are as good as Arabic. Correct?

Hebrew & Aramaic as good as Arabic? Based on what criteria? In my personal opinion, Hebrew & Aramaic are basically like creoles of Arabic that were formed by early Bedouin nomads that settled in the fertile crescent thousands of years ago. That's not to say they are descended from today's Arabic, of course not, but their parent language and that of Arabic was obviously the same, and Arabic is very little changed from that state, even today, whilst those two today are radically different from it.


Edited by Mukarrib - 09 Jan 2012 at 21:51
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 00:23
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Was Arabic even a commoner's tongue that area?  the language WAS a mixture of Aramaic and other semitic languages until the Islamic era, was it not?
 
There are surviving Arab texts (including poems) since the 3rd century AD. The current Arab that we have is the dialect of Hejaz which differes slightly from that of Iraq but not that much. I read those texts and easily understood them just as (albeit with some difficulty) understood Yemeni texts of an even earlier period.
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 07:00
The oldest surviving Arabic text is from the 8th. century B.C.E.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 20:44
Just thought I'd drop in a bit of a reference on the Palmyrene & Nabataean Arabs.

Both from A textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish by George Albert Cooke.

"The bulk of the population of Palmyra was of Arab race, hence many of the proper names are Arabic, and several Arabic words occur, e.g. מגד 112.3 חרם 112.4 " (p. 264)

"From the language of the inscriptions it appears that the Nabataeans were of Arab race and spoke Arabic, but used Aramaic for the purposes of writing and commerce" (p. 215)
 
Most of the Middle East had adopted Aramaic as a Lingua Franca during the time of the Persians, who inherited it from the Babylonians, who adopted it from the Aramaeans. The original speakers of the language died out, and in some strange twist, the conquerors of the Aramaeans carried their language all over the Middle East, and made it the language of empire. The average people of the Middle East did not speak it though, it was largely restricted to the upper classes. In fact the Bible records how Hezekiah negotiated with the Assyrians in Aramaic, so the common Jews would not understand (2 Kings 18:26).


Edited by Mukarrib - 10 Jan 2012 at 22:12
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 01:22
Thanks Al Jassas, I was aware of that.  Mukarrib, I will highlight the areas of your previous posts which inferred the misleading impressions that I perceived from you at a more convenient time.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 06:54
Just thought I might highlight that languages and writing systems are not the same thing.

3rd. century C.E is the first attestation of the modern Arabic writing system, not of the Arabic language. The Arabic language was previously written in the Musnad script, in which it is attested since the 8th. century B.C.E.

Just as the Hebrew language written in the modern Hebrew writing system for instance is only attested a mid first Millennium B.C.E, but the Hebrew language is attested much earlier using the Phoenician writing system (Paleo-Hebrew alphabet).

Languages often change writing systems. Writing systems are not languages, they are merely tools that are used to record languages.


Edited by Mukarrib - 11 Jan 2012 at 06:56
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 06:54
Quote Actually their Lingua Franca was Aramaic, not Greek. Although they did use Greek in some things, most of their commerce and governance was done in Aramaic. They were probably tri-lingual, speaking Arabic in their homes, Aramaic in the workplace and Greek when dealing with regional authorities.


Probably?  Why would they speak Arabic in their homes if all at most in the area were Arab traders and Bedouin nomads?  Bedouins by definition don't have homes.

Quote Considering the relationship between the Arabic language and the languages of those peoples, it seems quite likely this could've occurred. As Aramaic, Hebrew etc. are pretty much like creolised versions of Arabic, that probably formed when these early Semitic speakers mixed with the existing populations in the fertile crescent, and their language was affected by them, becoming quite simplified.


What do you mean Creolised versions of Arabic?  They are no more Arabic than Sanskrit is Russian.

And probably the ancestors of the large if not overwhelming majority of human beings passed through that area.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 07:23
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Probably?  Why would they speak Arabic in their homes if all at most in the area were Arab traders and Bedouin nomads?  Bedouins by definition don't have homes.

As I already clarified, they had settled down and were no longer bedouins.

And besides that was not in reference to the bulk of the population, just to the literate class. The rulers, scholars, government officials etc.

The bulk of the population would've spoken purely Arabic.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

What do you mean Creolised versions of Arabic?  They are no more Arabic than Sanskrit is Russian.

That comparison is just completely unfounded.

If we examine the history of Aramaic and Hebrew, we find both these languages were much more like Arabic in the past. Over time they lost many of the language features which Arabic till this day still retains.

Arabic is a very rare language, in that over the past 1400 years, it has remained virtually unchanged. And even prior to that, it was already one of the most conservative Semitic languages, probably due to it being largely isolated in the deserts of Arabia. Many of the features still present in Arabic today were lost in Hebrew and Aramaic thousands of years ago, before they were even committed to writing. 

If you actually study the Semitic languages, you could not help but realise that Hebrew and Aramaic are almost like extremely simplified versions of Arabic. I have addressed this in the "Age of the Arabic language" thread in one of the other WANA sub forums. If you'd like to continue this line of discussion, perhaps it would be a better venue to do that.

Of course Arabic has undergone a little evolution itself, so it is not the direct ancestor of Hebrew & Aramaic. But it far more resembles the ancestor of the Semitic languages than either of them do.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 00:45
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Probably?  Why would they speak Arabic in their homes if all at most in the area were Arab traders and Bedouin nomads?  Bedouins by definition don't have homes.

As I already clarified, they had settled down and were no longer bedouins.

And besides that was not in reference to the bulk of the population, just to the literate class. The rulers, scholars, government officials etc.

The bulk of the population would've spoken purely Arabic.


Where's your proof for this?  The fact that Bedouins travelled int he region in unknown quantities hardly makes a case for the base sedentary population being Arabs or even speaking Arabic as their mother tongue.

Quote
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

What do you mean Creolised versions of Arabic?  They are no more Arabic than Sanskrit is Russian.

That comparison is just completely unfounded.

If we examine the history of Aramaic and Hebrew, we find both these languages were much more like Arabic in the past. Over time they lost many of the language features which Arabic till this day still retains.



If we examine the history of Sanskrit and Russian (and by extension Slavic) we will see that one has lost characteristics over time that the other had.  This does not in any way justify saying that Russian is creolised Sanskrit just like Hebrew and Aramaic are not creolised Arabic.  They are semitic languages and that is what they have uin common.  An Arab friend of mine from uni days said that he could make more sense of modern Farsi language news channels than Hebrew.


Quote
Arabic is a very rare language, in that over the past 1400 years, it has remained virtually unchanged. And even prior to that, it was already one of the most conservative Semitic languages, probably due to it being largely isolated in the deserts of Arabia. Many of the features still present in Arabic today were lost in Hebrew and Aramaic thousands of years ago, before they were even committed to writing. 

If you actually study the Semitic languages, you could not help but realise that Hebrew and Aramaic are almost like extremely simplified versions of Arabic. I have addressed this in the "Age of the Arabic language" thread in one of the other WANA sub forums. If you'd like to continue this line of discussion, perhaps it would be a better venue to do that.

Of course Arabic has undergone a little evolution itself, so it is not the direct ancestor of Hebrew & Aramaic. But it far more resembles the ancestor of the Semitic languages than either of them do.


So what? That does not make them Arabic.  Sanskrit maintains more features in common with Proto-indo European than English, but that does not make proto-indo European Sanskrit.  And the reason for the consistency of the Arabic language is very simple:  The Qur'an and Islam.

You can't just make lofty claims without any proof or use misconstrued logic to justify your claim.  Just because one language retains more archaic features in common with its root than another in the same family - there is a whole science in etymology and philology which you should make reference to in future instead of reaching your own conclusions.

You are using your own fabricated logic to claim that Aramaic and Hebrew are Arabic and by extension then claiming that the residents of the likes of Palmyra were Arabs when your argument on bedouins being the commoners does not stand.

Basically you are reaching a conclusion then twisting things to support it.  Not good form.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 06:51
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Where's your proof for this?  The fact that Bedouins travelled int he region in unknown quantities hardly makes a case for the base sedentary population being Arabs or even speaking Arabic as their mother tongue.

Did you not read my reference above?

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

If we examine the history of Sanskrit and Russian (and by extension Slavic) we will see that one has lost characteristics over time that the other had.

In the case of Arabic compared to the other surviving Semitic languages, the comparison is almost entirely one way. Aramaic and Hebrew and earlier Akkadian acted as a sort of buffer between the Semitic south and the non-Semitic north. Ge'ez did the same in the south. These languages were all in direct contact with non-Semitic languages for millennia, and they show the clear signs of loss of Semitic features because of it. Arabic, and the South Arabian Languages (both Ancieint & Modern) on the other hand seem to have remained almost completely insulated from these influences.

The IE languages are a completely different set of languages that evolved in completely different circumstances. They spread across a vast geographical region early on. The Semitic languages on the other hand remained almost completely limited to the Arabian peninsula and surrounds. There were various expansions like the Phoenicians and the Islamic era, but the vast bulk of Semitic language development occurred in the tiny region of the Middle East.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

An Arab friend of mine from uni days said that he could make more sense of modern Farsi language news channels than Hebrew.

Yes modern day Hebrew is very far removed from its Semitic origins. It sounds more European to me than it does Semitic. Just to highlight how much the sound system has changed in Hebrew since the beginning of the Islamic period. Of the original 29 proto-Semitic phonemes, Hebrew at the advent of the Islamic era retained only 22 (possibly 23) of them, the rest had all been merged/simplified into other sounds. Today, the modern language of Hebrew, which was revived in the early 20th. century retains only about 18. Over 1/3 of the phonemic repertoire has been completely lost. On top of this, several phonemes were replaced with similar sounding ones that were borrowed from European languages and a few other new phonemes, which are completely etymologically unproductive have been introduced into the language. 

It is no wonder your friend could not recognise much of it, because it sounds like a completely new language. When listening to Hebrew I can make out quite a bit, but mostly because I've done some reading on comparative Semitic studies, so I can predict how words will end up sounding, due to the sound shifts and other evolutions that have occurred in Hebrew.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

And the reason for the consistency of the Arabic language is very simple:  The Qur'an and Islam.

That explains the last 1400 years of preservation, but not the thousands of years prior to that. As per my example above, by the onset of the Islamic period, Hebrew had already undergone radical sound shifts and mergers, and also a large degree of grammatical simplification.

Also the Ancient South Arabian languages were perhaps even more conservative than Arabic, yet they had no relation to Islam or the Qur'an at all. In fact Islam basically wiped them out.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

You can't just make lofty claims without any proof or use misconstrued logic to justify your claim.  Just because one language retains more archaic features in common with its root than another in the same family - there is a whole science in etymology and philology which you should make reference to in future instead of reaching your own conclusions.

Agreed. And the experts in those fields tend to agree about Arabic.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

You are using your own fabricated logic to claim that Aramaic and Hebrew are Arabic

Actually I clearly stated on several occasions that they are not Arabic, and that Arabic is not even their direct ancestor.

"Of course Arabic has undergone a little evolution itself, so it is not the direct ancestor of Hebrew & Aramaic. But it far more resembles the ancestor of the Semitic languages than either of them do."

Let's avoid fabricated arguments for one another, ok?

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

and by extension then claiming that the residents of the likes of Palmyra were Arabs when your argument on bedouins being the commoners does not stand.

I stated nothing of the kind. The Palmyrenes being Arabs has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of the Semitic languages.



Edited by Mukarrib - 13 Jan 2012 at 07:34
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.