Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Pyramids of Giza
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Thursday, 15th February 2007
I am interested to see what people think about the purpose of the Giza Pyramids as this has been a "hot" topic for a while now and people have developed very different opinions.
So...what do YOU think? -
Message 2
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 16th February 2007
I think most scholars pretty much agree that they were originally meant to be tombs. What's puzzling is that no Egyptian kings were actaully found there.
-
Message 3
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 16th February 2007
There's no evidence they were ever intended or used as tombs.
All the evidence says these were associated with water. Herodotus said they constructed a canal to the site of the pyramid but this is uphill from the Nile so the water came from elsewhere. There is sand around the queen's chamber that is not from this desert. Why would they need sand in construction, and why would they import it if it were all around? It appears that ALL the pyramids were built on natural structures which resemble candlewax. Throughout this desert there are places that look like what's left after a candle burns down. Surely these must have been deposited by water flowing up from a point. Most pyramid have a causeway which leads down to the River. These were quite probably a series of locks to float stones right up to the construction site. There would almost have to be water on site to be able to accomplish this. The Sphinx has significant water erosion.
There were also numerous boats buried in pits around the pyramids. Many of these were found in nearly perfect condition. A few were nearly completely rotted away. If this is a desert and there was little water then how would a tiny leak in their hiding places cause so much destruction? It would seem most likely that there was actually water flowing over the top for many years. The pyramids at Giza and their chambers and passages are air and water-tight. It took a lot of extra work to accomplish this so why would they do it if not to retain or exclude air or water? The sides of the Great pyramid are angled inward and this would increase their ability to withstand pressure. The pyramid is far too close to the quarry to have possibly used ramps in its construction and they spent ten years building the causway first. This would seem to imply that water must have been used to build it as well.
Until these points are addressed one has to believe that traditional explanations are not a good explanation for the known facts. -
Message 4
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 16th February 2007
I go by what Zahi Hawas says mainly because he's the most respected Egyptologist in the world and he has more knowledge than anyone on the subject. He has said time and time again that the erosion on the Sphinx was caused by sand, not water. There is really no evidence to support otherwise. How do you possibly think that the water level of the Nile could have been 300 feet higher only 4,000 years ago?
-
Message 5
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 16th February 2007
The Sphinx is downhill from the Greay Pyramid.
Egyptology is largely based on 19th century science. It was mostly developed by William Flinders Petrie who built upon even older discoveries.
Traditional Egyptology has only mysteries. It can't explain the known facts uncovered by modern science. There was a thick layer of salt, for instance, in the queen's chamber. There are the "proto-pulleys" found in the desert and used by a technology which hadn't even invented the wheel. There's the fact that most of the radio carbon dating of organic material in the cement is much older than the accepted age of the pyramid. They don't explain how the tombs of their god's were in some cases dismantled and, apparently, assembled elsewhere. How can the formations around Amenemhat I's pyramids possibly be explained as anything other than a natural water distribution system recarved into a man-made water distribution system.
Egyptian authorities encourage researchers who toe the line. Others don't seem to get the funding or permission to work. Vast areas of these sites are off limits. -
Message 6
Posted by neferleli (U7514371) on Friday, 16th February 2007
I think the pyramids were created as a tomb but more to impress the people around. The whole of Egyptian afterlife belief is that they are remembered in this world which gives them life in the afterlife. A huge structure such as the great pyramid would create a type of immortality for its builder and it works as we are still discussing it today!
-
Message 7
Posted by neferleli (U7514371) on Friday, 16th February 2007
I agree with the sand not water thing but Zahi Hawas is an autocrat.
-
Message 8
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 16th February 2007
The top of the grotto of the Great Pyramid is about 225' above sea level. This is where the top of the hill was when man first discovered this site. It is the opening from which the water flowed.
It was perhaps the wellspring of civilization. -
Message 9
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 16th February 2007
People need to stop thinking of the Egyptians as some superhuman master society that created all these mysterious structures. The simple fact is that they were normal people just like you or me and their structures had simple purposes. In the case of the pyramids, they were tombs built to inspire awe amongst the Egyptian people and their enemies, and also to ensure the immortality of the king. I'm sick of hearing all these ludacris theories about the pyramids and the Egyptians in general. It's good to think outside the box, but you need to approach history with a certain degree of common sense.
-
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 16th February 2007
Yankee,
I completely agree.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by neferleli (U7514371) on Friday, 16th February 2007
I totally agree, the Egyptians were just a very sophisticated race. Twentieth century man has a huge ego and thinks that no race who were so far advanced could possibly disappear into nothingness (so there needs to be an alien theory) but sadly this is exactly what did happen. Could it happen to us - who knows but do you think any of our 'achievements' will still be around in a few thousand years time?
-
Message 12
Posted by vidargander (U7431507) on Friday, 16th February 2007
FoxTheTeacher: I am interested to see what people think about the purpose of the Giza Pyramids as this has been a "hot" topic for a while now and people have developed very different opinions.
So...what do YOU think?
----------------------
The most interesting theory I've heard is that the three pyramids were meant to reflect the three stars in Orion’s belt. In such a view the Nile represented the Milky Way etc. The Egyptians thought that the divines lived in the sky and that the sky was a cover over the earth. They wanted to make contact by copying their stars on earth.
Now I can imagine that there were serious rebellions amongst their slaves when they figured out that they weren’t only to build those three pyramids, but possibly copy the whole night-sky of stars.
Slaves or not, Egypt is part of the continent of the elephants. I find it very unlikely that the Egyptians preferred to use men and women and not such powerful animals at all.
Consider such a building technique in image 2:
How easy it would be with pulleys and elephants power. -
Message 13
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 16th February 2007
"People need to stop thinking of the Egyptians as some superhuman master society that created all these mysterious structures. The simple fact is that they were normal people just like you or me and their structures had simple purposes. In the case of the pyramids, they were tombs built to inspire awe amongst the Egyptian people and their enemies, and also to ensure the immortality of the king. I'm sick of hearing all these ludacris theories about the pyramids and the Egyptians in general. It's good to think outside the box, but you need to approach history with a certain degree of common sense"
Obviously there are some very silly theories floating around. While most of them are possibilities there is simply little or no supporting evidence.
It is the abundance of contradictory scientific evidence which leads me to believe that the orthodox view is simply mistaken. Obviously there is a lot in it which is true and supportable, just not the conclusions.
At the same time there is a great deal of evidence that these structures were first and foremost about water, not death. -
Message 14
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
You're all wrong so far.
I think the there are many unrealistic theories floating around, but I must assert that they were NOT tombs.
Lets think about it. The pyramids were constructed with great presicion. They point to the compass directions to within 3 arc minutes. this is 1/20 of a degree. It takes the sun just 12 seconds to travel that angle in the sky!!!
Also the designer has made it with different size blocks making it very strong against earthquakes (due to all the blocks having a different natural frequency).
If it was a tomb why go to such lenths for accuracy that would be difficult in the extreme to attain when a simple hole in the ground would do.
This site was built to last, first and foremost. This is little more than a message in a bottle.
But can you figure that message out?
Write your message down and the language will change, jot down a date and the calender will change. But mathematics and the movement of the skies will forever remain the same!
Keep your ideas coming and see if any of you get close.
Good luck. -
Message 15
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
Why not just dig a simple hole in the ground? Mainly because nobody would remember you for digging a simple little hole. The kings of Egypt built structures such as the pyramids because they wanted their names to live through the ages.
-
Message 16
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
You remember Tutankhamun?
He had a hole in the ground - in the Valley of the Kings!
Look at the evidence.
How do you explain all of the mathematics in the pyramid. There would be no need for a tomb to have this. -
Message 17
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
" How do you possibly think that the water level of the Nile could have been 300 feet higher only 4,000 years ago?"
It's difficult to be sure where the water came from. I'm figuring Lake Moeris because it it the "usual suspect". It has the smoking gun. Look at the satellite picture of this and you can see that the Nile used to flow into this lake!!!! Think about this a minute. If the water flowed in then it seems to follow that it must have gotten out. It's difficult to picture enough water evaporating each year for the river to wear a channel into the lake. It seems more plausible that caves formed when the river used to flow about 30 miles west of this area millions of years ago and the caves remained when the river changed its course.
You're right that we still have to explain the apparent 225' discrepancy between sea level and the pyramid site. Most of this would have to be explained by the depth of the flood. These floods must have been at least in the range of 100' just judging by the apparent height of the docks at Giza. Amazon floods are known to reach heights over 180' I believe. This leaves two major processes to account for all the rest; change in land height and changes in the height of the river. It seems unlikely that this area is sufficiently geologically active to account for more than a little of this and it could have moved the wrong way. I believe it's dropping but doubt the drop is significant. So, we're left with the height of the river to make up about a minimum of 80' if Lake Moeris was the source of the water. While there's no evidence to support this it does seem at least vaguely in the realnm of possibility that the river is this much lower than 4,500 years ago or when the pyramid was built. The continent was wetter and the floods were more severe. More sand, rock and silt could be washed down and deposited along the river bottom. Many years of more minor flooding could wear this down since that time. 80' is less than a quarter inch per year and this is a relatively narrow channel in this area.
There was a city on the delta around the time of pyramid construction which was destroyed and lost to the sea because of subsiding in an earthquake. This might imply that the delta was shrinking at that time which is consistent with the Nile being higher. The delta has been shrinking again in recent years but this is probably due to the success of controlling the flooding with the Aswan High Dam.
This is all pure conjecture and the province of a geologist but it can't be ruled out out of hand. It should also be noted that much of northern Africa is drained by no river. The entire northern part of the Sahara recieves an average of about 5" of rain annually but is not drained. There are numerous oases and at least a remote possibility that this can be the postulated source of the water at Giza. There was a river running west to east millions of years ago so any natural flow should be in the direction of Giza.
Judging by the number and locations of the wadis and dry river beds one would be led to speculate that there was much more water in this area in the past.
I'm not competent to make all these determinations but if people would look at the evidence objectively there would be competent people who would quickly unravel these mysteries. When they do, orthodoxy will be seen to be far further from the truth than any of my crackpot ideas. -
Message 18
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Saturday, 17th February 2007
Now you're comparing the new kingdom to the old kingdom. The kings of the old kingdom orignally built mastabas for their tombs, and later with the help of Imhotep they started building pyramids. The pharaohs of the new kingdom such as Tut did build "holes" for their tombs, but they were a little more elaborate than something your dog would dig in your back yard. In many cases the tombs in the Valley of the Kings were extremely elaborate and took many years to construct.
-
Message 19
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Sunday, 18th February 2007
Very much so, you are right. But at what point did they go from building these elaborate pyramids and then compromising and accepting a hole in the groung instead. Why the sudden swich, why settle for less when you are the most powerful person in the known world?
But what is important here, which you still havn't explained is why all the complicated mathematics built within the very fabric of these pyramids?
Surely the Egyptians wouldn't have the knowledge nor the inclination to include this in the design as this would have at the very least doubled the construction time. -
Message 20
Posted by CrusaderPete (U1811057) on Monday, 26th February 2007
I'm positive they built them to confuse and befuddle archeologists several thousand years later
Which is why I'm burying a large concrete sphere in my garden tonight
!!! -
Message 21
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Monday, 26th February 2007
message 19.
If we, for arguments sake, accept that the Egyptians built vast monumental structures for the tombs of their kings, then we can see VoftK and Giza as literally erecting man made mountains. In this context VoftheK can be seen as merely cutting out the middle man and going straight for the mountain without all that spadework. Also the workforce used for erecting the Giza pyramids were Egyptians taken out of food production as part of a 'sacred tax'
With regards to the quite breathtaking measurements involved, then again it would seem perfectly natural for the Egyptians to have included 'mystical', 'magic' or religious symbology inc. geometry, as these structures were part of the sacred. -
Message 22
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 23
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 5th June 2007
With regards to the quite breathtaking measurements involved, then again it would seem perfectly natural for the Egyptians to have included 'mystical', 'magic' or religious symbology inc. geometry, as these structures were part of the sacred.Â
Water was also believed to have played a significant role. (The Nile flooded around the pyramids). Don't know how that is sacred though. Maybe some connection. -
Message 24
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007
But why were mearsure ments so sacred, unless they had a use?! These are not just borderline stone age numpties, they are just as intelligent as you and me, and putting in severly awkward mathematics is not their idea of fun!
With regards to the Nile flooding, that is a very good point!!!
The Giza pyramids were indeed surounded by water when the Nile flooded, creating a picture of a mound of rock poking out of the water. This is very similar to that of the Egyptian creation myth, where Amun stands upon the mound that pokes out of the watery abyss of Nu and then...you know the next part!
There are also Egyptian carving illustrating a pyramid poking out of water with a solar boat on top of it, which carries Amun.
This is in turn very similar to the image of Noah in his boat on mount Ararat! This may sound crazy but hold on there!
When you look at the word Noah, when translated into Egyptian it gives us Nuaa which means lake or sea (quite an apt name), so straight away we cas see that this tale is Egyptian in origin. Also, Ararat can be translated into Egyptian as Ahahat, which means...wait for it...The Giza Pyramids!!!!!
There is your link!
So in one quick stroke, the Nile, the Pyramids, the Heliopolian creation myth and even the story of Noah are all linked. -
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 14th June 2007
The low rumble you can now hear is the combined sound of generations of etymologists, egyptologists, archaeologists, geologists, mathematicians and the odd architect all revolving in their graves.
-
Message 26
Posted by Sophanes (U8883853) on Saturday, 7th July 2007
The pyramids are an enigma to us because historians know so very little about the Ancient Egyptian psyche. Existing as they do, as an expression of Universal Harmony, it is important to understand that the pyramids were intended for a variety of purposes. If we were to proceed upon nothing but the raw archeological evidence, the obvious conclusion is that not one of these purposes was the containment of dead Pharoahs. No mummy has ever been found in any of the three pyramids. To the contrary, Egyptians always preferred to bury their kings at clandestine locations. The persistence of 'the pyramids as royal tombs' theory, and the irritation of the people who perpetuate it,has for a long time prevented a reassessment of the situation.
What raw archeological evidence really suggests is that they are closely connected to the stars. Apart from the glaringly obvious similarity between their layout and the positioning of 'Orions Belt', we should also consider that so-called 'ventillation shafts' (which pointed to both Orions belt and Sirius B)
were actually built into the pyramids, rather than simply drilled through the finished wall. This seems alot of trouble to go to, just to air out what we are told was a tomb for a king. Why would you even want to ventillate a tomb anyway?(Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock) The whole purpose of mummification was to preserve. The truth is that the pyramids, as well as being 'a reflection of The Heavens on Earth' also served as observatories for the stars. I would further argue that stars and Gods were the same thing for Ancient Egyptians (thats just my interpretation of Plutarch).
Herodotus wrote extensively on the pyramids (Book 2, 'The Histories') and talked of them being surrounded by water. Since The Pharoah was believed to travel to, and then become a star (and so a God) upon death, a boat-trip across the waters around the pyramids would possibly have comprised part of The Pharoahs funeral service, thus symbolising his 'ka' travelling through outer-space. But that is nothing more than conjecture. However, can it really be that the pyramids were never used in religious ceremonies? That seems somehow doubtful.
We should also consider that pyramids have now been found across the globe. (Peru, Mexico, China)This would seem to suggest that the question of the Egyptian pyramids requires something more than localized explanations.
Hope I've been of help FoxTheTeacher. If u want to get even deeper, take a look at The 'Zep Tepi' Theory of Bauval and Hancock (Keeper of Genesis, 1996). -
Message 27
Posted by Sophanes (U8883853) on Saturday, 7th July 2007
Yankee, I just wanted to tell you that Zahi Hawass has repeatedly blocked research projects without ever giving rational reasons for doing so. Also, he is by no means the world's most respected Egyptologist. Marc Lehner is.
The evidence that the Sphinx's erosion patterns are caused by water rather than sand is provided by Dr. Robert Schoch, a leading figure in Geology. He asserted this view upon his initial viewing of The Sphinx. Having said that, I think we should be careful not to simply accept without question the opinions of others, no matter how knowledgeable they are reputed to be. -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 9th July 2007
We should also consider that pyramids have now been found across the globe. (Peru, Mexico, China)This would seem to suggest that the question of the Egyptian pyramids requires something more than localized explanations.Â
No it doesn't suggest that. The pyramids in the new world are very, very different from those in Egypt.
From a practical point, how are Egypt and e.g. Mexico linked? Some pyramid builders about 200BC, realizing that the market has fallen out of their trade decide to set sail across the Atlantic. They then reach the shores of Guatemala and decide to erect their first pyramid. Seleucus the Architect, turns to his chief mason and says: "You know, I'm bored of all those old fashioned very sophisticated, though small, pyramids we used to build out of nicely cut stone with smooth facings. Lets just throw up a load of circular piles of stones for a couple of hundred years before we gradually revert back to the 4 straight edged variety. I think that'll throw future generations of archaeologists off our trail..."
Or maybe an early Evo Morales, having finished his first pyramid on the shores of the Pacific in Peru decided to take a well earned break. "Hmm, Egypt looks cheap he thinks, nothing to see there apart form a statue in a hole." He books a holiday to Egypt and decides what the country needs is a few pyramids like he built back home. Yet, despite the abundance of Evo the Builder's favourite material - mud brick, he decides to knock up a two storey pyramid straight from stone. And for good measure waits a couple of hundred years to do so.
Sorry, but it's not just distance which separates the pyramid building cultures, it's time as well. Pryamid technology failed to travel from South America to Central America, yet we're asked to believe Central America is linked to Egypt?
What links pyramids is the belief that the gods live in the sky. They must do, otherwise you'd bump into them down the shops or in the pub. So they must be somewhere unreachable to people. Once you've decided that, then it's a short step to climbing hills, then building artificial hills to get closer to the gods. Once you've determined to build an artificial hill, then the only choice you have is square (Egyptian), rectangular (Mexican) or round (Silbury Hill and early Mexican ones). Structural limitations of stone and gravity then take care of the rest of the design and you get a structure which gets smaller towards the top.
PS, they found a mummy in the red Pyramid, so that's at least one used as a tomb. -
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 9th July 2007
Schoch's views on the Sphinx weathering patterns are not universally accepted and geology provides other mechanisms by which the weathering could have occurred which are consistent with the commonly agreed date of the sphinx.
Interestingly, the "Old sphinx theory" ususally claims a date of 10,500BC. Schoch's name is often tossed into the ring as proof that Egyptologists are wrong in their traditional date, yet the old sphinx theorists then ignore the fact that Schoch's date (approx. 5000BC) does not correspond to theirs either. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 9th July 2007
I have read and was intrigued by the "old sphinx theory" but unfortunately it is often corroded by the ambition of many types of "ufologists" to pass on their own rather "over-stretched ideas" (though I am open-minded and will listen to anyone). Despite being "almost-convinced" that more progressed civilisations (progress means not UFOS necessarily e?...) existed priot to 10,000 B.C. than the usual pathetic hunter-gatherer, proto-farmer that we have been taught at school, I have of course some difficulty to believe the "old pyramid theory" on the basis of lack of anything close to a solid evidence.
The geological corruption is not a solid case as it it is shared by some but not all specialists. The star-alignment (pointing an age around 10,500 B.C.) is not also as you cannot guess easily whose star they had tried to make its light enter the pyramid.
The ancient myths that "pre-cataclysmic" kings (i.e. earlier than the 10th B.C. millenia) had built the pyramids are not also a clue, though interesting enough. Such myths existed for many other monuments around the world (e.g. the "Cyclopian" walls of Mycenaic city of Tirynth).
However on the other hand, one could overturn some arguments of the 2600 B.C.: radiochronology is not accurate and may considerably vary if for example someone lit his fire near there (I wonder how many 1000s of fires have been lit around the pyramids?). Then the fact that mastabas show a case of gradual development of technçology up to the perfection of the pyramids can be overturned as a later effort of a less develeped culture to imitate the end-result of a previous more advanced one (that has happened often, as knowledge for millenia was developed and lost many times). I do not know if someone may find features showing that mastabas was not the gradual step to the pyramid but a later effort of re-reaching the pyramid - e.g. in a scenario where the Great Pyramid complex was built around 10.000 B.C. the mastabas could be first efforts to regain that knowledge that developmed the techniques to built Djoser's pyramid in around 4000 B.C. One other interesting fact is that 800 years later, an Egyptian pharao had to set up the first known archaiological excavation team to re-discover the Sphinx which was buried beneath the sand, however for the next 3000 years the average sand deposition had covered only the lower part of it and not the whole - hence either the climate was a bit different back in 2000 B.C. and you had a faster rate of sand deposition or the sphinx indeed was built prior to the 3rd millenia. Being an engineer, I know that this argument of course, also it is very difficult to establish even if using techniques to study the effect of sand on the statue. It is also very interesting that the pyramids had they been tombs of the kings should naturally revolve all around their life but that was not the case - of course, even if the monuments existed before, they could had applied their drawings after - in anyway this is not a proper argument as one may not know why they put the particulat drawings.
The fact that I am more pro than against the old-progressed cultures has actually nothing to do with the Pyramids, but more to do with mythology and my common sense (the traditional timeline is too simplistic and too much 19th century like for me to take it seriously). As an engineer i know that if people used copper in 10,000 B.C. in 99,9999% we are going to find nothing as most possibly this was done around the traditional civilisation-cradles thus copper being reusable material it was used and re-used again and again. Since production was little at those times the main mine sites would be used for much longer than in later times hence, we may find a mine and think it was first used in 6000 B.C. while it could had been the case since 9000 B.C. The fact that we have found the earliest samples of metal-work around 6000 means nothing as next day we may find it around 7000 or 80000 or 12000 B.C., after all humans played in everywey with stones for some 200,000 years. The fact that 90% of humanity was in the hunter-gatherer stage in 20.000 B.C. may not had prohibited a 9% of agricultural societies and an 1% of 1-2 tribes to had relatively advanced cultures (afterall we had sent a man on the moon and still made "first-contacts" with stone-age tribes in Indonesia and Amazon river). The problem is that the latter tribes would not live in by-later-times useless caves but in nice places that were later (in a span of many millenia) habitated by an average of 10-20 cultures that virtually erased by re-using/destroying their achievements. There are still buildings and structures that are not classified, not chronologised, and of uknown origins (e.g. who has yet studied the pyramids in Greece?).
However in general i would not doubt the traditional dating of mid-3rd B.C. especially based on the question "how did they do it without wheels and horses"... i mean people were the same clever as us and if they really wanted and had the money and power to do it they would eventually find a way to do it. Guys a bit later would built programmable robots with strings and wheels, I have no doubt that a rich kingdom like Egypt of that time could built monuments something like that. In any case so many other cultures had done it, like Indians and Mesopotamiasn and others (less advertised ones like Chinese and Greeks), and to be honest the pyramid being the logical choice of primitive science in building huge monuments. They would not go for a vertical skyscrapper isn't it? A ladder-like monument was much more easy and stable (in floods and earthquakes) to built that a vertical one. Hence, the similarity of shapes around the world need not arise from one magic-tribe that travelled around and did so since humans tend often to find similar solution to similar problems (e.g. the parallel development of automobiles, airplanes by many inventors etc.).
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.