Burial in Ancient Israel Part 1: The First Graves
October 1, 2012 by
Rather than just leaving you postless and bereft as I work on an essay, I decided to share little slices of it over the course of the week. The essay concerns burial practices in the Levant, from the earliest evidence up to the time of Christ. The way we handle our dead is of immense cultural significance, bound up in our faith, our sense of family, our ideas of continuity, and our vision of life and the afterlife. The funeral practices of ancient Palestine are no exception.
The earliest human remains in the Levant were found in the es-Skhul Cave on Mt. Carmel (about 13 miles south of modern Haifa, Israel). These date to approximately 110,000 years ago, and are linked to the Mousterian culture of the Middle Paleolithic period, a group of Neanderthals classified by their use of a certain kind of flintwork tool. The caves continued to be occupied (perhaps intermittently) well into the Mesolithic period, with evidence showing that the Natufian culture was present sometime between 13,000 and 9000 BC.
Excavations at es-Skhul uncovered the bodies of 10 individuals buried in pits with their knees drawn up, hands across the chest, and some objects included with the bodies. The various layers of occupation, stretching over so long a time, suggest that graves may be been reused. The burials of es-Skhul were linked to the occupants of the nearby et-Tabun Cave , indicating that these early humans did not go far to bury their dead. The odd, mixed morphological features of these remains suggest, to some, that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals had lived contemporaneously and perhaps even interbred, resulting in a new type identified as Palaeoanthropus palastinensis.
As the region entered the Neolithic period, 10,000 BC, we begin to see different kinds of burials. In homes in Jericho, skulls have been discovered beneath the floors in an extraordinary condition. Plaster had been placed over the skulls to recreate the face of the departed, with shells from the Red Sea used for eyes. The plaster was painted to render facial details, including eyebrows and facial hair. Some lower jaws were removed and reconstructed so the base could be flat, indicating that the item was meant to be displayed, possibly in a niche or shrine.
At the same time, monumental structures were being erected to the dead. The most common was the dolmen: upright rocks (usually two, but sometimes more) with another rock laid across the top, forming a kind of table structure. Hundreds have been found just in the Golan Heights, and more dot the landscape of modern Israel. One or two people may be buried in this kind of tomb, and sometimes earth was piled around the dolmen to bury it, thus creating a barrow. This marks a major shift in the way the dead were memorialized, and they continued to appear until at least the 4th millennium BC.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 2: Early Ossuaries and Shaft Tombs
October 2, 2012 by
This is an ongoing series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be found here.
During the Chalcolithic Period (the “Copper Age”), a new kind of burial started appearing along the coastal plain, at sites like Azor, Bene-Berak, and Hedera. This marks the first appearance of ossuaries, which will become a key element in the treatment of the dead. These early ossuaries are made of clay, with a diversity of styles and shapes indicating they were intended to resemble to homes of the deceased, which may suggest a sense of continuity between life and death. (Then again, some ossuaries resembled animals, so perhaps not.) We shall see how these theological elements affected ideas about burial as we get into the Second Temple and New Testament times.
Ossuaries are not meant to contain entire bodies, but only the bones. Along with the discovery of the skulls of Jericho, they show the increasing use of two-stage burials. In the first stage, a person is either buried or placed in a niche or cave until the flesh decays, leaving only the bones. In the second stage, the bones are collected and reburied, or gathered into these boxes and placed in niches dug out of sandstone. The openings of the ossuaries were large enough for a skull (the bone with the largest circumference) to be placed inside. Miniature ossuaries have been found in larger ones as some kind of offering. Doors were sometimes fitted to these openings, and some of these doors contained decorations representing human faces, in either paint or relief.
At roughly the same time the first ossuaries appeared, people in the Levant began using cist burials as well. A cist is, basically, a square hole dug in the ground and lined with stone slabs, sometimes with a slab over the top. Sometimes several appear in a row, and we may assume these were for family burials.
These trends in burial continue for many year, and are joined during the Bronze Age (roughly beginning in 3000 BC) by shaft burials in which a vertical hole was dug in limestone, sandstone, or soil. If it was dug in soil, the walls were lined with stone. A chamber opened at the bottom of this shaft, and was blocked with a large stone. Chambers have been discovered in various shapes (rectangular, circular, and amorphous) and sizes. Three, four, or even more rectangular chambers may branch off from this main chamber, providing niches for the dead.
Because fewer people were buried in these shaft tombs, we see a sudden spike in larger cemeteries during the Intermediate Bronze Age. Many of these are primary burials, but secondary burials are also found in shaft tombs. During this period, modest grave offerings are common. Pottery, metal tools and weapons, pins, bracelets, beads, and coins are common in these graves. The materials are humble, in keeping with the relative poverty of the region.
The BiblePlaces Blog has a superb photo essay showing excavation of shaft gravesfrom the Intermediate Bronze Age. Here’s just one example, but you should see the whole thing to get a sense of the excavation, the shafts, and the burial spaces.
In some tombs, bones were heaped at the center, with pottery and utensils arrayed around the perimeter. Food has been discovered in some vessels, and there are some suggestions that they provide evidence for a final meal with the dead. Eating with the departed in a common practice in folk culture throughout the world. Are these pots, jugs, and utensils evidence of the practice in ancient Palestine?
There are no grand tombs filled with treasures, but rather small offerings intended as gifts for the dead. May we assume these were simply treasures associated with the deceased without implying any metaphysical, cultic, or religious aspect to the offerings? Or does the proximity of the region to Egypt suggest some kind of ties to a developing and vivid sense of the afterlife and the objects one would need to make the journey? As we get into the Second Temple period, the answers to these questions become slightly clearer.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 3: The Bronze Age
October 3, 2012 by
Excavation at Bab ed-Dhrah cemetery
This is an ongoing series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be foundhere.
The Intermediate Bronze Age is so heavily marked by a rise in lavish burials that it’s one of the central features of the age. One of the largest ancient cemeteries in the Holy Land is at Bab edh-Dhra, where 20,000 tombs have been discovered, including many shaft graves filled with grave offerings. One unusual feature of this location is a charnel house: a room 35×17 feet, with bones and pottery stacked at the center, and an entryway paved with skulls.
Cairn burials were also found at this location. People were buried in shallow graves, which were then stacked with dirt and stones and capped with pile of rock. Tumuli–which are essentially barrows: graves heaped with small rocks and soil–also start emerging during this period. Thousands of tumuli have been found in the Negev Highlands.
As we can see, a rich array of funeral practices was observed in the region as we progress through the Bronze Age. Some tombs were inside of city limits, close to homes. Some were outside. As the Bronze Age continues, there’s a rise in the appearance of larger stone tombs holding as many as 40 bodies.
Bronze Age tumulus at Makhtesh Ramon
The methods of internment in these tombs was unusual. People would be laid out in the center of the tomb on a mat (and, in once case, on a bed), usually flat on the back, sometimes with knees raised. Food and other offerings were left with the body. Jewelry was rare, but personal items like combs, oil, and decorated boxes were quite common. The tombs was closed after each burial and then reopened for the next. Bones and objects from the previous burial were pushed off the sides to form a heap, and the next body laid in the center. As time went on, large mounds of intermingled bones and objects began to line the walls of these tombs.
During the Middle Bronze Age, the region came under the sway of the Hyksos, we begin to see warriors interred with their horse. Such tombs have been found at Jericho and Tell el-Ajjul, but are exceptional rather than commonplace, and represent a clear foreign influence.
Example of a Hyksos horse burial (Tell el-Dab’a, Egypt)
As the region entered the Iron Age (approximately 1200 BC), the people we call the Israelites appear as a force in Palestine. The fading of imperial rule allows local people to build their own authority, and we enter the period described in Judges, leading to the formation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The Israelites adapt some of the burial customs they find in the region, and reuse preexisting graves. None of the more exotic techniques–such as skull decoration or mounted burials–are used by the Israelites, but it’s fair to say most of the techniques described thus far were in use at some point, and in some places, during the period covered by the Old Testament.
In addition, new techniques begin to emerge that will become more standard for the area, with adaptations that will be used through Greek and Roman periods and into the time of Christ.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 4: A Biblical Interlude
October 4, 2012 by
This is an ongoing series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be found here.
Dore used one of the few methods of burial NOT practiced by the Israelites (wall burial) in his “Burial of Sarah”
I want to pause at this point and turn from the archaeological record to the Biblical record to see what evidence we have for burial and attitudes toward the dead in scripture.
Genesis 23:19 tells us that “Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Mach-pe’lah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.” This is a very specific reference to a location (land being strongly tied to the identity of the Jews) and a type of burial (in a cave). It honors the dead, records the place of her grave, and makes a claim to the land on which she is buried. Gen 25:9 tells us that Abraham was buried in the same place, and later Isaac, Rebekeh, Leah, and Jacob, while Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried under an oak below Bethel (Gen 35:8).
This tomb may be at site called the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, over which Herod built a magnificent structure with walls six feet thick. (This is the last surviving intact Herodian structure.) The site is holy to Jews and Muslims, and a source of constant tension in modern Israel. It has not been thoroughly studied by archaeologists in modern times due to political and religious tensions.
Burial was considered imperative to preserve the dignity of man, made in the image of God, and to prevent any chance of contamination. (Saul is cremated, but this the exception rather than the rule.) The fear, as expressed in scripture, was that the body would be eaten by wild animals (Deut 28:26, 1 Kings 23:22, 24:11, 2 Kings 12:34-37, Jer 7:33, etc), and this was unacceptable. The idea so horrified the Jews that even condemned prisoners (Deut 21:23) and enemy combatants (1 Kings 11:15) were supposed to be buried. Tobit is considered righteous because he buries strangers even though he is persecuted for it.
Tobit Burying the Dead (Andrea di Lione, 1640s)
Although Deut 21:23 refers to the condemned (“his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance”) it was considered the source for the mandate to bury the dead within 24 hours of death, so as not to contaminate the land.
This was major issue, and Num 19:11-16 explains the seriousness of ritual impurity from dead bodies:
11 “He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;12 he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean. 13 Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. 14 “This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. 15 And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean. 16 Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
This concern for impurity led to observant Jews burying their dead away from living space and marking the graves so that no one might inadvertently walk on contaminated land, and thus become contaminated themselves. Impurity was removed by the Sacrifice of the Red Heifer, which was unusual in that it was conducted outside the camp by the person designated as successor to the high priest, rather than the high priest himself.
Modern view: Tomb of the Patriarchs
These proscriptions and rituals were even somewhat mysterious to the Jews, but the reason for them was not: sin had brought death into the world. Contamination by the dead is the most serious form of impurity in the Torah, not just because of squeamishness (ancient peoples lived in much more pronounced proximity to suffering, dying and death), but because of the connections to sin. The person who dealt with the dead was, in a sense, in the realm of death and sin, and needed to be purified in order to pass back into the realm of the living and the pure.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 5: Rock Cut Tombs
October 5, 2012 by
This is an ongoing series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be found here.
During the Late First Temple Period (8th to 6th century BC), we begin to see the creation of multichamber rock-cut tombs. Reached by rock-cut stairs leading to an unadorned opening, these tombs were carved into the living stone, with a central space opening into subchambers. Each subchamber was lined–often on all three sides–by low benches. Over time, narrower loculi (fit for a single body) also began to appear.
The dead were wrapped in a shroud (and, on occasion, placed in a coffin) and then placed on these benches. Bodies may well have been treated with oil, herbs, resins, and other methods, many of them adapted from Israel’s extensive experience of foreign cultures. As the tombs were used and reused by families over many generations, bones would be removed to make way for new bodies. (We will address what happened to them in the next post.) Thus, we have a practical connection the Biblical phrase. “And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers” (Judges 2:10 and elsewhere). People were, quite literally, gathered to their fathers.
Because cutting a tomb of this type was extremely expensive, they were only used by wealthy Jews. That’s why they were reused for many, many generations. Tombs were almost always located outside the walls of the city, unlike some earlier burials which were inside the city and even the home.
Foreign influences began to creep into the designs of these tombs, with carved headrests on the benches and various architectural details betraying the Phoenician, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman influences over time. We may speculate that this shows the tendencies of the upper classes to adapt to foreign influences: a complaint also reflected in the scripture.
After the Babylonian Captivity (c. 586 BC), these tombs vanish for a time, along with the people who built them, and do not reappear until the Hasmonean Dynasty (late 2nd century BC). In the intervening period, Mausolus built his famous tomb at Halicarnassus (c. 353 BC), this giving us a Wonder of the World, a new word (mausoleum) and a new style of tomb: a grand edifice on a raised platform with columns and a pyramid roof.
The upper class Jews began to the imitate this form, and there is a description of a tomb (subsequently destroyed) in 1 Maccabees 13:27-30:
27 And Simon built a monument over the tomb of his father and his brothers; he made it high that it might be seen, with polished stone at the front and back. 28 He also erected seven pyramids, opposite one another, for his father and mother and four brothers. 29 And for the pyramids he devised an elaborate setting, erecting about them great columns, and upon the columns he put suits of armor for a permanent memorial, and beside the suits of armor carved ships, so that they could be seen by all who sail the sea. 30 This is the tomb which he built in Modein; it remains to this day.
Josephus also describes the tomb of Simon in Antiquities of the Jews (13:210-11).
Other tombs follow a similar design: Jason’s Tomb, the Tomb of Absalom, and Zechariah’s Tomb all use the platform/column/pyramid form inspire by the tomb Halicarnassus.
Tomb of Absalom (interior)
These tombs, of course, raise as many questions about burial as they answer, because they only reflect the practices of a small, elite group. What about the common people and the poor? They have, unfortunately, left very little mark on the archaeological record because they used burial techniques that do not leave many obvious signs. Most likely, they simply buried their dead in trench or pit graves, perhaps using older structures or adapting some of the techniques already discussed.
We know from the Gospels that Judas was buried in a “Potter’s Field” (so named because the site was used as a source of clay by potters), so by the first century simple inhumations in earth were common, and we have no reason to think this had not been the case for the lower classes for most of First and Second Temple Periods. Excavation at Qumran, which features a large cemetery filled with simple trench or pit graves, suggests the practice was widespread.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 6: Ossuaries
October 8, 2012 by
This is an ongoing series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be found here.
Since rock-cut tombs were reused over many generations, an issue arose: what to do with the bones? Two approaches have been found.
There is evidence that, for many years, bones were placed in shallow depression underneath the beneath the bench where the bodies had been laid out. Grave goods were swept into the same depression, creating a jumble of bones beneath the bench.
Over time, this practice grew less common and the use of ossuaries becomes more prominent. Ossuaries make their first appearance in Jerusalem’s rock-cut tombs during the reign of Herod, with the earliest dating to approximately 20 BC. Unlike earlier clay ossuaries found elsewhere in the Levant, these are carved from local stone, almost always in a casket design. They’re rarely larger than 2 feet long, and, in the case of children, quite a bit smaller.
Capped with curved, gabled, or flat lids and sometimes carved with a design, they exhibit a Roman style in keeping with the influences of the Herodian period. When names appear on ossuaries, they often seem to have been carved by a different hand than the decorative design, perhaps by a family member scratching a name in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek after transferring the bones in the tombs.
Notable Ossuaries
Association: Caiaphas, high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus
Verdict: Genuine
Verdict: Genuine
In 1990, a tomb was found southwest of the Old City, Jerusalem. Inside this rather small tomb was a well-decorated ossuary with an evocative name carved into the side: “Joseph son of Caiaphas.” Based on date, location, and name, archaeologists immediately knew it could be none other than the tomb of the man who served as high priest from 18-36 AD: the man responsible for the death of Christ.
Please note: yes, it looks like the inscription was rather poorly and hastily scratched into an otherwise beautiful box. This was quite common (as noted above), since a family member usually transferred the bones in the tomb and scratched the name himself, in cramped, dimly lit conditions.
Association: The “family” of Jesus
Verdict: A rather lame and obvious hoax. (Please note: the inscriptions and artifacts are genuine. It’s the association with Jesus of Nazareth that is false.)
Verdict: A rather lame and obvious hoax. (Please note: the inscriptions and artifacts are genuine. It’s the association with Jesus of Nazareth that is false.)
Filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici, along with religious studies professor James Tabor, attempted to make the case that ossuaries discovered in the “Patio Tomb” in Talpiot in 1980 were actually from the family grave of Jesus, complete with wild and unfounded speculation that they proved Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a son named Judah. The claim was widely ridiculed, with archaeologist Jodi Magness saying that it “flies in the face of all available evidence.”
Given that Jesus had a poor family, was not from Jerusalem (his tomb would have been in Nazareth), was not married, did not have a child, was laid in a borrowed tomb (thus proving he did not have a family tomb), and that the names on the ossuaries (Jesus, Mary, Joseph) were quite common at the time, the entire claim was an absurd tissue of lies created to generate headlines, booksales, and viewers for a Cameron-produced documentary. When I saw the artifacts in the United States, the exhibit didn’t even mention the ridiculous claims, and no one except the original promoters believe it was anything but a hoax.
James Charlesworth offers a summary of a symposium during which the hoax was addressed, and the weasley methods of the people promoting it. The consensus: not even close. His verdict on the grandstanding techniques of those involved and the media they duped is withering. (Please note: Charlesworth is not a marginal figure: he’s pretty much the dean of deuterocanonical and pseudepigrapha study.)
Association: St. James, leader of the Church in Jerusalem
Verdict: Undetermined. Almost certainly not the ossuary of St. James (who was inhumated). The box is genuine. The inscription may or may not be forged. (My opinion, FWIW: forged.)
Verdict: Undetermined. Almost certainly not the ossuary of St. James (who was inhumated). The box is genuine. The inscription may or may not be forged. (My opinion, FWIW: forged.)
The so-called James ossuary did not provide the tidy closure of the debunked Talpiot claims. The name on this ossuary–James son of Joseph brother of Jesus–ignited a firestorm of debate that resulted in claims of forgery and a highly publicized trial in Israel. The connection to St. James, leader of the church in Jerusalem and one of the major figures in the early church, made the find important, if true. The trial, however, was unable to prove that the inscription was a forgery, and the issue remains up for debate.
The Meaning of Ossuaries
The question naturally arises: what led to the sudden appearance of ossuaries in stone-cute tombs in Jerusalem around the Herodian period? One answer may have to do with a shift in theology. A theory has been proposed by archaeologist Levi Yitzhak Rahmani that ties the sudden appearance of the ossuaries to a new belief among Jews in the 1st century BC: belief in the resurrection of the dead. Although the Sadducees rejected the idea of a literal resurrection of the physical body, it was strongly held by the Pharisees, and was eventually accepted by Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
The question naturally arises: what led to the sudden appearance of ossuaries in stone-cute tombs in Jerusalem around the Herodian period? One answer may have to do with a shift in theology. A theory has been proposed by archaeologist Levi Yitzhak Rahmani that ties the sudden appearance of the ossuaries to a new belief among Jews in the 1st century BC: belief in the resurrection of the dead. Although the Sadducees rejected the idea of a literal resurrection of the physical body, it was strongly held by the Pharisees, and was eventually accepted by Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
Rahmani believes that the practice of intermingling bones ends with the spread of this belief, with the shift to ossuaries driven by a need to keep body parts together and as undamaged as possible, ready for the resurrection. Furthermore, the decay of flesh emphasizes the Pharisaical association of flesh with sin, with sin being devoured along with the decomposing flesh.
It’s an appealing theory, offering a neat solution to an unanswered question, but it has problems. First, ossuaries often contain bones from multiple bodies, and often those are missing certain pieces. Second, many of the ossuaries were found in the richest tombs and areas, and those belonged to the Sadducees, not the Pharisees.
Ossuary from “Patio” (Tapliot) tomb, with remains
More likely, the appearance of ossuaries at this place and this time is simply a reflection of the Roman influence upon the upper classes, encouraged by the Herodians The ossuaries suddenly disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, further suggesting ties to a Roman influence. It may also be tied to a sudden sense of individuality inspired by Greek thought. As we’ve seen, an extreme diversity of burial customs has characterized the region, so it’s not unusual to find new practices developing suddenly and fading from popularity just as suddenly.
Burial in Ancient Israel Part 7: The Burial of Christ
October 9, 2012 by
The Entombment of Christ (Caravaggio)
This post concludes a series about graves and tombs in the ancient Levant, from the Paleolithic Period until the time of Christ. The entire series can be found here.
This 100,000 year history of human burial converges on a single point and a single day: a Friday in Jerusalem around the year 30 AD. Jesus of Nazareth dies on the cross, and his body is taken down at the request of a wealthy man from Arimathea named Joseph. The sun is setting and the sabbath is about to begin, when no burial will be allowed. Joseph must get the body of Jesus in a tomb or it will not be properly buried within 24 hours after death, as required by Jewish law.
Since there was no time to prepare a grave, Joseph had the body laid in a rock-cut tomb which he had commissioned for his own family, but had not used. We know this is the case because Matthew tells us it was a “new” tomb. It’s rather extraordinary that a man would lay a non-family member in a new tomb made for his family, and explains the reverence we still have for Joseph. (Tradition holds that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is on the location of the tomb, but the church was leveled by Muslims in the 11th century, so very little of the original site remains.)
The specification of a “new” tomb would have said something different to the reader of Jesus’s time than it may to us. We consider “new” to be wonderful thing. But, as we’ve seen throughout these posts, being “gathered to your ancestors” was very important for the Jews. People were laid amidst their loved ones and relatives. There was a sense of connection to that which came before.
This was denied to Jesus. The tomb he was in was the tomb of a relative stranger. It had never been used, and thus there were no other remains to be “gathered to.” There were no grave goods with him: just a single winding sheet. He was unwashed, unannointed. This would have struck Jews of the time as a remarkably sad way to be laid to rest. He was alone in a strange place disconnected from his people: it’s a very forlorn image of despair even in death.
If Jesus had not been raised, perhaps he would have been moved to simple trench-cut tomb after the women finished cleaning and anointing his body. Or perhaps he would have laid on a bench in that rock cut tomb until a new member of Joseph’s family died. At the point, the stone would have been rolled away and another body interred. At some later date, after the flesh had decayed, his bones would have probably been gathered into an ossuary to make room for another body.
Layout of a typical burial chamber
But something else happened. The women were unable to perform their ablutions on the man they called Lord. Of all the burials and customs we’ve seen and discussed, from es-Skhul to the ossuary of Caiaphas, this one ended like no other.
Humans had lost, and grieved, and buried their dead with honor and respect for almost 100,000 years, with no hope of a life beyond the grave. The man Joseph laid in that new tomb would be the first born among all the dead.
Death itself was, finally, conquered.
Sources
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of the Holy Land )Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
Negev, Avraham, Ed. The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd Edition (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1990).
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment