Pathan parahistory

By Razib Khan | July 3, 2011 1:41 pm



Mughal Emperor Akbar

In Strange Parallels Victor Lieberman made a reference to “Turkicized Pathans.” The very term has been gnawing at me. To get some sense of the context, Lieberman was sketching out the impact of Islamic civilization upon Indian civilization. Sometimes this “impact” was very literal. The Arab armies had rolled into Sindh in the 8th century, but that influence upon India was militarily marginal. The first real Muslim raider of consequence was Mahmud of Ghazni, a Turkic raider from what is today Afghanistan, who famously plundered the palaces and temples of North India circa ~1000. But even here the the impact is arguably superficial. Mahmud of Ghazni’s raids did not lead to a large Indian domain under his direct rule except in Punjab. Rather, these sallies into India were sources of supplementation to his broader fiscal resources. He was still fundamentally a Central Asian potentate fixated on Central Asian concerns. The real rise of Islamic civilization in India was precipitated by the Delhi Sultanate, a series of short-lived polities beginning circa ~1200 which dominated the Indian subcontinent for centuries, until they were superseded by the far more robust Mughal Empire.

These Indo-Islamic dominions were often dominated by individuals of Turkic identity. By this, I mean that they were from a lineage of Turkic tribes which had filtered into the world of Islam in the centuries before 1000, enslaved or enrolled in the armies of Muslim warlords. But eventually these pawns turned the tables on their erstwhile masters and snatched the keys to the kingdom for themselves. Mahmud of Ghazni’s own family were originally servitors of the Iranian Muslim Samanid dynasty. But just as Rome was enslaved by Greece culturally after its conquest of Hellas, so many Turks freely granted the manifest superiority of the Persian language in the domain of culture. Therefore the irony is that the Persian language spread as the elite cultural vehicle along with the expansion of the Turks west and east, culminating with the rise of the Ottomans and Mughals. Therefore you had a situation in Mughal India where the ruling dynasty, which was of proud Turco-Mongol origin along the paternal lineage, patronized Persian was the language of the court and administration more generally.

But what about the Afghans? They were not invisible. Along with the Turks and Persians, who came with the sword and quill respectively to serve in the courts of India’s Islamic rulers, came auxiliaries of Afghans, mostly Pashtuns. Though a majority of the dynasts seem to claim Turkic antecedents, some are self-consciously Afghan. For example the Lodi dynasty. The influence of these people is evident in India today insofar as upper class Muslims often refer to themselves as “Pathans,” presumably pointing to an origin outside of Indian proper.


To me it seems that the development of the Pathan over time is hampered by the fact that they are a people who did not develop their own independent robust high culture. A variety of Persian was the language of high culture. The Other par excellence was the Turk. The Pathan was a background figure, the illiterate peasant or nomad which was of no concern, and who integrated themselves into a Turkic or Persian world and identity when they rose above their station. In this way I wonder if they resemble Kurds, another highland Iranian people who have persisted over the centuries but seem strangely invisible as great empires rise and fall. This invisibility, a decentralized lack of reliance on elite institutional structures, may be one reason that a coherent Kurdish or Pathan identity persisted over so long, and continues down to this day, despite the spread of Turkic language in many zones of their broader region.

Though I probably know more about Indian history than most of you I’m still somewhat in the dark as to the detailed relationship of between Turks and Afghans in Afghanistan and India during this period. Much of the literature focuses on the faction between immigrants from outside India vs. those who were native-born, or between Muslim elites and Hindu elites. Secondarily there were divisions between Shia and Sunni, with Persians looming large.

I don’t have fluency in the languages to do primary research, but I do have genetic data sets to play with. I pruned my populations down to a few which were designed to explore the nature of East Asian ancestry among other groups, in particular Pathans. The population set has ~90,000 markers, and I ran ADMIXTURE across many K’s, with 9 seeming to be the most illuminating for my purposes. Below are three bar plots, one which shows population averages, and two which focus on specific populations on the grain of individuals. There are also two plots which visualize genetic distances between the hypothetical ancestral populations, labeled by modal group.


