Page 470 of 516 FirstFirst ... 370420460468469470471472480 ... LastLast
Results 4,691 to 4,700 of 5155

Thread: Could Western Jews (Ash. and Seph.) descend from Aegeans and Levantine admixture?

  1. #4691
    Registered Users
    Posts
    762
    Sex
    Location
    Sweden
    Ethnicity
    Italian-Swedish
    Nationality
    Swedish
    Y-DNA
    R-L2 / R1b-U152
    mtDNA
    H1a1

    Sweden Italy Italy 1861-1946 Sami Vatican
    Thanks for postning!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nino90 For This Useful Post:

     LTG (02-06-2019),  Power77 (02-06-2019)

  3. #4692
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    3,771
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA
    J1-YSC234 (Z18271+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    On what ground? How such admixture would arrive to Romaniotes? To Libyan Jews? in such substantial amount as to make them all autosomally cluster together? If Romaniote Jews would have clustered as Levantines, or as Cypriots, and quite far from the rest of the Western Jews, I'd understand this. But how would Tuscan-like admixture arrive to Romaniote Jews? To non-Sephardic Maghrebi Jews?

    The fact that the best opportunity for a study to settle this - Xue et al. (2017) - lumped together Greeks, North Italians and Sicilians as a reference for South European admixture in Ashkenazi Jews, certainly didn't help.

    IMO, the North Italian admixture, while still a plausible scenario, seem at the moment to be weaker than the East Mediterranean source of South European admixture. Of course, if I'll let go objectivity and state my own personal wish - as much as I'm invested in the Aegean/E. Mediterranean admixture theory, I'd rather the North Italian scenario to actually make more sense and be finally proved, as it means we are indeed 50-60% Levantines. The theory I propose put this figure at 30-35%, and of course as a Zionist Ashkenazi Jew, it's less favorable for me politically and personally. But in such matters, this shouldn't be the issue.
    Such a model still works if we assume that the Western Jewish source was Samaritan-like and North-Central Italian, add additional local admixture and it might still work for the Romaniotes and Libyan Jews though admittedly in their case the admixture has to be somewhat more substantial than what we see in other Jewish communities. Of course, in the case of the Romaniotes this is much more tenuous, but in the case of the Syro-Lebanese communities there's a fair chance this model might be validated, they might still be the result of an admixture event between a Samaritan-like source and an Eastern Mediterranean one, this could work too.

    The main constraint here is that all Western Jewish groups form a single population with minor substructure, they are all bound to derive from a single group (in terms of diversity this is exactly on par with Iranian and Iraqi Jews, who also form a single population). That doesn't leave much space for competing theories when dealing with the ethnogenesis of Western Jews. I honestly do not have strong opinions over this, currently the Italian model makes the most sense especially if we take the ancient DNA and uniparental data into account.

    Xue et al., like most studies which rely entirely on contemporary data to draw conclusions on past demographic events, is probably less significant as a study of Jewish origins than much of the evidence discussed in this thread.

    I have no problem with an Aegean ethnogenesis (just look at my profile). As I said, I have for many years advocated in favour of Aegean admixture instead of North-Central Italian admixture. From a political standpoint, if an Aegean model were to be confirmed it would actually be far more detrimental to "anti-Zionist" discourse than the Italian one, but this isn't the place to discuss this (I can tell you my thoughts on this privately) and such considerations should have no bearing on the issue at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonahst View Post
    But doesn't this basically support the idea of a single relatively-homogeneous ancient Western Jewish source population?

    This is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to me, though personally I'm ambivalent as to where exactly in Southern Europe the European component originates. But I do think, at least based on the evidence I've seen here and elsewhere, it suggests a much more southern and probably much more eastern source of European ancestry than mainland Italy. This is compounded by the fact that most of the early pre-Ashkenazi Jews from Italy who moved to Ashkenaz were from Southern Italy and Sicily, which I'm guessing would have genetically resembled Romaniote more than any other modern Jewish population.
    Precisely, and that is exactly the point I am making. The fact that the genetic evidence strongly points towards the existence of a single "proto-Western Jewish" population from which all Western Jewish groups are derived leaves very little room for competing theories when the Southern European component's origin is of concern.

    Your second point might well be correct, Southern Italy indeed was an early center of Jewish learning in Europe during Late Antiquity. One could just as easily argue that these Jewish communities were relatively unmixed and might have still been similar to the Samaritans from a genetic standpoint. Without ancient data, the details are fuzzy.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 02-06-2019 at 07:15 PM.
    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Andrewid (02-06-2019),  Cascio (02-06-2019),  Claudio (02-07-2019),  Erikl86 (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-06-2019),  Power77 (02-06-2019),  Seabass (02-07-2019),  Targum (02-08-2019)

  5. #4693
    Registered Users
    Posts
    98
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    95% Ashkenaz,5% Sephardic
    Nationality
    US
    Y-DNA
    J2a
    mtDNA
    J1c

    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    But South European, not Russian or Polish. Surely - Russian H subclades have diverged from their Mediterranean counterparts thousands of years ago.
    But that was not what Richards concluded, The paper mentioned Central and Western Europe for Hg H. Is there another study which supports your conclusion.
    Last edited by josh w.; 02-07-2019 at 12:35 AM.

  6. #4694
    Registered Users
    Posts
    619
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Ashkenazi Jew
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    Q-Y2750
    mtDNA
    H47

    United States of America Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by josh w. View Post
    But that was not what Richards concluded, The paper mentioned Central and Western Europe for Hg H. Is there another study which supports your conclusion.
    He mentions Western and Central Europe, not Eastern Europe. So if the major H subclades in Ashkenazi Jews are European, they're still not related to Russian subclades of H and apparent correlations are largely coincidental.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jonahst For This Useful Post:

     Erikl86 (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019)

  8. #4695
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,812
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    H

    United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by jonahst View Post
    But doesn't this basically support the idea of a single relatively-homogeneous ancient Western Jewish source population?

    This is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to me, though personally I'm ambivalent as to where exactly in Southern Europe the European component originates. But I do think, at least based on the evidence I've seen here and elsewhere, it suggests a much more southern and probably much more eastern source of European ancestry than mainland Italy. This is compounded by the fact that most of the early pre-Ashkenazi Jews from Italy who moved to Ashkenaz were from Southern Italy and Sicily, which I'm guessing would have genetically resembled Romaniote more than any other modern Jewish population.
    I think most of the European admixture in European Jewry may have originated in South Italy and may be a mixture of Italic and Greek. I'd be surprised if it originated in Greece itself, it is probably second-hand Greek admixture in places like Calabria, Sicily, etc. which means some of the Levantine in Ashkenazim might also be Levantine input that first hit Sicily.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Sikeliot For This Useful Post:

     Claudio (02-07-2019)

  10. #4696
    Registered Users
    Posts
    157
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by jonahst View Post
    But doesn't this basically support the idea of a single relatively-homogeneous ancient Western Jewish source population?

    This is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to me, though personally I'm ambivalent as to where exactly in Southern Europe the European component originates. But I do think, at least based on the evidence I've seen here and elsewhere, it suggests a much more southern and probably much more eastern source of European ancestry than mainland Italy.
    Yeah exactly. I've probably banged on about it too much in this thread, but other than their obvious autosomal and IBD relatedness, even if you factor out actual Berber admixture, it is very difficult to comprehend how Syrian, Romaniote, Ashkenazi, Italqim and Eastern Sephardic Jews also all share this elevated North African component which CANNOT be explained by modelling them with modern Southern Italians, Levantine Christians, Greek Islanders who have far less. (save for Sicilians)

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Seabass For This Useful Post:

     Claudio (02-07-2019),  Erikl86 (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019),  Targum (02-08-2019)

  12. #4697
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    1,764
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish (Ashkenazi)
    Y-DNA
    Q-YP3924 (Q-M378)
    mtDNA
    K1a1b1a

    Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    Such a model still works if we assume that the Western Jewish source was Samaritan-like and North-Central Italian, add additional local admixture and it might still work for the Romaniotes and Libyan Jews though admittedly in their case the admixture has to be somewhat more substantial than what we see in other Jewish communities. Of course, in the case of the Romaniotes this is much more tenuous, but in the case of the Syro-Lebanese communities there's a fair chance this model might be validated, they might still be the result of an admixture event between a Samaritan-like source and an Eastern Mediterranean one, this could work too.
    I honestly can not see how such North-Central Italian admixture would arrive in such substantial amounts to these communities. Actually, I'm more inclined to believe it arrived via the mass Sephardic settlement in Ottoman Syria to Musta'arabi Syrian Jews than to highly isolated Romaniote community in Ioannina or the Libyan Jews.

    Such model would require that virtually all Jewish communities perished or were outnumbered by specific Jews that originated from a very small region in Italy, including migrations to Greece early on (well before the 10th century) and Libya. Such migrations and movements have no cultural or historical documentation.

    The main constraint here is that all Western Jewish groups form a single population with minor substructure, they are all bound to derive from a single group (in terms of diversity this is exactly on par with Iranian and Iraqi Jews, who also form a single population). That doesn't leave much space for competing theories when dealing with the ethnogenesis of Western Jews.
    I agree - which is why, considering the migration patterns of Jews from Judea to Europe would suggest the admixture event happened in the East Mediterranean rather than in North Italy and included some back migrations to the East Mediterranean and North Africa.


    I honestly do not have strong opinions over this, currently the Italian model makes the most sense especially if we take the ancient DNA and uniparental data into account.
    You keep repeating this, but I fail to see the uniparental evidence that connects all Western Jews to Italians. Only one or two paternal lineages which seem to be common among Italians are somewhat common (~5%) among Ashkenazi (and perhaps Sephardi) Jews - which we know for a large certainty originated from Italian Jews migrating up north, so it makes sense. Plus, given how the absolute vast majority of paternal uniparental lineages among all Western Jews derive from the Levant/Near East, even the more obscure ones, I think looking for the "smoking gun" on the substantial admixture event should be focused on the maternal lineages - which as of now, aren't Italians. K1a1b1a and K1a9, the most common Ashkenazi maternal subclades, are not specifically Italian but generally Western European (although some claim like Behar et al. that they have entered Jews in West Asia/Anatolia), and in any case seem to be common among Ashkenazi Jews as a result of the bottleneck event since they are not nearly as frequent among their autosomal "twins" - Sephardic Jews.

    As for ancient DNA - I fail to see how the current ancient DNA gives any more credibility to the mainly N. Italian admixture premise than the mainly E. Med admixture theory.

    Xue et al., like most studies which rely entirely on contemporary data to draw conclusions on past demographic events, is probably less significant as a study of Jewish origins than much of the evidence discussed in this thread.
    Agreed.

    I have no problem with an Aegean ethnogenesis (just look at my profile). As I said, I have for many years advocated in favour of Aegean admixture instead of North-Central Italian admixture. From a political standpoint, if an Aegean model were to be confirmed it would actually be far more detrimental to "anti-Zionist" discourse than the Italian one, but this isn't the place to discuss this (I can tell you my thoughts on this privately) and such considerations should have no bearing on the issue at hand.
    I think I can understand why, but will be more than happy to continue discussing this over PM with you .

    In any case, I think we need to wait for more ancient DNA.
    Check out my Hidden Content
    My Y-DNA: Q-M242 -> Q-L232 -> Q-L275 -> Q-M378 -> Q-Y2016 -> Q-L245 -> Q-FGC1904 -> Q-Y2209 -> Q-Y2225 -> Q-Y2197 -> Q-Y2750 -> Q-YP1004 -> Q-YP3924;
    My mtDNA: K1a1b1a;

    My dad's mtDNA: K2a2a;

  13. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (02-07-2019),  Andrewid (02-07-2019),  artemv (02-07-2019),  Cascio (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019)

  14. #4698
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    1,764
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish (Ashkenazi)
    Y-DNA
    Q-YP3924 (Q-M378)
    mtDNA
    K1a1b1a

    Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by LTG View Post
    A quick reminder that the results of this important paper will be known today with the genomes hopefully being uploaded into the Global 25 soon. It should provide insight into what the Romans looked like genetically but potentially the Etruscans, Greeks and various other groups of that time period also. There is the potential that we may come across a population that better fits the Southern European component in western Jews than the modern proxies that we currently have. Either way, this will be rather enlightening and relevant to this topic.

    A 12,000-year Genetic History of Rome and the Italian Peninsula

    "Ancient DNA has become a powerful tool for studying the human past. This talk highlights our team’s multidisciplinary approach to analyzing new genomic evidence from Rome and the Italian Peninsula in the context of the extensive archaeological and historical record of the region. We have built a time series of 134 ancient genomes that spans the last 12,000 years, from the Upper Paleolithic to the present, allowing us to present a contextually-situated discussion of genomic changes through time. This approach allows us to study changes ranging from individual traits of interest, such as lactase persistence, to broad population-level shifts. We see evidence that as Rome grew from a small city to an empire encompassing the entirety of the Mediterranean - or Mare Nostrum, ‘our sea’, as the Romans called it - and beyond, the city of Rome became a mosaic of inhabitants from across the empire and remained so even after the fragmentation of the Western Roman Empire. I will illustrate these general trends with case studies, such as paleogenomic data from Isola Sacra, the necropolis for the port towns of Ostia and Portus, in which contextualizing archaeological and textual evidence have been instrumental in understanding the genetic structure of the Roman population in our study. "
    Considering the data presented yesterday:

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post545120

    Pretty much confirms that South Italians have diverged from Italians as a result of post-BA migrations (Levantine and most likely Greek), it also confirms that the most likely reason why South Italians and Aegean Greeks cluster so tightly together is due to settlement of Greeks (and Levantines) in both regions, further giving credibility to the notion that Western Jews cluster with both as a result to similar ADMIXTURE (Levantine and East Mediterranean).
    Check out my Hidden Content
    My Y-DNA: Q-M242 -> Q-L232 -> Q-L275 -> Q-M378 -> Q-Y2016 -> Q-L245 -> Q-FGC1904 -> Q-Y2209 -> Q-Y2225 -> Q-Y2197 -> Q-Y2750 -> Q-YP1004 -> Q-YP3924;
    My mtDNA: K1a1b1a;

    My dad's mtDNA: K2a2a;

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     Andrewid (02-07-2019),  Claudio (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-07-2019),  LTG (02-07-2019),  Nino90 (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019)

  16. #4699
    Registered Users
    Posts
    366
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Ethnicity
    English & Greek
    Nationality
    British
    Y-DNA
    J2-L397
    mtDNA
    H2a2a1

    Italy Hungary Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by Erikl86 View Post
    Considering the data presented yesterday:

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post545120

    Pretty much confirms that South Italians have diverged from Italians as a result of post-BA migrations (Levantine and most likely Greek), it also confirms that the most likely reason why South Italians and Aegean Greeks cluster so tightly together is due to settlement of Greeks (and Levantines) in both regions, further giving credibility to the notion that Western Jews cluster with both as a result to similar ADMIXTURE (Levantine and East Mediterranean).
    The study confirms that rather predictably, like Greece and the Balkans, Iran_N was present in Italy from the Neolithic period. Levant_N (and by extension BA Levant) related admixture arrived in the Iron Age, but after that it does not seem to indicate any more significant arrivals. The two populations of Italy in the Iron Age-Republican Period represent the northern one that is a more standard Beaker type population and the southern one which has more outside influence. The southern one appears to be mainly Greek, with underlying native and Levant admixture. What is important here is that the Imperial Roman population resembled South Italians mostly; so, in reality, whilst Italians (or Romans) in the south did diverge back then there was eventual homogenising of the peninsula with the southern population winning out. This means that at some point after the Greek colonisation there was large scale mixing with the northern population, which throws a spanner in the works regarding South Italians simply being Greek transplants - there is quite a bit of Italic admixture there because of that event. What seems to have created the most significant divergence in Italy is the Germanic-Celtic admixture that was integral to the formation of the Tuscan/North Italy clusters.

    What does this mean? It means that the majority of Romans resembled people who were close to Greeks from the Aegean. The problem we now have is the matter of which population the Jews would have mixed with in Rome - either way, the Romans would have been of mixed Greek and Italic ancestry. If South Italians cluster with Greeks from the Aegean then your proposed origin theory can still be explained via the Roman population (as they cluster in that space anyway) and not from a large scale Jewish-Greek mixed population leaving the Levant.

    Either way, I am still none the wiser about how western Jews came to be. All we know is they have a Southern European component, a Northern European component and a Levant component - these can be manipulated in many ways to show anything. You know the history infinitely more than I do, I imagine it comes down to a matter of timing. When did most of the Jews enter Rome? Coincide that with what type of Roman population existed at the time of their arrival. If it's during the period where they were like Central Italians, then the Tuscan model still works. That is my 2 cents.
    Last edited by LTG; 02-07-2019 at 01:28 PM.

  17. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to LTG For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (02-07-2019),  Andrewid (02-07-2019),  Claudio (02-07-2019),  Erikl86 (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019)

  18. #4700
    Gold Member Class
    Posts
    1,764
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish (Ashkenazi)
    Y-DNA
    Q-YP3924 (Q-M378)
    mtDNA
    K1a1b1a

    Israel
    Quote Originally Posted by LTG View Post
    The study confirms that rather predictably, like Greece and the Balkans, Iran_N was present in Italy from the Neolithic period. Levant_N (and by extension BA Levant) related admixture arrived in the Iron Age, but after that it does not seem to indicate any more significant arrivals. The two populations of Italy in the Iron Age-Republican Period represent the northern one that is a more standard Beaker type population and the southern one which has more outside influence. The southern one appears to be mainly Greek, with underlying native and Levant admixture. What is important here is that the Imperial Roman population resembled South Italians mostly; so, in reality, whilst Italians (or Romans) in the south did diverge back then there was eventual homogenising of the peninsula with the southern population winning out. This means that at some point after the Greek colonisation there was large scale mixing with the northern population, which throws a spanner in the works regarding South Italians simply being Greek transplants - there is quite a bit of Italic admixture there because of that event. What seems to have created the most significant divergence in Italy is the Germanic-Celtic admixture that was integral to the formation of the Tuscan/North Italy clusters.

    What does this mean? It means that the majority of Romans resembled people who were close to Greeks from the Aegean. The problem we now have is the matter of which population the Jews would have mixed with in Rome - either way, the Romans would have been of mixed Greek and Italic ancestry. If South Italians cluster with Greeks from the Aegean then your proposed origin theory can still be explained via the Roman population (as they cluster in that space anyway) and not from a large scale Jewish-Greek mixed population leaving the Levant.
    Well, the samples from Central Italy (Abruzzo to Tuscany) that were from 700 BC to 20 BC were actually mostly (60%) North Italian-like:

    IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
    Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
    EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.
    So it simply means a lot of the Greek and Levantine influence which entered the Italian peninsula was also penetrating all the way to Central Italy. It then, as you correctly point out, stabilized as South Italian/Sicilian/Aegean like during Imperial times:

    IMPERIAL PERIOD
    Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
    Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.
    This also continues during late antiquity, which is generally considered to be until the 9th century AD, corrseponding :


    LATE ANTIQUITY
    Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.
    Only later does it resemble modern central Italians.


    AFTER
    Resemble modern central Italians.

    Quote Originally Posted by LTG View Post
    Either way, I am still none the wiser about how western Jews came to be. All we know is they have a Southern European component, a Northern European component and a Levant component - these can be manipulated in many ways to show anything. You know the history infinitely more than I do, I imagine it comes down to a matter of timing. When did most of the Jews enter Rome? Coincide that with what type of Roman population existed at the time of their arrival. If it's during the period where they were like Central Italians, then the Tuscan model still works. That is my 2 cents.
    Jews arrived in Italy around 1st-2nd centuries BC - during Imperial times.

    It seems like if the substantial admixture is mainly Roman, not Tuscan, then this is actually plausible. However, this would still require back migration to Greece and Syria in order for these Jewish communities to also have Roman (as in from Rome) admixture. I can't really see this happening, but I cannot really dismiss this either now that we know Imperial and Late Antiquity Central Italians pretty much resembled contemporary Aegeans and Sicilians.

    Exciting times !

    In any case, this also means the Roman admixture is indeed roughly 50%, the Levantine admixture is 30-35%, and the rest is North West/East and slight North African admixture.

    Considering though the historic patterns of migrations of Jews, I still believe this admixture happened in the East Mediterranean.
    Check out my Hidden Content
    My Y-DNA: Q-M242 -> Q-L232 -> Q-L275 -> Q-M378 -> Q-Y2016 -> Q-L245 -> Q-FGC1904 -> Q-Y2209 -> Q-Y2225 -> Q-Y2197 -> Q-Y2750 -> Q-YP1004 -> Q-YP3924;
    My mtDNA: K1a1b1a;

    My dad's mtDNA: K2a2a;

  19. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Erikl86 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (02-07-2019),  Andrewid (02-07-2019),  Claudio (02-07-2019),  jonahst (02-07-2019),  LTG (02-07-2019),  Power77 (02-07-2019)

Page 470 of 516 FirstFirst ... 370420460468469470471472480 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-2018, 12:52 AM
  2. Present-day Lebanese descend from Biblical Canaanites
    By MikeWhalen in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2017, 07:49 PM
  3. Early farmers from across Europe were direct descendants of Aegeans
    By rock hunter in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2016, 10:43 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-14-2016, 01:02 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2015, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •