“The archaeologist and the historian: Methodological Problems faced Historians Participating in Archaeological Surveys”, Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, (ed.) John Bintliff – Hanna Stöger, BAR , [Oxford} 2009, pp. 67-

“The archaeologist and the historian: Methodological Problems faced Historians Participating in Archaeological Surveys”, Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, (ed.) John Bintliff – Hanna Stöger, BAR , [Oxford} 2009, pp. 67-72.
of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers 1. Landscape Studies 67 1.6 The Archaeologist and the Historian: Methodological Problems Faced by Historians Participating in Archaeological Surveys  Dimitris Tsougarakis and Helen Angelomatis - Tsougarakis Many of the numerous surveys of the 1980s and 1990s, atleast those with the most ambitious aims, show a newsystemization of their research: the territory of the targetfield-work became clearly demarcated, labour-intensive pedestrian survey by teams, along with procedures for standardizing the collection and recording of data, andthey became interested in recording the full range of archaeological phenomena together with studies of erosion, soil formation, vegetation history etc. 1 However,though they showed an interest in historical periodswhich had been previously neglected (e.g. the Byzantine,the Frankish, the Venetian or the Ottoman periods), fewwent as far as to involve trained historians of these periods to perform detailed historical research concerningthe wider region of the survey, despite the fact thatrelevant historical data, published or unpublished, wereavailable. In most cases, a general overview of these periods is presented, often without direct relevance to thearea under study, and specifically aimed at helpingarchaeologists determine the nature of a ‘habitation site’or single building. 2  This approach clearly exemplifies the usual attitudesurveys showed towards more recent history. Historians,when involved in one of the surveys or regional studies,tread more or less on new ground, which is quite foreignto what they are used to in their own discipline. For thehistorians, surface surveys present an uncommonencounter in their usually lonely research of writtenhistorical sources: they have to co-operate with scholarsof other fields, whose methodology and work, as well astheir viewpoints, knowledge and understanding of history, may be considerably different from their own.This is the first challenge they have to face. Their co-operation can usually be, of course, very instructive for everyone involved, and may also prove very helpful intheir work, but often it presents additional problems,which beg for solutions.The participation of a historian in a surface survey planned by archaeologists and geared to the demands of their own discipline and desiderata raises a crucialquestion: What exactly is the aim of the project as far asthe historians are concerned, particularly for thosestudying the Medieval and Early Modern era? It is thisaim that will determine the role, if any, of the historiansin such a research project. In most archaeological or landscape surveys the main focus remains thesettlements, their numbers and the fluctuation of their  population, or the correlation between the numbers of settlements in any given period with the demographicalevidence. This is the historical evidence to be researchedand evaluated. However, there are several surveys, whichhave, directly or indirectly, also aimed to secure a better and more general understanding, not only of thedemarcated region of the survey, but also that of thesettlements themselves. This more ambitious approachcan hardly be reached without the use of documentaryand other textual sources when we start looking for evidence particularly in the Medieval and ModernPeriods. Obviously, if the planning of the project isinterested in these perspectives, then the role of historiansin the team acquires a different importance.The presence and contribution of historians to such projects in Greece, either published in a preliminaryreport, or in their final version, is noticeably variable.Their methods and approaches towards the historical dataalso vary considerably. However, in all these cases, thereremains as a common factor, as a key element, thedevelopment and history of the settlements, since this isthe usual aim of the project.Aside from this basic consideration, the role of historiansin a surface survey is not at all well defined. Quite oftenthere is no Medieval or Modern historian involved in thesurvey at all. Occasionally, a historian of ancient historymight cover as best as he/she can these long, and, inevery respect, so very different periods. 3 Historians withskills in linguistics, epigraphy or palaeography onlyrarely participate in archaeological teams. 4 It is alsotaken for granted that a historian can cover manydifferent fields and be at the same time a historicaldemographer, historical geographer, and a historian of Medieval and/or Modern Greece, for both the periods of Venetian and Ottoman occupation, as well as for theModern Greek state. In some other cases, the role of thehistorian is in fact non existent and the archaeologiststhemselves deal with whatever aspects of regional historythey consider appropriate, or relevant to their ownresearch, even for much later periods, although in mostcases they are little qualified for this task. Therealization, however, that the role of the Medieval andModern historian should be different is being graduallynot only recognized, but also clearly stated, as well as being splendidly exemplified in more recent works. 5  Surface surveys mostly study a small, demarcated areafor an extended period of time. This, necessary as itmight be for archaeological research, immediately presents practical and methodological problems for thehistorian who might be called to participate in such a  Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers 1. Landscape Studies 68 project. The first problem is obvious: the selection of any particular area of a survey was made with archaeologicalrather than historical criteria in mind. Very occasionally,this might not be a handicap. But in most cases it provesto be one, since the archaeologists do not take intoconsideration the availability or not of any kind of textualsources when selecting the region. The study of thehistory of a small area in which there are often fewsettlements, and only rarely any of considerable sizeand/or importance leaves a very limited scope for thehistorian. Taking this into account, it becomes evidentthat the historians have to incorporate into a historicalcontext and interpret finds and conclusions of other disciplines, as, quite often, surface surveys areinterdisciplinary studies. These find, however, arefrequently imprecise, fragmented, certainly variable andhardly ever corroborated by documentary evidence.Under these circumstances, dealing with the history of avery small area included in a surface survey is verydifferent to writing a regional history. This is, perhaps,the reason why the participation of qualified historians inthe team of a survey does not seem absolutely necessaryto many archaeologists as their absence in many casesindicates. 6  If the aim of the project is just a superficial examinationof the development and history of the settlements inconnection with their demographic trends over thecenturies, then the role of the historian is restricted toassisting the archaeologist in mapping, in a more or lessgeneral way, settlement patterns in an area, in connectionwith the pottery finds of the survey; in such a case his/her  participation is of limited importance. Moreover, in somecases, the presence of an historical geographer or historical demographer in the research team might provea better option for the survey. But even then, such ahistorian’s input will only prove truly constructive if he/she is an expert in the history of the region and wellacquainted with the richness and the complexity of thedocumentary sources, 7 something to which we shall refer in detail below.On the other hand, if the aim of the project is broader, overall historical and interdisciplinary study of anarea, in which historical data of every period areexamined in order to form as clear a picture as possible,then historians should have a different scope in their research. However, this is not what we actually encounter in the final results of many surveys, despite the fact thatsometimes such claims have been made, at least initially.Therefore, the brief, general historical context oftenincluded in many surveys is inadequate, because it fails tooffer any new perspective or understanding of the historyof any given area. The historical perspective, if any,should not be restricted to the very specific issues asregards the settlements, their population and itsfluctuation, or the correlation between the numbers of settlements in any given period with the demographicevidence. Several other important factors immediatelyconnected with the above should also be taken intoaccount, even if we wish to restrict our research only tothe settlements themselves. Documentary and other textual sources are absolutely essential requirements for the study of land ownership and land use patterns,agriculture, trade, local administrative and ecclesiasticalhistory of a region. The consequences of historicalevents, either of local or more general importance, whichmight have affected the area, cannot be disregardedeither. Otherwise, one can hardly reach anyunderstanding at least of the expansion or desertion of settlements and the fluctuation of their population. Thus,more recently, ‘Archaeologists have been compelled to place great emphasis on written texts in attempting toreconstruct settlements’. 8  The historians, therefore, engaged in such a task will haveto study written sources, completely independent of thesurface survey finds. Once embarked on such a research,historians are often faced either with the scarcity of available documentary and textual sources, particularlyfor the Medieval and some times even for the EarlyModern periods, or overwhelmingly extensive archivalmaterial published and unpublished. The demarcatedsmall areas which are studied in the surveys, obviouslyaccentuate the problems, although, occasionally, lack of textual sources is encountered not only for small areas, but sometimes for whole regions as well. This is also acommon problem in most European countries, despite thefact that they have very extensive and much better  preserved archival material than Greece. The case of Tuscany offers a good example of the gradual increase of the volume of documentary sources that help establishingthe history of the settlements there. 9  To an historian it is self-evident that it is impossible torestrict the historical research to within the boundaries of the particular region where the actual archaeologicalresearch is being carried out. Such an approach wouldmake it all but impossible to achieve any in-depthunderstanding of the history of the demarcated area andto reach any serious historical appraisal, or, at least, to promote the historical knowledge and the understandingof more complex issues in a broader chronological perspective.All the above considerations may, perhaps, explain whythere are so relatively few contributions by historians insurface surveys, at least as far as Greece is concerned.Moreover, they offer us a clue as to the reasons behindthe considerable variations in the historical approach anddiscussions to be found in these surveys. The mostcommon approach, as suggested above, is to present ageneral historical background based on publishedsources, with minimal, if any, new historical researchregarding either the territory of the survey, or its wider area. In some cases, whatever historical background is presented has not even been written by a historian, but itis the work of the participating archaeologists.These problems of dealing with historical research in thecontext of a surface survey, we ourselves solved byexpanding our research to cover a much wider area thanthe one in which the intense surface survey was  Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers 1. Landscape Studies 69conducted. The surface survey covered a small part of the province of Pyrgiotissa in Southern Crete, but weextended our historical research to include the whole provinces of Pyrgiotissa and the neighbouring provinceof Kainourgio, which shared many common trends intheir history, although they also present severaldifferences, 10 a labour which took several years.Since a historian’s main tools are the written sources, itwould be useful to select and examine some of these inrelation to the specific methodological problems they present, when used for the goals of a surface survey,focussing on the Medieval and Modern Periods, sincearchaeologists are far more familiar with Antiquity andits historical sources, be they direct or indirect.Textual sources vary considerably in kind and extent or volume, depending on the period and the region under study. Archival material usually presents us with the mostimportant documentary sources: land, fiscal, judicial or other registers, censuses, notarial protocols, official or  private correspondence, etc. However, such documentsare sometimes either completely lacking for certain periods and regions, or they are only partially preserved.In other instances their sheer unpublished bulk isoverwhelming. In all three cases, however, just a singlehistorian, amongst a team of archaeologists, trying tomaster the problems that arise is inevitably faced withserious difficulties.For the Byzantine period, documentary sources arescarce, not to say non-existent, with the exception of afew monastic archives like the ones in Mt Athos and inthe island of Patmos, which provide rich evidence for theLate Byzantine and Post Byzantine periods of these areasand the areas where their possessions lay. But this kind of documentation for the better part of Greece, in the Firstand Middle Byzantine Periods, is almost entirely lacking.Furthermore, other types of indirect sources, such ashistoriography and chronography, usually offer littleinformation of the kind we are interested in for the landsin present-day Greece. Unfortunately, the few survivingfragments of Byzantine land registers concern only somewell-defined small areas, for which of course, they areinvaluable. Historians, therefore, are forced to study ahuge bibliography in order to extract limited information;they also have to take into account whatever other evidence is provided by other disciplines, namely of linguistics, literature, history of art, or by certainsciences, such us archaeometry, geology, and botany.Despite the long and labourious research, the final resultmay be poor, when dealing with a very small area. Then,it should be incorporated in a plausible manner into thehistory of the wider region, along with an interpretationof the archaeological evidence, whether it be monuments,coins, seals, or pottery.The expansion of Western trade and influence, and,finally, the Latin conquests in the Greek East resulted inthe gradual increase of valuable documentary sources for the present Greek lands and the wider area of the South-Eastern Mediterranean, in the archives of WesternEurope, which became much more abundant after the 13 th  century. The rich archives of Venice and other Italiancities provide material mainly, but not exclusively, for theregions that were under their rule. Moreover, localarchives were gradually created in the conquered areas,with still more documents often with great localimportance. Archival sources become more numerous aswe progressively reach the Early Modern Period.After the Ottoman conquest, starting with the 15 th  century, Ottoman archives become