Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 415

Thread: The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

  1. #191
    Registered Users
    Posts
    556
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Italian, 1/2 Armenian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a

    [QUOTE=DgidguBidgu;723748]
    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    PIE was spread by EHG lineages from the PC Steppe. R1a-m417 and r1b-m269 are examples of such lineages. But EHGs also had other haplogroups like I2, J and Q. Therefore those lineages could've been spread by the early Indo-Europeans as well.

    Q and R are related Y-dna haplogroups, and they are equally intrusive to Europe.


    This is your personal statement that cannot be committed to legitimacy, especially among scientists. There is no consensus among them on this issue.
    " R1a-m417 and r1b-m269" in the best case are simply influenced by the first IE and nothing more. They were not the primary speakers of the IE language.
    In both cases of Q, whether Altaic or ANE, it was not in any way part of the PIE. To put it mildly, there you enter the area of ​​non-Indo-European languages.
    "Q and R are related Y-bottom haplogroups, and they are equally INTRUSIVE to Europe." -and that is why they have no direct connection with IE languages. Cultures engaged in innovation specific to PIE are situated in the much southwestern geographical range.
    In my opinion, the EE farming component is the main one in this process.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
    Do you notice the distribution area of ​​the Burned house horizon?
    Don't you find it interesting as a geographical distribution?
    Which societies inhabited such large settlements for their time? Only developed as a culture and social organization societies, carriers of innovation, gave them a temporary advantage over others.
    Note the dating of these cultures ("as early as 6500 BCE"), they are much older than Yamnaya and Corded ware, just as PIE is more than 4000-5000 years old and does not fit their late formation.
    PIE isn't old enough to be associated with Neolithic farmers.

  2. #192
    Registered Users
    Posts
    56
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Igbo (+Yoruba & Ibani)
    Nationality
    Nigerian & American
    Y-DNA (P)
    E1a
    mtDNA (M)
    N (ostensibly)

    Quote Originally Posted by davit View Post
    How would you describe Iberomaurusian crania in relation to SSA and West Eurasian crania?
    Of the ones I've seen, some look rather obviously West Eurasian-like (e.g., individuals from Taforalt, Morocco and Hassi El-Abiob, Mali), but with slightly plesiomorphic and/or distinctive features (e.g., rather pronounced and outward-facing gonions/mandibular bodies on the mandibles of many male individuals and many with very pronounced brow ridges. This, however, isn't unlike many Paleolithic peoples worldwide, including ones in Europe, and the aforementioned features I mentioned still fall within the phenotypical range of people even today. So, I suppose this is all to be suspected).

    Others have been described as having Sub-Saharan African-like features, as is seen in Iberomaurusian individuals from Alafou in Algeria, for example, which is an understandable observation. That's to say some of the crania I've seen so far look the part. So, a blend of West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African-like features amongst Iberomaurusians at large. A source I have mentioned that here.

    The source compared the Taforalt and Alafou individuals to individuals from Jebel Sahaba (apparently Tushka, too) in Northernmost Sudan, which are conventionally considered Sub-Saharan African-like in appearance. Slightly greater distinctiveness is seen in a few individuals from Wadi Halfa (most don't look particularly distinctive if at all, though), which is itself very near to Jebel Sahaba.

    For West Africa, the only meaningfully well-preserved cranium I've been able to identify is the individual from Asselar, Mali (often dubbed "Asselar Man" or "Homme d'Asselar"). The Asselar individual is comparatively young (~6,400 years old) and, while also conventionally considered Sub-Saharan-African-like phenotypically as well, it looks a little bit different compared to the Jebel Sahaba individuals. It looks less distinctive to my eyes if you will. Although, maybe that's to be expected, since the Asselar and Jebel Sahaba individuals are separated by some 7,000 years and are from different ends of the continent (Northern Mali v. Northern Sudan).

    As a slight aside, since in Iberomaurusians, the other half of their lineage is Ancestral North African, I tend to presume that Ancestral North Africans looked Sub-Saharan African-like as well, since an appreciable number of Iberomaurusians showed some features more common amongst Sub-Saharan Africans. If one associates the Aterian industry with ANA ancestry at least in Northwestern Africa, then, so far, the only Aterian individual identified is from Dar-es-Soltan in Morocco. However, the individual from Dar-es-Soltan is dated to between 85,000-75,000 years old and looks like someone from that time.

    So, while possibly useful (the industry saw its terminus at about the time of the appearance of Iberomaurusians), that may not be so meaningful, especially considering how very long the Aterian industry is believed to have gone on. That's to say that those characterized by the Aterian industry likely weren't all linguistically and/or culturally similar.
    Last edited by Keneki20; 11-28-2020 at 10:45 PM.

  3. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Keneki20 For This Useful Post:

     Adamm (11-28-2020),  Agamemnon (11-29-2020),  Ariel90 (11-29-2020),  davit (11-28-2020),  diini95 (11-29-2020),  drobbah (11-28-2020),  pegasus (11-28-2020),  Power77 (11-29-2020),  Riverman (11-29-2020),  Ryukendo (11-29-2020),  ThaYamamoto (11-28-2020),  Tsakhur (12-01-2020)

  4. #193
    [QUOTE=davit;723792]
    Quote Originally Posted by DgidguBidgu View Post

    PIE isn't old enough to be associated with Neolithic farmers.
    Who says that? Not convenient for Yamnaya theory?
    Well, it has already failed and it can't work.
    Scientists are already writing about how things are and directly connecting Yamnaya and the Russian steppes with Finno-Ugric speakers, so these Asian theories no longer work.
    The Anatolian and Pontic steppe theories have an interesting connection between them, geographically speaking and not only, which cannot be ignored for long.
    In addition, this problem will not be solved by genetics, but by linguistics in particular. Genetics can only play a supporting role here in this field.

  5. #194
    Registered Users
    Posts
    846
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Zanzibar
    Y-DNA (P)
    L1307
    mtDNA (M)
    L3b

    ZanzibarSultanate United Kingdom Uganda
    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    Believe it or not, but you're not the first person I've seen make that observation. I can't speak for everyone, but my guess has been local evolution in some way. There's the oft-circulated correlation between climate and phenotype that leads many to suggest that having lighter skin and/or light eyes, for example, is primarily the result of colonization in places like West Africa. In my case, on occasion, some have assumed that I was mixed in some way because some believe I don't necessarily fit the common profile of someone from Nigeria. However, ascribing that to colonization has its limitations, especially since I haven't seen any Nigerians, for instance, (myself included) show European ancestry in DNA tests.

    Plenty of exceptions exist, however. I know many Nigerians who have European ancestry, and, for the most part, they look the part. But that can't properly explain those who have no known European ancestry. I did think about Iberomaurusian connection contributing to that, but that has its limitations as well. For instance, Iberomaurusians didn't appear to have alleles associated with lighter skin, and, at least for the Kiffian population, their crania looked quite distinct from what one would see in West Eurasian populations. The Kiffians were still readily connected to Iberomaurusians farther north, but then they seem to have resembled only some Iberomaurisians (e.g., a cranium from Mechta el-Arbi in Algeria). So, again, that's what's lead me to thinking that the relative phenotypic distinctiveness of some in Nigeria may be due to local evolution in some way.
    Amazing, I'm glad I'm not the only one that has noticed this lol. In terms of color I believe it might be due to as of yet undiscovered/unsampled HGs who once inhabited southern-Nigeria, we know they exist due to that Khoisan-like signal in Igbo from that one paper a few years ago [?]. Also Blench explores this in regards to the Ijaw, whose sea-life vocabulary is entirely unique most likely from the assimilation of foragers indigenous to the Niger-Delta - I think finding these people and their sister-groups is integral and should shed light on a lot of things, as I believe such peoples and their culture [stone age] have also been found in Ghana, another poster put me on to this I'll try find that later. So in my humble opinion this seems quite plausible as to the phenotypical variation of the region in terms of skin-color and 'lighter features'.

    In regards to Eurasian like phenotypical affinities, I'm also [?] of the opinion that it is from IBM/IBM-like/IBM-descendant peoples. I can't see it being down to environmental factors as the Niger-Delta isn't entirely unique compared to various other Niger-Congo inhabited regions of the continent - maybe its due to massive interbreeding or incest. To your point yeah, I'm not talking about obviously mixed people like Anthony Joshua, but folks who are straight up Nigerian but very ' west Eurasian' like, I can think of dozens just off the top of my head. I don't wanna derail this thread any more than has already happened, maybe we can set up another thread. I hope one day we can get resolution to some of these curiosities, I think there is a lot still to be discovered across west-central Africa.
    Last edited by ThaYamamoto; 11-29-2020 at 02:33 AM.

  6. #195
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,391
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J1-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramses View Post
    Couldn't the distinctness of the Omotic be explained simply by it connection with Pre-Omotic speakers of Horn africa who were very different from the influences found in Chadic and Cushitic and others..?

    We know that Omotic speakers carry a very distinct Genetic compositions very different from East africans or North africans , in fact East africans are much closer to North africans and Semitic speakers genetically than those Omotic speakers.

    While the Omotic speakers carry the least Eurasian DNA , the rest of there ancestry is very unique "divergent" so maybe the distinctness of there language is not because its the most Basal or the Oldest branch at all , its just that its structure was built upon a very distinct group of people "those pre-Omotic speakers"...We need now linguists Not to doubt genetic data but to be helpful and try to find us or reconstruct the Pre-Omotic language (the indigenous language of Ethiopia before the Eurasian pastoralists migrated there).

    Ultimately anything is possible, the issue as I see it in Hayward's creolisation theory is that it isn't parsimonious and requires a lot of assumptions, and as Güldemann rightly states here the contact language is simply unknown. If Proto-Omotic was a pidgin or "creolised AA" then certainly the culprit wasn't one of the surrounding language families, we actually do have an example of a mixed AA language in the form of Ongota (which shares morphemes with both Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan), Omotic doesn't even remotely resemble that. This is important because Nilo-Saharan, or at the very least several of its proposed subgroups (such as Sudanic) keeping in mind that NS is the family into which poorly-understood East African languages are often lumped, possibly originated somewhere near the Ethiopian highlands, the parallel with Songhay is spot on for that matter.

    There are roughly 28 Omotic languages, so we shouldn't exclude the possibility that at least several of those languages might be some kind of mixture between Omotic and some unattested language (not NS for the reasons I stated above). At this stage however, Omotic is widely seen as a coherent branch of AA and its position is almost undoubtedly basal in the AA tree. In a hypothetic reconstruction of PAA the common innovations (or "mutations" if you will) setting Omotic apart are (1) the merger of labiovelars with velars and (2) the devoicing of affricates, both of which are purely phonological, for the rest of AA and especially Cushitic-Semito-Berber the are many such innovations (around a dozen) including important morphological ones (such as the "block pattern" conjugation) which strongly suggests that Omotic embodies a more primitive type of AA while the rest is of a new type if you will. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Omotic is the more basal branch in an overview of the AA macro-family.

    In either case, we should be careful not to equate languages with genes too easily and wait for the data instead. We should also remember that while the genetic data (especially ancient DNA) can provide useful clues, it isn't the genetic make-up of present-day Omotic-speaking groups which will provide the answer to the question you're asking here. What we do know however is this: PAA was not spoken by pastoralists, and was disseminated millennia before the development of nomadic pastoralism as a subsistence strategy, it is only discrete branches (Cushitic, Semitic, Berber, Chadic) that spread out with the advent of pastoralism, the earliest AA-speaking groups apparently had no vocabulary for livestock (at least not domesticates) and engaged in foraging as well as grain collection (which explains the few plant-names which some have used to "prove" that they were agriculturalists, to no avail of course), basically they were what we'd call hunter-gatherers.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 11-28-2020 at 11:35 PM.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽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

  7. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Awale (11-29-2020),  diini95 (11-29-2020),  drobbah (11-29-2020),  jdean (11-29-2020),  Keneki20 (11-29-2020),  Kristiina (11-29-2020),  leorcooper19 (12-01-2020),  Mansamusa (11-29-2020),  Michał (11-30-2020),  Michalis Moriopoulos (11-30-2020),  Power77 (11-29-2020),  Riverman (11-29-2020),  Ryukendo (11-28-2020),  TheIncredibleHulk (11-29-2020),  theplayer (11-29-2020)

  8. #196
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,489
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Keneki20 View Post
    For West Africa, the only meaningfully well-preserved cranium I've been able to identify is the individual from Asselar, Mali (often dubbed "Asselar Man" or "Homme d'Asselar"). The Asselar individual is comparatively young (~6,400 years old) and, while also conventionally considered Sub-Saharan-African-like phenotypically as well, it looks a little bit different compared to the Jebel Sahaba individuals. It looks less distinctive to my eyes if you will. Although, maybe that's to be expected, since the Asselar and Jebel Sahaba individuals are separated by some 7,000 years and are from different ends of the continent (Northern Mali v. Northern Sudan).
    Iberomaurisians were overwhelmingly West Eurasian phenotypically, but they had some Subsaharan tendencies, better exemplified in single individuals or single traits, like you mentioned it with e.g. individuals among Afalou specimen, though I wouldn't overestimate that. The ANA might have been in later times not phenotypically homogeneous. But I'd say that the bulk which moved South West to form modern Subsaharans, especially the ancestral Niger-Kordofanians, resembled the modern Northern West African populations the most, like people from Senegal and Mali with the least West Eurasian and the least more Southern Subsaharan admixture. The Niger-Kordofanians and especially the Bantu came up by a fusion with local Basal H.s. foragers with a possible slight archaic (Iwo Eleru-like) admixture.

    I'd say that the ANA group doesn't exist any more because the West Eurasians which followed largely replaced or assimilated it as a minority element on the one hand, and to the South they intermixed with the locals, to form the newly created population element which is now the major component in Subsaharan Africans proper. I do wonder, if there would be more samples at hand, how the admixture rates would look like for the various Saharan and Subsaharan populations, but I'd assume that the ANA contribution will decrese, the deeper one goes into the tropics and the Malaria zone. So in part its right that the ANA would have contributed a lot to modern Subsaharan Africans and were representing a phenotype which has some quite specific traits similar to the modern people, but at the same time not fully so. Because they were not as much admixed with the tropical forest inhabitants and didn't adapt to the new habitat yet, at that point in time. So I think they were quite a phenotype of their own, even though closest to modern Subsaharans, especially those of the Northern zone in West Africa, basically the Sahel zone. Its even possible to likely that there were more than once admixture events, creating different Subsaharan people in different time windows.

    First the humid Sahara, then the Sahel zone was their home originally. If you now look at typical Senelgalese people, they look quite different for that reason too from people in Kamerun, even if showing no significant more recent West Eurasian admixture. At the other end are populations of the Congo area and Pygmies, which too don't represent the real ancestral population, but are just the only surviving partial approximation, by having somewhat more of it. The reason why some Jebel Sahaba specimen looked more extreme or distinctive is that Asselar is the opposite, having less ancestry from the tropical foragers, and I'm pretty confident that, if they would be able to test the Asselar remains, they will come up with more ANA-like ancestry, possibly even some West Eurasian.

    The problem for a genetical verification is, that we still don't have pre-ANA expansion Subsaharan-like genomes for Western-Central Africa, and don't even know whether archaic admixture took place or not. But I'm pretty sure that such a gradient of ANA vs. Basal H.s. forager ancestry will be found from the Sahel zone down. Not necessarily the same for every ethnic group, because some moved up, others down, but for the macro-region as a whole.

    So basically I'd assume a gradient running from North to South with West Eurasian (A) -> Basal Eurasian ( -> Ancient North African/Ancient East African (C)-> Basal African H.s. (D) -> archaic Homo (Iwo Eleru)? (E)

    I expect admixture to have taken place primarily at the overlaps of the respective groups. So slight ANA admixture into Western BEA, of which little reached WEA, though they got a lot of Eastern BEA and so on. The main reason why only little ANA reached West Eurasians was the main direction of the gene flow going in the opposite direction, down the Levante, into North Africa, rather than the opposite way, though that did happen too, most likely, in specific time windows and with a fairly limited amount.

    Modern Mediterranean-like populations are therefore the result of the fusion of A + B and modern Subsaharan populations are the result of the fusion of C + D (+ E?) originally. In varying degrees of course and in both cases the proportions vary within West Eurasians and within Subsaharans, contributing, beside other factors like drift and selection, to the now predominating phenotypes in different regions.

    Asselar-man might be found to represent a fairly late and quite clearly ANA shifted individual, distinct from the majority of individuals in Jebel Sahaba. Everything must be proven by ancient DNA, which I think it will be. And once we have a full scale ANA genome, we can test West Africans for it and will see that the gradient is still there and there is this borderline South of the Sahel zone and going through the Malaria borderline South. Same with Basal Eurasian once we have the right samples for the West Eurasian context. The original borderline between ANA and BEA, before the migration chain event, was probably for tens of thousands of years either the Nile or the Sinai, give or take.

    Whether ANA was the first big back migration or stayed in North Africa since modern humans emerged, is also an open debate, as is the baseline for Neandertal admixture. For both questions we need full ANA samples, as well as pre-ANA, pre-Niger-Kordofanian Western-Central/generally Subsaharan genomes from much earlier periods need to be analysed. Ideally the finds from Iwo Eleru too. Its just too bad the preservation status in the region seems usually so bad, or the remains found probably not useful, like Iwo Eleru - though it would be such a pleasant surprise if they could analyse the remains.

    I would also like to add some measurements for the height of the Iberomaurusians, which puts them in the taller range of humans at that time:
    Using the same technique, average stature estimates are 173.8 cm for males and 161.0 cm for females from Taforalt, 169.7 for males and 159.1 cm for females from Columnata, and 174.5 for males and 170.1 cm for females from Afalou.
    Cranial average measurements being also reported in this study from 2008:
    http://journals.cambridge.org/abstra...59774308000255

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     davit (11-29-2020),  Kristiina (11-29-2020),  The Saite (11-29-2020)

  10. #197
    Registered Users
    Posts
    556
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Italian, 1/2 Armenian
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a

    Interesting post, Riverman. I thought people were saying ANA was distinct from West Eurasians and SSA population but there looks like it could have resembled the latter to me as well.

  11. #198
    Registered Users
    Posts
    238

    Quote Originally Posted by ybmpark View Post
    If Natufians lack West and Central African ancestry, that is a blow to the African origin theory because in the long run North and Northeast Africans form a clade with Eurasians before they do with other Africans.
    The actual location of the origin may not matter as much as its position in the population tree.
    The origin of D-E has also not been resolved.
    Its highly unlikely The African paternal lineages found in Natufian came from West And Central Africa. Therefore we shouldn't be looking for West and Central African autosomal signatures in Natufian remains.
    The Levant shows bi-directional migration with the Nile Valley and Red Sea Coast, not bi directional migration between West And Central Sub Saharan Africans.

    Watching your exercise of purposefully looking for the wrong thing just to proclaim it isn't present is why i am loosing my hair.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to beyoku For This Useful Post:

     Brandon S. Pilcher (11-29-2020),  drobbah (11-29-2020),  Lenny Nero (11-29-2020),  Mansamusa (11-29-2020)

  13. #199
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,489
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by davit View Post
    Interesting post, Riverman. I thought people were saying ANA was distinct from West Eurasians and SSA population but there looks like it could have resembled the latter to me as well.
    Well, I would word it that way: They were a distinct people with a distinct phenotypical spectrum, but one or a related branch became the main part of the equation leading to modern Subsaharans.
    In West Africa this happened fairly late, so the mixture of the ANA-related people with the basal Homo sapiens tropical foragers is fairly young.
    At about 9.000 BC the region might have been still populated by archaic Homo like Iwo Eleru, but of course not necessarily exclusively so.
    The early H.s. foragers followed afterwards and the main push down from the Sahara and Sahel zone zone took place with the full Neolithic package, actually in the metal age!
    So the mixture, shifts and expansions happened all quite recently.
    This is part of the reason why modern Subsaharan morphology is so extremely variable between individuals and ethnicities, even without significant other admixture, even with a fairly recent expansion which happened in various regions at replacement level.
    Because they recently mixed and carried the variation with them on the march through Subsaharan Africa.
    Some groups are very homogeneous because of recent drift and selection, but thats imho somewhat misleading.

    So ANA was distinct, but contributed big time to modern Subsaharans, especially Niger-Kordofanians.

    Its also worth to mention that the phenotype did change through mixture and selection, just like in Europe WHG or Basal Eurasian are different from later Europeans.
    Last edited by Riverman; 11-29-2020 at 03:11 AM.

  14. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    Ultimately anything is possible, the issue as I see it in Hayward's creolisation theory is that it isn't parsimonious and requires a lot of assumptions, and as Güldemann rightly states here the contact language is simply unknown. If Proto-Omotic was a pidgin or "creolised AA" then certainly the culprit wasn't one of the surrounding language families, we actually do have an example of a mixed AA language in the form of Ongota (which shares morphemes with both Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan), Omotic doesn't even remotely resemble that. This is important because Nilo-Saharan, or at the very least several of its proposed subgroups (such as Sudanic) keeping in mind that NS is the family into which poorly-understood East African languages are often lumped, possibly originated somewhere near the Ethiopian highlands, the parallel with Songhay is spot on for that matter.

    There are roughly 28 Omotic languages, so we shouldn't exclude the possibility that at least several of those languages might be some kind of mixture between Omotic and some unattested language (not NS for the reasons I stated above). At this stage however, Omotic is widely seen as a coherent branch of AA and its position is almost undoubtedly basal in the AA tree. In a hypothetic reconstruction of PAA the common innovations (or "mutations" if you will) setting Omotic apart are (1) the merger of labiovelars with velars and (2) the devoicing of affricates, both of which are purely phonological, for the rest of AA and especially Cushitic-Semito-Berber the are many such innovations (around a dozen) including important morphological ones (such as the "block pattern" conjugation) which strongly suggests that Omotic embodies a more primitive type of AA while the rest is of a new type if you will. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Omotic is the more basal branch in an overview of the AA macro-family.

    In either case, we should be careful not to equate languages with genes too easily and wait for the data instead. We should also remember that while the genetic data (especially ancient DNA) can provide useful clues, it isn't the genetic make-up of present-day Omotic-speaking groups which will provide the answer to the question you're asking here. What we do know however is this: PAA was not spoken by pastoralists, and was disseminated millennia before the development of nomadic pastoralism as a subsistence strategy, it is only discrete branches (Cushitic, Semitic, Berber, Chadic) that spread out with the advent of pastoralism, the earliest AA-speaking groups apparently had no vocabulary for livestock (at least not domesticates) and engaged in foraging as well as grain collection (which explains the few plant-names which some have used to "prove" that they were agriculturalists, to no avail of course), basically they were what we'd call hunter-gatherers.
    Gotta bookmark this.

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

     Awale (11-29-2020),  Keneki20 (11-29-2020)

Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-03-2019, 06:47 PM
  2. The First Farmers if Europe Prof Stephan Shennan
    By Judith in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2018, 07:57 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2018, 05:54 AM
  4. 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
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

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