When you analyze East Asian data sets they always tend to divide first into a northeastern and southeastern component. In this case I have a northern Turkic group, Yakuts, in my population set. Since the data set is “Pakistan-centered” you see divisions of ancestral groups with a focus on that region. If I overloaded with Western European populations the outcomes might be very different in absolute terms. As per what other genome bloggers have found using a Pakistan-centered data set South Asian populations can be separable as admixtures of three broad elements:

1) A north Pakistan centered element, modal in the Burusho ethno-linguistic isolate. This element seems rather distant from other West Eurasian components, and is broadly correlated with “West Asian” in other runs (though the overlap is imperfect because of the Pakistani bias of this data set).

2) A south Pakistan centered element, modal in the Brahui, a Dravidian ethno-linguistic group surrounded by the Iranian speaking Balochi, with whom they share most cultural features except language.

3)  A more South Asian general element, which is represented here by the Gujarati_B sample (probably Patels). It’s position on the Fst MDS is pretty much where you would expect from a South Asian population which is an admixture of West Eurasian and non-West Eurasian populations. Interestingly the proportion of this element in the Balochi and Brahui is in the same neighborhood as among the Cambodians. On the face of it I’m skeptical that there was a mass migration of South Asians to Cambodia, despite the Indic associations of early Khmer society. Rather, it seems more likely to be evidence of an ancient South Eurasian substratum which spanned the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. On the other hand, Malays and Cambodians exhibit evidence of South Asian ancestry even when the Andaman Islander component is extracted out. Looking at other groups I’m still strongly leaning toward the assumption that this is an artifact though looking at some other results at the linked plot. But it will be something to investigate more closely in the future.

But there are other components at low proportions among the Pakistanis aside from the “big three.” Here are the population breakdowns in tabular form:

Population Dai Yakut Burusho Baltic Brahui Yemeni Bantu Sardinian Gujarati
Brahui 1% 1% 8% 3% 71% 6% 3% 3% 6%
Balochi 1% 1% 12% 3% 62% 6% 2% 2% 10%
Makrani 0% 0% 12% 1% 61% 9% 6% 4% 6%
Sindhi 2% 1% 21% 4% 32% 2% 4% 2% 32%
Pathan 2% 3% 27% 11% 22% 5% 1% 2% 27%
Iranians 1% 1% 30% 4% 15% 30% 3% 14% 3%
Uzbeks 14% 25% 18% 18% 7% 8% 0% 4% 5%
Turks 1% 4% 25% 12% 7% 27% 0% 22% 1%
Syrians 1% 0% 20% 3% 5% 44% 4% 23% 1%
Hazara 21% 29% 27% 7% 5% 4% 0% 2% 5%
Gujarati_b 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 88%
Georgians 0% 0% 43% 5% 1% 24% 0% 27% 0%
Chuvashs 2% 20% 3% 71% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Cambodians 86% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 10%
Belorussian 0% 0% 1% 84% 1% 2% 0% 11% 1%
Burusho 8% 5% 55% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 28%
Lithuanians 0% 0% 0% 95% 0% 1% 0% 4% 0%
Yakut 1% 94% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Han 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Yemen Jews 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 0% 1% 0%
Dai 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sardinian 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 97% 0%
Miaozu 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Bantu Kenya 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 98% 0% 0%

I’ve highlighted Pakistani populations, and bolded the modal fraction for all groups. The important point is to look at the ratio between “Yakut” and “Dai.” This should be an indication of the “Turkicness” of a population, with higher ratios implying more Turkic ancestry. The Burusho are a good test case. They exhibit little intra-population variation in the non-trivial East Asian proportion. But they’re somewhat biased toward a Dai component. I suspect that this balance is evidence of Tibetan admixture, as opposed to Turkic. In contrast, the Pathan levels are low, but biased toward Yakut ancestry. The ratio is very similar to the geographically close Hazara population, which is a clear Turco-Mongol ancestry in part, despite their adherence to a Persianate (Dari speaking) identity today. For me the point of curiosity is that the Pathan differ from the Baloch. The Baloch are in many ways just a more cosmopolitan spin on the Brahui, something that would make sense if the Iranian Baloch identity is an overlay upon a earlier Brahui layer. It would be interesting to know if the interaction with Turkic groups was historically known to be far less among the Baloch and Brahui than the Pathan, despite the geographically close position of these groups.

My analysis here is superficial. The analytic techniques aren’t too deep or informative. Rather, my intent was to push forward the project of exploring parahistorical dynamics through genetics. But “parahistory” I’m not talking counterfactuals, but rather what textually and even physically focused analysis of the past misses because of its methodological constraints. Would we know of the possibility of a relict Dravidian substratum in the hills of Balochistan deep into the medieval era if not for the fact that Brahui persists to this day? (it is giving way to Baloch even today) Many populations remain “dark” to textual records, or mentioned only as an aside to the “main stream” of military and fiscal concerns of rentier aristocracies or the poetic grandiloquence of literary elites. Archaeology in theory can compensate for this bias in the written word, but it is only an imperfect science in a positivistic sense. I am skeptical that archaeologists would have been bold enough to assert the existence of a Dravidian substratum in Balochistan even if there was a physical difference in the material objects. How would they even connect these people to Dravidian languages in the rest of South Asian anyhow?

As for the Turks and Pathans, some Turks did turn Pathan I believe. In fact one of the HGDP Pathans seems clearly to have been the product of recent admixture. That is not so surprising in light of history. Rather, it is critical to pin down specific values if we are ever to understand with any clarity the nature of ethnogenesis of the groups which met at the intersection of what the ancient Persians would have termed Iran, Turan, and Hind.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Genomics, History
  • Hasher

    There is great danger in trying to align genetics with cultural identities centered on linguistic affiliations. The composition of ethnic groups on the Inner Asian steppes was always a fluid process with Arab Tayyis becoming Persian Tajiks and Persionate ‘Sarts’ becoming Turkified. Similarly, all of Mongol ‘Uluses’ allotted to Chengiz Khan’s sons had become thoroughly Turkified within a century of his death and by the 15th century the picture becomes even more complex with various Turkic groups morphing into each other (e.g Uzbeks into Chaghatais) and the cosmopolitan Turks of the Oasis states becoming Tajiks by the virtue of their (adopted) Persian culture. Peter Golden’s “A history of the turkic speaking peoples” would be a good starting point to explore this further.
    On the subject of Afghans the picture is a lot more complex partly because there is a greater paucity of historical sources and much less research has been done on them. However, one of the largest tribes of Pasthuns : Ghilzais were almost certainly Turkic and adopted Pashtun culture and language fairly late. Pashtun identity was always fairly strong but allowed for integration of other peoples into Pashtun culture. Majority of people from Swat only “became” Pashtuns within the living memory and there is a “Baloch” Pashtun tribe in D I Khan who speak Pashtu but still know their tribe as “Baloch”. Similarly the Burki tribe from Waziristan which has been assimilated into the Pashtun society still speaks their own language which is very distinct from Pashto.
    I guess I will get into Mahmud of Ghazni and Pashtun/Turkic interaction next time though that is where I had intended to start my comment

  • mpc

    fascinating! stumbled onto this issue of the population history of the pakistani top 5 from another angle recently and have been groping to understand the implications. your admixture chart makes sense of a few things. thx.

  • Zora

    You might want to change Mahmud of Ghanzi to Mahmud of Ghazni.

    So far as I can differentiate truth from mythology, Pathans/Pashtuns were just another hill tribe speaking a Persian dialect (Pashto) until 1747. A tribesman named Ahmad led a Pashtun contingent in the service of Nader Shah, the Persian conqueror. When Nader Shah was assassinated, Ahmad was in the right place to grab a chunk of the disintegrating empire. Ahmad became Ahmad Shah Durrani, ruling over the Durrani Empire, which at its height controlled large chunks of what are today Iran, Pakistan, and India. Other hill tribes amalgamated with the new aristocracy. Rather than being the first state that united all the Pashtuns (per the probably Pashtun-edited Wikipedia article), I suspect it was the state that created the Pashtuns. The Durrani empire disintegrated almost as rapidly as it had been created, thanks to tribal mores that created cousin competition and feuding. I suspect that Pashtuns would have returned to being just another hill tribe if it hadn’t been for the Raj, which wanted a stable client state on the borders of India. Their interventions were often unsuccessful, but eventually turned an ad-hoc empire into something that looked like a state on the surface.

    So, yes, Pashtuns would be a relatively recent group. Hill farmers/raiders with delusions of grandeur and bizarre claims to Jewish or Arab ancestry (probably intended to distance them from their hill farmer/raider neighbors).

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    There is great danger in trying to align genetics with cultural identities centered on linguistic affiliations. The composition of ethnic groups on the Inner Asian steppes was always a fluid process with Arab Tayyis becoming Persian Tajiks and Persionate ‘Sarts’ becoming Turkified.

    i’ll bet you $500 dollars that there is a statistically significant (95% interval) difference between the % east asian in azeri iranians and persian speaking iranians in the same region assuming a sample size of 500 each. what i’m trying to get at is that the identities were fluid, but not arbitrary and 100% socially constructed.

  • Lawang

    @ Zora: “So far as I can differentiate truth from mythology, Pathans/Pashtuns were just another hill tribe speaking a Persian dialect (Pashto) until 1747″

    I am not sure which mythology is this – definitely not Indian, Afghan or Pashtun :)

    Pashtu literature traces its roots back to close to 2000 years ago – still Pashtu as a “distinct” and “unique” language not a Persian dialect. Even recent ones , the likes of Amir Krore – belong to 8th century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_media

    Why sticking to some mystery myths when wikipedia is there for FREE :)

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    So far as I can differentiate truth from mythology, Pathans/Pashtuns were just another hill tribe speaking a Persian dialect (Pashto) until 1747.

    pashto is not a persian dialect, unless by persian you mean iranian.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_languages

  • Ian

    @Hasher – actually it’s not a big problem as long as the people doing the data collection are careful to distinguish between core groups and more recently assimilated groups. Even then – the data tend to speak. There’s one person in the data set who, Razib mentioned, is apparently fairly “Turkified”. If you’re trying to come up with your population mean, you can always try it with and without outliers.

    Ghilzais were almost certainly Turkic and adopted Pashtun culture and language fairly late

    Were they actually Turkic, or did they subscribe to a Turkic identity? If they were of primarily Turkic descent, then it should be apparent, visually, that they are distinct. If, on the other hand, they that the same (mixed) ethnic makeup as other Pashtuns, and only later adopted a Pashtun identity, then it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference at all.

    Cultural entities tend to be endogamous, so it seems like a reasonable null to assume that they are genetically distinct. If they aren’t – well, then you may have learned something interesting…

  • Zora

    OK, Iranian rather than Persian, if that makes you feel better. I’ve seen too many online battles between the “it’s IRAN” and the “it’s PERSIA” factions to be at all clear as to which word to use where. Or with whom :)

    As for the claims that the history of Pashto extends back to the 8th century CE — well, that’s a Wikipedia article, it has clearly been written by Pashtuns to glorify Pashtuns, and it has little credibility with me. I spent too dang much time on Wikipedia scrapping with nationalists and fundies of various sorts to regard any articles on touchy subjects as reliable.

    Amir Krore is mythical, dangnabit. Whether you believe that Habibi forged the Pata Khazana in 1975, or that Vambery found a copy in 1859, you can’t prove that any of it predates the Durrani empire — the power that gave poets and historians strong motives to invent a glorious past for Pashtuns.