available, the wealthof which is invaluable. However, only a very smallamount of the published material so far concerns theGreek lands. During the same period we also have aremarkable increase of ecclesiastical and monasticarchives in Greece.The continuous expansion of international trade in theMediterranean, particularly from the 16 th centuryonwards, the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire and theincreasing economic infiltration of the Western Europeancountries (France, England, Holland), as well as other countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Austria andRussia), not to mention the frequent wars, created anextensive network of political, diplomatic, economic,cultural and other relations. These were recorded ininnumerable documents deposited in the archives of allthese and several other countries, the Republic of Veniceincluded, the presence of which was still considerable, if steadily declining in the region. Amongst this vast wealthof documentary sources many relate to the local historyof various regions directly or indirectly. Unfortunately,once again, the relevant sources still remain mostlyunpublished.Finally, there has been a remarkable increase of documents in the Greek Archives since the War of Greek Independence and the foundation of the Modern Greek State in 1830. The subsequent gradual process of incorporating the formerly occupied lands into it, a process which lasted well into the mid-20 th century,further contributed to the expansion of public and privatearchives, which, besides modern documents, oftencontain much older ones. It must also be noted, however,that for the older periods it is only in a few cases that wehave continuous series of data, such as populationnumbers, tax revenues, production, exports etc., whichwould permit their quantitative processing over a longer  period of time. Often we do not have reliable quantitativedata at all. It is also not uncommon for historians to havedifficulty in gaining access to monastic or ecclesiasticaldocuments of local interest. Thus, valuable informationconcerning their possessions, especially their lands, becomes nearly impossible to obtain, even if this issimply to verify older published data.As a result, for the Modern Period, i.e. the 15 th centuryonwards, we have vast and diverse archival material atour disposal. If we consider the fact that only a tiny partis published, while often the documents themselves arenot even catalogued in detail, or indexed in a systematicway, it is evident that historians are presented with  Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers 1. Landscape Studies 70further difficulties, since it is practically impossible to siftthrough immense numbers of documents of longhistorical periods in order to gather information about thesmall area of the surface survey.Thus, there are two options available concerning the useof the archival sources, options which, however, are notmutually exclusive. The first option is the one usually preferred in the surveys and regional studies. Thisconsists of studying only the published sources. This has been done with various degrees of diligence and finalsuccess, because these sources often provide limited and patchy information for the area. It is also evident thatquite often secondary rather than primary bibliography isused. Therefore, even well-researched studies of thiscategory seldom include primary published Greek or other sources, which even when available to the authorsrequire quite a different in-depth understanding and processing in order to be profitably exploited. A case in point would be the well researched, as regards published bibliography, contribution to the history of Medieval andModern Southern Argolid. In this book, it proved difficultto master and include the abundant historical material for Modern times. Even an exhaustive use of the copy of theVenetian Catastico Particolare of the Argos area, whichwas made available for study by Peter Topping, produced preliminary remarks. 11  The other option is to make, at least partial or selective,use of some of the most promising unpublished sources,with all the advantages but also dangers involved inreaching any conclusions of a more general nature. Thecombined evidence of published and unpublished sourcesis obviously a much safer approach to the problem, but itrequires time and a more extensive team of specialisthistorians in various fields, than those usually participating in surveys. Such efforts often have as aresult important changes in previously existing views or,occasionally, preconceived ideas, which might have beenwidespread. 12  Each one of the various types of textual sources presentsdifferent problems that normally would require a particular expertise. The interpretation of diverse dataideally would require such a wide knowledge and trainingthat they cannot be easily found in just one person. For example, even distinguished historians feel obliged to point out that, since they are not trained in historicaldemography or historical geography, their interpretation‘might be opened to discussion’. 13  An even more tentative approach is absolutely necessarywhen the absence of official documentary evidencenecessarily leads historians to the use of indirectevidence, such as, e.g. the travellers’ accounts, when usedfor information on population numbers. The value andreliability of travel texts varies considerably dependingon the bias, preconceived ideas, personality, ability,interests, and the aim of each traveller in writing their texts, not to mention the reliability, or not, of their ownsources of information. Thus, travel literature can beuseful but must be treated with great caution and needs to be corroborated by other contemporary sources. 14 Incases where, for whatever reason, our only source for the population of a region are the travellers’ accounts, their numerical data must be treated with even greater cautionand should be considered to be only indicative, becausethe reliability of the travellers’ sources or the personalestimates of the authors can seldom be verified. 15  Generally, however, texts written by persons who wereon a specific mission, military, political or commercial, present special interest and are often more reliable, sincetheir authors had taken care to include concrete andverified data as best as they could.The terms used to define settlements and sites in thesources, since they vary considerably, not only over thecenturies but also locally and linguistically, pose further questions. Thus, linguistic and toponymic research becomes quite often necessary because of the veryrequirements of a surface survey. The identification of the present day toponyms with those under which manysettlements appear in various periods, frequentlylanguages other than Greek and usually greatly distorted,is also one of the common difficult tasks historiansencounter, along with the need to identify uncertainarchaeological finds with those settlements of whichnothing but their names have survived, with hardly a clueas to their location.The difficulties become even greater when the data of thearchaeological research do not agree with the information provided by the written sources. The ‘dramatic mismatch between archaeological and archival information, even in periods for which documentary evidence is plentiful’ 16  requires further research, but also a profound knowledgeof the history of the region for the period under examination, if the historian is to offer any seriousexplanation of the phenomenon. An instructive examplehere is provided by the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project  :the survey area produced almost no Byzantine pottery atall between the middle of the 7 th and the 13 th centuries, agap of no less than 600 years, while the historicalsources, on the contrary, provide ample information aboutthe fortunes of Cyprus during this period. 17  Other types of sources useful for a historian taking part ina surface survey are geographical works, isolaria, mapsand  portolans ; legal texts, military reports and publications of army headquarters, not to mention philological, ethnological and linguistic sources, memoirsetc. Finally, particularly useful may prove survivinginscriptions and graffiti on the monuments of the areaunder study.To sum up, for the Early Byzantine period documentarysources are practically non-existent, and the historianmore often than not has to rely on other types of sources.For the Middle and Late Byzantine periods these are stillscarce and concern specific areas, so they can be used profitably only if the study concerns these particular regions. Finally, for the Modern era, the wealth anddiversity of the unpublished material mean that thehistorians will conduct their research with difficulty and  Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece: The Corfu Papers 1. Landscape Studies 71quite possibly selectively. It is very promising that theModern period, for which there is so much and so richand diverse historical information, has become the objectof separate studies, as we have seen in the case of Southern Argolid and Southwestern Morea as a result of the surveys conducted there. Thus the remark: ‘Neglect of critical archival sources for the study of Post-ByzantineGreece reflects in part a general apathy among thearchaeologists concerning research and instruction in therecent history of Greece, a tendency particularly acuteoutside Greece itself’, 18 is hopefully an indication thatthis tendency is in the process of changing. CONCLUSION   Archaeological surveys which aim at a ‘total’investigation of an area extending into the Medieval,Early Modern and Modern periods, should includehistorical research of equally detailed and exhaustive proportions to that undertaken for archaeological finds.Published and unpublished documentary sources should be taken into account and researched by trained historiansof those periods. If historical documents and archivalmaterial are available, it is inconceivable that they should be disregarded and that attempts would be made to drawhistorical conclusions with the help of mainly potteryfinds and some general, background historicalinformation. Also, existing unpublished historicaldocuments should be researched, at least partially. This isnot to discount the great usefulness of input of other sciences, such as geology, ethnoarchaeology, geography, botany etc, but for the more recent historical periods theresults of the survey projects will inevitably beincomplete without the information provided by detailedhistorical research. Finally, it seems self-evident that the participation of more historians, of different skills andfields, would greatly help towards a more accomplished‘total’ regional survey. NOTES   1 Alcock and Cherry 2004, 3. 2 See Cavanagh, Mee and James 2005, 10-14. 3   See, for example, Lucia Nixon and Jennifer Moody, The SphakiaSurvey: Internet Edition   [].   The surveyhas made limited use of    historical material and almost no use of archivalsources for the Early Modern/Modern periods. Among the ‘principalinvestigators’ was one ancient historian, who was involved, in the‘analysis of ancient and modern historical sources’, alongside his other duties. The Documentary Research Methods include ‘Byzantine MSS,Venetian reports ( relazioni ), drawings, and maps, Turkish tax records,18 th century land sale documents, ecclesiastical records’. Also it isstated that ‘we are combining archaeological and environmental datawith the historical sources, which results in a more balanced general picture’. However, it is not clear from the reports whether more thanone single unpublished document has been used.   4 Cf. Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 345. 5 Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 343, 345-346. 6 Cf. a) Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. and Mantzourani, E., The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project. Archeaological Survey. Internet Edition  []. This is a mainly archaeological surveywith no obvious historical research. No historian seems to participate. b) Davis, J.L, Alcock, S.E. and Bennet, J. et al., The Pylos Regional  Archaeological Project. Internet Edition [].The co-director for Historical Studies here is a classicist/archaeologist.Although the aim of the project is stated as being ‘to investigate thehistory of prehistoric and historic settlement and land use’, the project‘has employed the techniques of archaeological surface survey, alongwith natural environment investigations’ with no apparent historicalresearch as such.c) Davis, J.L. and Korkuti, M.M., The Mallakastra Regional  Archaeological Project Internet Edition: []. This is an‘archaeological expedition formally organized in 1996 to investigate thehistory of Prehistoric and Historic settlement and land use in centralAlbania’ but as far as one can see there are no plans for any systematichistorical research. 7 Renfrew and Wagstaff 1982; Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000,343-380; see also Zarinebaf, Bennet and Davis 2005. 8 Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 343; see also Davis andDavis 2007, 6ff, for a discussion on the necessary co-operation betweenarchaeologists and historians, which is still lacking. 9 Ginatempo and Giorgi 1999, 173-193. 10 Tsougarakis and Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 2004, 359-439, 551-593. 11 Jameson, Runnels and Van Andel, 1994, 112-139. ‘The society andthe economy of the Southern Argolid of today and of the recent past areonly briefly sketched’ in the book, as they were studied in a separatevolume; see Buck Sutton 2000. 12 See for example Kiel 1999, 196. 13 Kiel 1999, 197; Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 343-380. 14 Angelomatis-Tsougarakis 1990, 13-24, 210-211; Renfrew andWagstaff 1982, 146-149; for an excellent treatment of the problems presented even by a traveller who is considered as reliable as far asgeographical and topographical evidence are concerned, see Bennet,Davis and Sarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 343-380. 15 See Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 365-385; see chapter 19:‘A Synopsis and Analysis of Travelers’ Accounts of Keos (to 1821)’ . 16 Bennet, Davis and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 345-346. 17 Gregory 2003, 283-284.   18 Bennet, Davis, and Zarinebaf-Shahr 2000, 345. BIBLIOGRAPHY   Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, H., 1990, The Eve of the Greek  Revival. British Travellers’ Perceptions of Early Nineteenth Century Greece, London and NewYork: Routledge.Alcock, S.E. and Cherry, J.F. (eds), 2004, Side-by-SideSurvey: Comparative Regional Studies in theMediterranean World  , Oxford: Oxbow Books.Bennet, J., Davis, J. L., Zarinebaf-Shahr, F., 2000, ‘ThePylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part III:Sir William Gell’s Itinerary in the Pylia andRegional Landscapes in the Morea in the SecondOttoman Period’,  Hesperia 69:3, 343-380.Buck Sutton, S., 2000, Contingent Countryside:Settlement, Economy, and Land Use in theSouthern Argolid since 1700 , Stanford (CA):Stanford University Press.Cavanagh, W., Mee, Ch., and James, P. (eds), 2005, The Laconia Rural Sites Project  , BSA Suppl. 36,London: The British School at Athens.Cherry, J.F., Davis, J. L. and Mantzourani, E., 1991,  Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times, LosAngeles (CA): University of California Instituteof Archaeology.Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. and Mantzourani, E., The NemeaValley Archaeological Project - Archaeological Survey. Internet Edition  []Davis, J.L., Alcock, S.E., Bennet, J. et al., The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. Internet  Edition []
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks