History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedoriginal inhabitants of ancient England

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
Author
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:10
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Exactly! Because no modern specialists believe they are related, for good reason.

The advantage of reading them is that you learn who the ancient Britons were.
Specialists are those who express their opinions based on sources not their own imaginations!
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:14
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Specialists are those who express their opinions based on sources not their own imaginations!

I'll remember this next time you make up etymologies out of the blue Wink
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 14:48
 
Just a sporadic thought ... Sleepy
 
In recent years,there seems to be a wave of " liberal " Western linguistic experts attempt to lump Eastern & European languages in one umbrella on " superficial likeness ".Altaic group is one example LOL
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 15:48
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Reginmund, You are talking with someone who has a PhD on Iranian history and researched about Scythians more than 10 years and has read hundreds books and articles about them, so I am not really an amateur!
If you have read hundreds of books and articles, haven't you noticed that virtually all of them do not link Scythians to Britons, Saxons or whatever other Western or Central European tribes? Is your PhD in historical linguistics (and if not, on what grounds do you suggest we should accept your typical arguments - mostly word-games - as evidence)? And since you keep waving language-related arguments, can you articulate please some phrases in ancient Scythian? Translate a text into this language maybe? Conjugate a verb? Or in some other languages you believe Scythian was related to?
Can you present some of your articles (relevant to your theories and in particular to this thread - because I don't see how Iranian history relates to the "original inhabitants of ancient England") which you submitted for notable peer-reviewed journals? Or some of your theories which are accepted by a significant part of the current academia (if not the mainstream)?
 
No offense, but if most of my questions above will be answered by "no" or not answered at all, I don't really care you have a PhD and I don't think many would. Expertise should also be proved, not only claimed ex cathedra. You can have as well a PhD in geology or in computer science, it doesn't make much of a difference.
 
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.
 
 
In this case,is it fair to say indigenous Britons of England ( A division of the United Kingdom, the southern part of the island of Great Britain. Originally settled by Celtic peoples, it was subsequently conquered by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, and Normans ) lost own Celtic-ethnic identity as a conquered people & unwittingly assumed the  " Anglo-Saxon " Germanic origin superficially.
 
 
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:35

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.

I guess if you were in England ... but if you were Welsh and in Wales any time before about the 19th century, you'd have a patronymic surname, that is, from your father's given name, usually with an "s" at the end in a possessive sense. Jones, Davies, Roberts, Evans, Williams, etc. If your father was Dave and you were Robert, you'd be Robert Davies (ie Robert, Dave's kid). Before (and during) Anglification, instead of "s" they'd use "ap" at the front of the name meaning the same thing as "Mac" - ie son of - and that's where you get names like Pritchard (Ap Richard) and Bowen (Ap Owen).

Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 17:38

I'm just a historian, not a linguist, the most important thing for a historian is the sources, I have researched about a Scythian presence in different regions and found that according to almost all English sources, such as "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" by Bede, the father of English History, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, "Historia Brittonum", by Nennius, "History of the Kings of Britain", by Geoffrey of Monmouth, "The Pictish Chronicle" and several other ones, Scythians migrated to Britain and were among the first inhabitants of this land, therefore as what Ibn Khaldun, the father of modern social science and history, says about the law of tawatur, we have to believe that this is a historical fact.

 
By tawatur is meant the multiplicity of the sources of a certain report that leads to certitude in the listener that the report is indeed true. One's knowledge of the existence of distant countries and towns and such historical figures as Cyrus or Napolean may be said to be based on the tawatur of reports that one hears about them.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 18:01
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

m just a historian, not a linguist, the most important thing for a historian is the sources, I have researched about a Scythian presence in different regions and found that according to almost all English sources, such as "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation" by Bede, the father of English History, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", compiled on the orders of King Alfred the Great, "Historia Brittonum", by Nennius, "History of the Kings of Britain", by Geoffrey of Monmouth, "The Pictish Chronicle" and several other ones, Scythians migrated to Britain and were among the first inhabitants of this land, therefore as what Ibn Khaldun, the father of modern social science and history, says about the law of tawatur, we have to believe that this is a historical fact.
To read primary sources outside the framework provided by the critical editions (where available, otherwise just collect the various studies and articles published throughout the scholarly journals), you must be also a philologist. The text, the language, the style, the narrative techniques and subtleties must be dealt with. Also you need to have some expertise in historiography and the history of ideas to spot the patterns, the mental models, the stereotypes. Telling fact from fiction, the artificial constructs from merely reflected realities it's one of the hardest task when reading the primary sources. If you have studied the history of Iran for 10 years, it won't help you much in understanding Bede, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle and similar texts if you don't have any other skills or experience. I see you avoided to answer my previous questions, therefore I conclude you have no scholarly authority whatsoever and your PhD is just a red herring.
 
The sources you invoke say nothing about a Scythian origin of the "English nation" or about a pre-historical Scythian migration in Britain (they do as much as Perrault's stories say about talking cats). You, as a PhD historian with no expertise whatsoever in dealing with ancient or medieval texts, show an unprofessional attitude if you disregard the existing expert work only to promote those theories dear to you. Because if you wouldn't, you'd see how "real" are the Scythian, Trojan, Biblical, etc. origins of the medieval nations.


Edited by Chilbudios - 17-Feb-2009 at 18:21
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 18:12
Slight problems with your theory, Cyrus.  First, you clearly don't understand the idea of source criticism, Bede, nor any of the medieval "historians" you mentioned above, did not have the same perspective on history, as factual based, as we do today.  In the 7th-8th C. history was not the objective interpretation of facts that it is today.  We known that many times Chronicles, Annals, and Histories are bogged down with propaganda and lies.  A prime example of this would be certain stories written about King John in certain chronicles which we know to be false since the parties in question were still living when the entry was written or had been dead for years when the event was supposed to have happened.  In all probability Bede is not reliable in relating the events that happened beyond the confines of living memory, that is to say that he is unreliable when talking about things that happened 100+ years before he lived/wrote.  Second you should be aware that Bede is the earliest and that ASC, Nennius, and Geoffrey of Monmouth all would have known about Bede and his writings.  Bede lived in the late 7th to early 8th Century at least 100 years before Nennius and the starting of ASC.  You should also note that in this period it was common to plagiarize more famous sources.  Regarding the law of tawatur, in order for this to be applied there needs to be an independent multiplicity of sources.  Furthermore, we have a multiplicity of historical documents that talk about monsters (ie dragons), are we to believe that monsters are real?  By this rational (the law of tawatur) we must accept the historical fact of monsters like dragons.  You should probably read up on the source criticism regarding Bede, ASC, Nenius, and Monmouth et al.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:16
Chilbudios and King John, your posts sum it up far better than I could but I think it's a wasted effort. Cyrus has already decided what he wants to believe and will stick with it in spite of anything, as he has done in numerous other threads.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: DesertSouthwest
Status: Offline
Points: 3265
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:24
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:



 

They were the Celtic-speaking " Romano-Britons " before the arrival of Anglo-Saxon Germanic tribes.

 

Me and many of you surely have read more than enough of how Anglo-Saxon or Germanic the English are blah blah blah ... lol.I want to know what happened to those natives,wiped out or absorbed by the invading conquests ? Roughly what percentage of modern day English gene pool can trace to England's indigenous people ? I am aware of Viking & Norman components,surname suffix ending " sen " or " son " most likely has Viking ancestry.

 

 


Archaeology magazine had an interesting article about this a few years back but I am not sure how you would find it. I do not believe the Angle, Jutes or Saxons wiped out the Romanized Celts. I can believe they might have killed most of the men and kept the women. The article did support this belief via genetics. I wish I could locate it- darn. If you are really interested I would go into the archives of "Archaeology Magazine." It is the American Archaeology Society and I love their lectures.
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 19:57
Some extinct beasts could be considered as monsters in the ancient times, why shouldn't we accept the existence of them? Just because they don't exist now? You have to believe there should be a reason that several sources in the different periods mention something, there have been always some researchers and analysts, not just in the last century, who researched about these thing, as I know in the Islamic world from at least 1200 years ago 'ilm al-rijal' -> ("science dealing with the scrutiny of the reporters") dealing with source criticism, existed and numerous books were written in this subject. If you want to be just, you will see that Bede, Nennius and other English historians did the same thing too but they could never deny a historical fact that probably the whole people of England believed it. 
New researches certainly show the precense of a Scythian people in England some hundreds years before Bede and other English historians, for example you can read here: http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-10/szarme.htm about Sarmatian - Iazyg presence in England, it is good that you read new researched about of the Arthurian legend that I had mentioned in a thread about it:
 
 
A NEW VIEW OF THE ARTHURIAN LEGENDS
 
"Some of the new research points us to some quite unexpected people as originators of the Arthurian legends. These are the Sarmatians and, the Alans,  ancient peoples who once inhabited much of continental Europe and their descendants, the Ossets, who still flourish within the boundaries of what used to be the Soviet Union, in the Caucasus region. In the 1997 January and February  issues  of the Archeological Journal, Scott C. Littleton, Professor of Anthropology at the Occidental College in Los Angeles, published  an article entitled Were Sarmatians the Source of Arthurian Legend? He writes  that, in 175 A.D., Marcus Aurelius dispatched 5,500 Iazyg (Sarmatian) warriors from the Danube region to England. In Professor Littleton’s opinion, it is from their culture that the Arthurian legend and the legend of the Holy Grail originated."
 
You can't deny all historical facts just because you don't like to believe the presence of an Iranian people in England in the ancient times.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:33
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Surnames are irrelevant since it was only well after the Norman conquest that the 'English' whoever they were, acquired surnames. So the names they got given were obviously going to be 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'French' because those were the languages spoken there at the time. If you were a baker in England and acquired a surname there was a pretty good chance it would be 'Baker' even if you were Welsh.

I guess if you were in England ...

Well, the question was about England, not about Wales. Or Ireland or Scotland. The fact that English speakers were only given surnames that late indicates that they have a linguistic origin long after most or the ethnic divisions had been forgotten.
 
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:38
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

[
The sources you invoke say nothing about a Scythian origin of the "English nation" or about a pre-historical Scythian migration in Britain (they do as much as Perrault's stories say about talking cats).
Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1368
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:41
I have read lots of Bede, Cyrus.  He is generally "trustworthy" for events that happened in his time and in the time of recent memory.  However, to call him "trustworthy" for events that occurred beyond that time in the past is not historically prudent.  Had you read him closely you would find that he only mentions the Picts as Scythian not the Britons.  You should also know that the Picts were mostly relegated to what is now Scotland.  

Nobody has denied the fact that Romans stationed Sarmatians in Britain; however, this garrison was nowhere near the size to have a drastic imprint on the culture and society.  Rome had more of an impact then the Sarmatians stationed there.

Arthurian mythology doesn't really start until after the Romans leave Britain in the early 5th Century.  There is a reason that Arthur's first real foes are the Angles and the Saxons.  Furthermore, the Grail story is an addition to Arthuriana by Chretien de Troyes and hardly contemporary with the advent of the Arthurian Myth.  The Grail is first mentioned in conjunction with the Arthurian myth in the story of Percival written by Chretien in the 12th Century.  Let's not conflate the Early Medieval Chronicles with High Medieval Romance.  Before you start espousing your "theories" you should probably read up on Medieval English History and the sources from which you wish to cull your information.

By the way, who has said that what Bede wrote is Historical Fact?  Also, you did not address the major point of my previous post so I will repeat it.  How can we say that Bede, Nennius, ASC, Geoffrey of Monmouth, et al. are all independent sources?  Bede because of his position in the writing of History (and other works) would have definitely been known to Nennius, the compiler(s) of the ASC, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc. and most certainly would have been imitated if not lifted.  Just because Bede says that Picts were Scythians and is seconded by the other names you mentioned (because they drew their information from Bede, not exactly an independent verification) doesn't mean that the claim is true.  Please note, Cyrus, that your claims lack a real criticism of the sources you are using and for them to be accepted and/or seriously considered you need to be more critical with what the sources claim.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 966
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:42
I believe the correct answer to the question at hand is the Trojans.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 21:57
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Well, the question was about England, not about Wales. Or Ireland or Scotland. The fact that English speakers were only given surnames that late indicates that they have a linguistic origin long after most or the ethnic divisions had been forgotten.

My bad. Do you happen to know if patronymics were ever in use among the Anglo-Saxons or is that habit restricted to the Gaels and Cymry? Or, to put it another way - do we have any idea what they did before they started using names like "Baker" and "Smith"?



Edited by edgewaters - 17-Feb-2009 at 22:01
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 22:33
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.
Well, Charles Perraut's fairy tales are actually about talking cats (like le chat botté). My point is no talking cats or Scythian prehistoric migrations in Britain ever existed. These sources say nothing about such real things, they only reflect the political, cultural, mental constructs of Anglo-Saxon (or English, if later) world.
 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 23:15
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

You can't deny all historical facts just because you don't like to believe the presence of an Iranian people in England in the ancient times.
What historical facts? That Roman Empire resettled population of various origins (including Sarmatians) all over, Britain included? No one is challenging that. But if some historians would harbor a theory that these Sarmatians formed a persistent ethnic enclave which would feed several later cultural traditions (the Arthurian legend in Britain, for instance) they must bring evidence, and they didn't. Such fringe theories are rather mentioned for their exotic nature than for some other merit.
 
Quote New researches certainly show the precense of a Scythian people in England some hundreds years before Bede and other English historians, for example you can read here
That's not new, that's very old (the book was published in 1960s, I don't know what material of Sulimirski they use, his book on Sarmatians was published in 1970). But that material is not about Scythians and moreover, IIRC, none of those authors endorse your theories that Scythians are among the first to settle Britain or that Scythian language and English language (or any other Germanic language) are related.
 
And certainly you have a very low standard for scholarship. Susan Tomory is a Hungarian author living in US for a long while, harboring a large variety of fringe theories (connections between Magyars and Basques, Sumerians, Philistines), and your article is no exception from that. One of the articles from magtudin.org qualifies this author as "independent researcher". That should say a lot.
As for the link (which probably you haven't read), it suggests that some of the Sarmatian tribes were actually the Magyars. "The Vettersfelde find is a beautiful summation of the mythology of three Magyar ethnic groups: the Jász, the Székely and the Magyar,  and proves their presence before the fifth century A.D. (sic!) in Europe."
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 20:13
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually, they do the latter (state that the Celtic peoples of Britain, not the English, came from Scythia). You'll find some references I dug up in the thread about Saxons and Scythians or one of Cyrus' pet projects.
Well, Charles Perraut's fairy tales are actually about talking cats (like le chat botté). My point is no talking cats or Scythian prehistoric migrations in Britain ever existed. These sources say nothing about such real things, they only reflect the political, cultural, mental constructs of Anglo-Saxon (or English, if later) world.
 
That's true but the point is that Cyrus (unusually Smile) was right to say the ancient authors talk about a prehisoric migration from Scythia, nonsesne though it may be. (cf King John's post.)
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.