Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Haplogroup of Huns is mainly CAUCASOID

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
kroglu View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote kroglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Haplogroup of Huns is mainly CAUCASOID
    Posted: 24-May-2005 at 22:45

Greeks tried to make cheap propaganda and said the real Turks had the haplogroups of Mongoloids. But today we know: PREDOMINANT HAPLOGROUP OF EARLY TURKS IS R - R1 - R1a BEVOR THEY GOT MONGOLOID INFLUENCE AND MIXED WITH C, Q ...

Scientists made geneanalyses with hun mummies and the Y-chrommosome is still similar

Game over sweet Greek




Edited by kroglu
Back to Top
kroglu View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote kroglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 22:47
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 22:48
Okay, that dirty Greek comment was unecessary.  Your post was edited to remove this offensive comment.
Back to Top
kroglu View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote kroglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2005 at 22:48
DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture. The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia. The research also provides glimpses into the Xiongnu culture. Elaborate burials were reserved for the elite members of society, who were often buried with sacrificial animals and humans at the time of burial. And relatives were often buried next to each other. The necropolis, or burial site, was discovered in 1943 by a joint Mongolian-Russian expedition in a region known as the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. Skeletons in the site were well preserved because of the dry, cold climate. The researchers estimated that the site was used from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D. The researchers were able to figure out how various skeletons may have been related by analyzing three different types of DNA. They used mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, Y-chromosome DNA, which is passed from father to son, and autosomal DNA (that is, everything but the X and Y chromosomes), which is inherited from both mother and father. Most scientists had previously thought that people from Asia mixed with Europeans sometime after the 13th century, when Ghengis Khan conquered most of Asia and parts of the Persian Empire. However, Keyser-Tracqui and her coworkers detected DNA sequences from Europeans in the Xiongnu skeletons. Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.
Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 07:55

curiously the seljuk turks, who wrested anatolia from the byzantine empire in the 11th century, have left only a faint genetic signal of ther presence, dr underhill said. thougn the conquerors imposed their language and culture over a wide region, an army of a mere 40.000 made little genetic difference to a population that had alteady reached 12 million by roman times.

http://www.racesci.org/in_media/nyt_nov2002_first_itineraries.htm

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 07:58
What don't you understand about your last post???

"They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia."

"
This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period."

Oh, you also forgot to post the pic:



Do you look anything like them, cause your Avatar is identical.

Why don't you provide a link to any study that supports your R, R1, R1a claims?




Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 08:16

 700 bc till 1453 ac. the greek present in anatolia.that mean total cultural and political hellenization of region. that u can see and today in physical and genetic  caratteristics of turkey s population. just give a look around.

the mostly of turks (specialy in west turkey ) looks indoeuropeans

and DNA test  prove the same

nothing curious....simple and logic...totaly normal

why is so difficult to undestand it?

dont worry they r turkish now....and i think is more important what the  population feel(and they feel turkish) and not what the genetic prove..

 

 

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 08:30

Can you give us DNA results of Greeks of 1.000 years, 2.000 years ego?

Can you give us DNA results of Turks of 1.000 years, 2.000 years ego?

Do you think that Turks who came to Anatolia were Mongols? This is not true.

There is not an M haplogroup in western Turks showing a clear proof that Turks and Mongols are and were different populations and they are mixed in recent years not at the very beginning.

It is a fact that Anatolian population and Turkish population have been mixed but not as much as you expect.

Back to Top
Kenaney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 543
  Quote Kenaney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 12:13
Originally posted by Ionian

 700 bc till 1453 ac. the greek present in anatolia.that mean total cultural and political hellenization of region. that u can see and today in physical and genetic  caratteristics of turkey s population. just give a look around.

the mostly of turks (specialy in west turkey ) looks indoeuropeans

and DNA test  prove the same

nothing curious....simple and logic...totaly normal

why is so difficult to undestand it?

dont worry they r turkish now....and i think is more important what the  population feel(and they feel turkish) and not what the genetic prove..

If i see what ure typing i should think "in ancient times millions of greeks did live in anatolia" or "all greeks did live in anatolia untill the Turks came and still there living millions of greeks there"

OUT OF LIMIT
Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 13:41
  YES!        QUOTE=Alparslan]

Can you give us DNA results of Greeks of 1.000 years, 2.000 years ego?

Can you give us DNA results of Turks of 1.000 years, 2.000 years ego?

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2005 at 15:12
Alp, here is your answer

How Turkish are the Anatolians?

The Anatolians are the ethnic descendants of both the indigenous populations of Asia Minor who converted to Islam (and were thus spared from the genocidal campaign of the Ottomans and Kemalists during the early 20th century), and also of non-indigenous populations from the Balkans, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
From Central Asia came the Turks
, who were the main agent for the Islamization and during the last century Turkification of Asia Minor.

To what extent are the Anatolians descended from Central Asian Turks? The study of Cinnioglu et al. (2004) discovered an occurrence of 3.4% of Mongoloid Y-chromosomal haplogroups in Anatolia (haplogroups Q, O, and C).

According to Tambets et al. (2004) the occurrence of Mongoloid haplogroups in present-day Central Asian Turkic Altaic speakers (Altaians) is at least 40%, with an additional 10% which might belong to haplogroup O which was not tested in this study. According to Zerjal et al. (2002) this percentage is for various Turkic speakers: Kyrgyz (22%), Dungans (32%), Uyghurs (33%), Kazaks (86%), Uzbeks (18%).

It is clear that the percentage of Mongoloid ancestry among the Turkic speakers is very variable, yet it is clear that the Proto-Turks must have been partially Mongoloid in lieu of the fact that all current Turkic speakers possess some Mongoloid admixture.
The average of the six Central Asian population samples listed above is 38.5% and may serve as a first-order estimate of the paternal contribution of early Turks, who (judging by their modern descendants in Central Asia) were more Caucasoid paternally and more Mongoloid maternally.

Using the figure of 38.5%, the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%.
It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolians, but it is by no means negligible.

Dienekes Pontikos






Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2005 at 01:57

Thank you Phallanx,

You are comparing today's populations' haplogroups of Central Asia. But Turks who came to Anatolia were living around there 1.000-1.500 years and much older. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Anyway, as you see even after the conquest of Gengis Kagan the Mongoloid ancestors of Altai Turks is %40 or we can say that they are %60 Caucosoid.......

The percentage of Caucosoid ancestory is %67 in Uighurs, %78 in Kyrgiz and % 82 in Uzbeks.  And those numbers formed after Gengis Kagan so we can easily assume that they were much lower before the Mongol conquest.

Consequently, showing %96,5 of Caucosoid ancestory of today's Anatolian Turks may very well reflect the DNA structure of Turks of 1.000 years ego when they came to Anatolia.

That's what we are saying. And I am not saying that they didn't mix with Anatolian populations. They certainly mix with but it is not as high as you think. The result that you give is nothing more than proof of what I said. Thank you.

The title of study that you have posted is totally wrong.

Originally posted by Phallanx



The average of the six Central Asian population samples listed above is 38.5% and may serve as a first-order estimate of the paternal contribution of early Turks,

This is a wrong assumption. Ther is no logic behind it. There is an very important historical fact. Genghis Kagan's conquest. Turks were already in Anatolia during Gengis's conquests. Mongoloid influence has increased in Central Asia and in Turkic populations after this event.

Originally posted by Phallanx


Using the figure of 38.5%, the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%.
It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolians, but it is by no means negligible.

This is a severe mistake and misjudgement.

The author consider Turks as Mongols and by doing so she/he neglects the Caucosoid admixture of even today's Central Asia. Moreover I would like to learn how did she/he get the average number of %38,5. She/he take the average of six population but without making a data mining. Data mining is the scientific method to eliminate extreme values to get more rational values for averages in statistics. Why ? It is because to reflect the sample as much as possible otherwise the stardard error would became too high preventing scientific investigation. The extreme value here is Kazakistan. If we exclude Kazakistan the average became %29. Another problem is the sample size. Sample size of 6 is not sufficient to conduct a meaninful statistical research. So the stardard error is certainly misleading.

Why exclude Kazakistan? Since the value is very extreme and historically Kazaks are composed mostly by Mongols. Just read history. But they are Turkified. History supports statistics.

Another problem is why Turkmenistan has not been included into research? I am sure in Turkmen population the paternal lineage of Mongoloid genes would be lowere than Uzbeks which is said %18. So that the average would be much lower. 

Even if the study is not satisfactory, in fact it supports what we are saying.   


 



Edited by Alparslan
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
  Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2005 at 05:19
This is a copy of a post of mine in another topic.

Now let's see what Turkish scholars have to say about this.

"The gene of Turks, who moved to Anatolia from Central Asia along with Seljuks, was NOT widely spread in this region, officer of National Geographic Spencer Wells considers.
This statement was not a surprise for Turkish scholars, as most of them have a similar point of view, reported the Yerkir newspaper. Professor of Faculty of Molecular Biology and Genetics of Istanbul Bogazici University Aslihan Tolun reported that research heald 5-6 years ago along with foreign scholars showed Turks were multi-elemental.
In Tolun's words, in genetic respect Turks are very much like the Balkan peoples, Caucasians, Armenians and Arabs, however they have peculiarities.
We never stayed at the same place and easily became close with local populations, preserving our language and our culture. Thus, it is natural there is not Turkish gene in pure form, said professor of Medical University of Ankara Khakan Shataroghlu."

The most interesting part of this study, is that
Spencer Wells, Aslihan Tolun and Khakan Shataroghlu all mention SELJUKS nothing "older" NOT even Goturks.
Nothing older, NO imaginary connections to Etruscans, Hittites or any other ancient people. You see these scholars have know for some years that they aren't the true decendants of the original Turks nor are they decendants of any other ancient Anatolian people.

And for your convenience the article from Milliyet news:
http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2005/05/17/guncel/agun.html
(I think this is the correct one)

You are comparing today's populations' haplogroups of Central Asia. But Turks who came to Anatolia were living around there 1.000-1.500 years and much older. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not comparing anything, the researchers are.
As for this alleged 1000yr date you speak of, do you think they don't know about it?? Sorry but as your Turkish researchers say in this study, NOTHING before the Seljuks.
This is a wrong assumption. Ther is no logic behind it. There is an very important historical fact. Genghis Kagan's conquest. Turks were already in Anatolia during Gengis's conquests. Mongoloid influence has increased in Central Asia and in Turkic populations after this event.

Well you could always drop them a line or two and tell them that their reseach is BS and explain exactly why.
You might also get answers to your questions.


How does this support what you're saying when it clearly proves as does the above mentioned Turkish Prof. study that you were predominantly MONGOLS and any intermixture took place at least 1000yrs ago???



Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2005 at 07:00

 alparslan do u accept that anatolian population in 11th century( before turks) was about 12 millions? yes o no?

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2005 at 10:07

How does this support what you're saying when it clearly proves as does the above mentioned Turkish Prof. study that you were predominantly MONGOLS and any intermixture took place at least 1000yrs ago???

That is totlly wrong. Turks werent predominantly Mongoloids. Eastern Turks (The Turks who were living in eastern regions of central asia, and Altay) had a big percentage of Mongoloid genes, but the western Turks (the Turks of western steppes, Black sea and Caspian region, even thousands of years before the conquest of Anatolia by Seljuks, have shown Turanoid or Caucasoid properties. Even during the Hunnic reign.

I cant understand how you can think a couple of Turkmen tribes could Turkify a much more bigger Anatolian local population and all these Byzanthine regions. This is no logic. And the Turks who have once immigrated and fullfilled Anatolia werent onlu conquerer soldiers and armies. Even the main purpose of Seljuks for conquering Anatolia was to settle all those massive Turkic population (especially Turkmens) to Anatolia. And with the Seljuks until the end of the Mongol invasions of C.A., and the end of beylik time in anatolia after the Battle of Ankara, most of the Turkic population of C.A. have immigrated to Anatolia, mostly to find a new homeland or to run away from Mongolian/Iranian pressure.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2005 at 19:47
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

How does this support what you're saying when it clearly proves as does the above mentioned Turkish Prof. study that you were predominantly MONGOLS and any intermixture took place at least 1000yrs ago???

I cant understand how you can think a couple of Turkmen tribes could Turkify a much more bigger Anatolian local population and all these Byzanthine regions.

In the same way as what the Spanish did in Mexico.

Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2005 at 01:06

Originally posted by Phallanx

Now let's see what Turkish scholars have to say about this.

"The gene of Turks, who moved to Anatolia from Central Asia along with Seljuks, was NOT widely spread in this region, officer of National Geographic Spencer Wells considers.

I do not think that an officer of National Geographic is an authority on the subject. I wonder if he conducted a research on Seljuk genes or just talking about his beliefs. It was the above research that were saying that today's Uzbek population was carrying %82 Caucosoid genes.

How can you or an officer of National Geographic claim that Turks who came to Anatolia were Mongols? Did they fly over Central Asia and landed to Anatolia from Mongolia? But even if this is not so, some people conclude "if there is not much Mongoloid genes in Anatolian Turks, this will mean that today's people of Anatolia are Turkified Anatolians".

This is completely nonsense. Turks are a nation, not a race. There cannot be a "pure Turkish gene" as there cannot be a "a pure Greek gene" too. Turks were a group of people who were mixed of Mongoloid and Caucosoid people but I said Anatolian Turks who came to Anatolia were mostly Caucosoids.

There is a documentary in National Geographic about Amazons. They have conducted a research on a 2.500 year old Sarmatian warrior woman (they have called Amazon) found around north of Black Sea and made a DNA research on it. Then they have gone to Mongolia to find some relations between the two. They have found huge cultural similarities moreover they have found a blond Mongolian, I think she was an ethnic Turk naming Meriemgul, in a mountainous area of western Mongolia. After collecting DNA samples from the population they have concluded that the maternal ancestor of Meriemgul was that Sarmatian warrior. So people, races have been mixed much before than it has been thought. The ancestors of Turks are the ones who have been mixed in steppes. Some of them look more Mongoloid some of them more Caucosoid.   

Originally posted by Phallanx

We never stayed at the same place and easily became close with local populations, preserving our language and our culture. Thus, it is natural there is not Turkish gene in pure form, said professor of Medical University of Ankara Khakan Shataroghlu."

That's what I am saying.

Originally posted by Phallanx

I'm not comparing anything, the researchers are.
As for this alleged 1000yr date you speak of, do you think they don't know about it?? Sorry but as your Turkish researchers say in this study, NOTHING before the Seljuks.

They are not saying something like this.

You are insufficient to discuss the topic. Eat more fish.

Originally posted by Zagros Purya

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

How does this support what you're saying when it clearly proves as does the above mentioned Turkish Prof. study that you were predominantly MONGOLS and any intermixture took place at least 1000yrs ago???

I cant understand how you can think a couple of Turkmen tribes could Turkify a much more bigger Anatolian local population and all these Byzanthine regions.

In the same way as what the Spanish did in Mexico.

No, not the same way. Spanishs were very fanatical to convert people to Christianity. They had huge number of missionaires. Their aim was to abuse them to make more money and they put a huge pressure over indogenous people of Mexico. They have lost their identity.

Moreover, what do you know about Mexico? Did you make a research on Mexican people?

NO!!

You just say your wishful thinking. This is not a good way of thinking and your brain may become lazy.

Some informations about Mexico (collected via internet):

Mexico's population is about 105 million. Ethnic groups in Mexico are ; Mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 60%, Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian 30%, white 9%, other 1%. Various Mayan, Nahuatl, and other regional indigenous languages are spoken along with Spanish.

The overwhelmingly largest ethnic group in LACE>MexicoLACE> is the Mestizos who are of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry.  They control most of the money and the power.  The next largest group is the indigenous population who largely retain their sense of distinct identity.  The Mexican government recognizes 56 different indigenous groups

The largest indigenous group is the Nahua, descendants of the Aztecs.  There are at least 1.7 million Nahuatl speakers.  There are approximately 1 million Maya speakers, 500,000 Zapotecs, 500,000 Mixtecs, 260,000 Totonacs and 130,000 Purepechas.

When Turks came to Anatolia there were no schools, no TV, no radio, no news papers and they did not have the intention to change the people's religion nor their languages.



Edited by Alparslan
Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2005 at 02:33

Originally posted by Ionian

  alparslan do u accept that anatolian population in 11th century( before turks) was about 12 millions? yes o no?

Anyone knows it. What I know in 1923 the population of Turkey (more than Anatolia; including Istanbul and Thrace) was 18 millions.

Claiming that in the 11th century the population of Anatolia was 12 millions is really very difficult. 

Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2005 at 06:48

 

 u dont accept that all world know...

18 million in 1923..... u can immagine how turk blood u have.... 

Originally posted by Alparslan

Originally posted by Ionian

  alparslan do u accept that anatolian population in 11th century( before turks) was about 12 millions? yes o no?

Anyone knows it. What I know in 1923 the population of Turkey (more than Anatolia; including Istanbul and Thrace) was 18 millions.

Claiming that in the 11th century the population of Anatolia was 12 millions is really very difficult. 

Back to Top
Ionian View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Ionian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2005 at 06:50
 with violent....
Originally posted by Zagros Purya

Originally posted by Oguzoglu

How does this support what you're saying when it clearly proves as does the above mentioned Turkish Prof. study that you were predominantly MONGOLS and any intermixture took place at least 1000yrs ago???

I cant understand how you can think a couple of Turkmen tribes could Turkify a much more bigger Anatolian local population and all these Byzanthine regions.

In the same way as what the Spanish did in Mexico.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.