    I don’t know as much as I’d like about the linguistic history of the Iranian dialects of central Asia, but what I do know suggests that conquests and migrations spread and mixed languages, isolation in mountain valleys differentiated them, and the two trends would have resulted in a range of dialects and an extremely complex history. Any Iranian dialect from the 8th century would be very different from an 18th century dialect.

    I proofread a large chunk of the Baburnama (Babur’s memoirs) for Distributed Proofreaders. Beveridge translation, which is old and odd, but it is out of copyright. (We haven’t finished formatting it, BTW; it has taken years to push this formidable text through the system.) I kept an eye out for mention of Pashtuns. None, unless they are synonymous with Afghan. Perhaps, but there are Afghan tribal names in the Baburnama that don’t seem to match the current divisions. Most of the mentions of Afghans are in connection with isolated rebellions or conspiracies against Babur, or villages raided BY Babur for horses and provisions. Nothing to indicate that they are anything more than hill tribes.

  • Zora

    Hmm. I spent too much time writing a response, which seems to have disappeared. I hit the wrong key? I’ll try to write it again; Razib can delete it if it’s a duplicate.

    If you want me to say Iranian rather than Persian, OK. I’ve witnessed too many online battles between the “it’s IRAN” and the “it’s PERSIA” people to be sure of what word to use where, and with whom.

    The Wikipedia article on Pashtun media seems to have been written by Pashtuns for Pashtuns; I don’t give it much credibility. I spent too much time on Wikipedia arguing with nationalists and fundies to trust articles on touchy subjects. Pashtun history is one of them.

    Amir Kror is mythical. The only evidence for his existence is a text, the Pata Khazana, which the academics regard as a forgery — they only differ as to the date. In any case, it was written well after Ahmad Shah Durrani.

    It is completely unbelievable that Pashto could be traced back to the 8th century CE. That’s more than a thousand years ago. During that time, conquests and migrations have spread and mixed languages; isolation in mountain valleys has differentiated them. The result would be a hodgepodge of dialects/languages, with a complex history. I am not a specialist in Iranian or Central Asian languages, but that’s just common sense if you know anything about linguistics.

    The Baburnama, the memoirs of Babur, would be one of the primary texts for Central Asian/South Asian history. I proofread a large chunk of the Beveridge translation for Distributed Proofreaders, which will be bringing it out as an ebook. I kept an eye out for mention of Pashtuns. None. There were references to Afghans, but it’s not completely clear that Afghan = Pashtun. There were tribal names there that didn’t match the current list of Pashtun tribes. In any case, Babur mentions the Afghans only in the context of isolated rebellions and conspiracies against his rule, or as villagers whom he raided for horses and provisions. Hill tribes.

  • Wes

    Razib,

    I just have to ask, how the heck to do you publish such a huge volume of work almost daily? You must have Herculean work ethic.

  • Grey

    “There is great danger in trying to align genetics with cultural identities centered on linguistic affiliations.”

    I think that partly depends on the terrain. The more mountainous the terrain the more (potentially) ancient the genetics. A dozen separate invaders may have taken over the surrounding lowlands while the mountain people are still there simply because the terrain makes it harder to push people out (and possibly the terrain itself creates a type of culture that is hard to defeat).

  • Hasher

    Razib wrote: “i’ll bet you $500 dollars that there is a statistically significant (95% interval) difference between the % east asian in azeri iranians and persian speaking iranians in the same region assuming a sample size of 500 each. what i’m trying to get at is that the identities were fluid, but not arbitrary and 100% socially constructed.”

    that helps illustrate my point even better, you’d find the difference between Azeri Turks and the surrounding Iranian population, but you’d probably find the same (or greater differences) between Azeri Turks and Karakoyunlu and Akkoyunlu Turkmans in eastern Anatolia as well as between Azeris and Turkmans in general despite the fact that all of these populations were part of the Oghuz (Saljuk) tribal grouping that entered West Asia en mass after 1041 CE. The reason why Azeris (in Iran in particular) exhibit east Asian traits is not because of they are turks but because of the Ilkhanid Mongol influence and inter-mixing which started in the 13 century.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    OK, Iranian rather than Persian, if that makes you feel better. I’ve seen too many online battles between the “it’s IRAN” and the “it’s PERSIA” factions to be at all clear as to which word to use where. Or with whom

    no, i don’t mean iranian as in the synonym for persian. i mean iranian languages, which span the north iranian ones of the caucasus to pashto. the persian languages, of which farsi i the modern instantiation, are a specific southwestern branch with roots in fars. they are very distinct from the east iranian languages, of which pashto is the primary representative, or northwestern iranian languages such as kurdish. there are many “persian” dialects. farsi and dari are the two most prominent ones. but these are much much closer than pashto, kurdish, or baloch, are to these dialects.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    an analogy would be like saying that bengali is derived from a hindustani dialect. or that italian is a standardization of a langue d’oil dialect. they mistake the time depth to the last common ancestor of the two classes by making one the ancestor of the other.

  • http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com TGGP

    “For me the point of curiosity is that the Pathan differ from the Baloch”
    I’m just an ignorant layman unfrozen caveman, but those Yakut:Dai numbers look really small to me. 3% is three times as big as 1%, but in terms of the standard deviation on that table it’s a lot smaller. What’s your criteria for determining a difference to be significant with this data?

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    What’s your criteria for determining a difference to be significant with this data?

    look at the individual bar plots. it’s a relatively consistent different.

  • Grey

    This is not an attempt at a serious analysis but rather a further example of the *possible* influence of terrain.

    Relief map

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&biw=1600&bih=703&q=relief+map+afghanistan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x38d16eb6f8ff026d:0xf3b5460dbe96da78,Afghanistan&gl=uk&t=p&ei=zC0TTuqKIIWYhQfA_sjlDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ8gEwAA

    If you imagined, just for the sake of argument, a Dravidian base across all of now Afghanistan and Pakistan and two flows coming in both following the line of least resistance, a Persian one in the south flowing west to east and then up to Quetta when they hit the mountains and a Turkic one flowing north to south along the lowland in the west of Afghanistan and then east to Kandahar.

    You’d end up with a band of terriotory west of somewhere like Chaman where these Turkic and Iranian forces would conflict.

    If the outcome of that conflict was a stalemate along that Chaman line then the Turkic influence would spread up to Kabul creating a kind of U shape of influence Herat-Kandahar-Kabul while the Iranian influence would flow through the Quetta pass and down south again making an upside down U shape Mand-Quetta-Hyderabad.

    The southern section of mountainous would be surrounded by Iranian influence and sealed from Turkic influences. The large northern bloc would be surrounded by Turkic influence and sealed from Iranian influences. The central bloc of mountains would have influences from all sides but not surrounded by a single one.

    Again, not saying this is accurate or anything and you need to know the history and the genetics etc but i think when you’re looking at parahistory via genetics then looking at terrain in a path of least resistance way might provide some early theories which can then by tested against the genetic evidence.

  • raz

    Regarding the Turkic admixture in the Baluch (or the lack thereof), one of the factors that led to the Baluch migrating south, and eventually south-east, was the pressure from the incoming Seljuk Turks in Northern Iran during the 11th century.

    I wonder if its possible to recreate the pre-Baluchi Brahui(if that makes any sense) by ‘subtracting’ the old Baluch from current Brahui/Baluch?

    The Baluch were probably genetically very similar to the current day Kurds a thousand years ago.

    I would guess that the pre-Baluchi Brahui already had some indo-aryan admixture from the Jat(Jadgal) inhabitants of Baluchistan, so determining the actual Brahui component would not be that easy…

  • Justin Giancola

    “but i think when you’re looking at parahistory via genetics then looking at terrain in a path of least resistance way might provide some early theories which can then by tested against the genetic evidence”

    I very much agree.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »