...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Projecting ancient ancestry in modern-day Arabians and Iranians

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Projecting ancient ancestry in modern-day Arabians and Iranians
Mansamusa
Member
Member # 22474

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansamusa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the early structuring of modern humans in the wake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite its poor climatic conditions for the recovery of ancient human DNA evidence, the availability of both genomic data from
neighbouring ancient specimens and informative statistical tools allow modelling the ancestry of
local modern populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in
291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus. Eastern Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for a possible bias due to a recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, eastern Arabians were also the ones with highest similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were, so far, the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans who diverged from the common European-Eastern Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, prior to the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results appear to indicate that the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf was the possible home of basal Eurasians, a scenario to be further investigated by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/gbe/evab194/6364187

Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansamusa
Member
Member # 22474

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansamusa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A basal Eurasian paper, which describes Basal Eurasian as non-African while acknowledging that it is likely African:

"The basal Eurasians and the Neanderthal admixed group were genetically close, so they most likely descended from the same African migrant group that
had split somewhere earlier. The split might have occurred in southwestern Asia after the OOA
migration (through either the northern or the southern route; (Lahr and Foley 1994), or,
alternatively, in Africa. In the latter scenario, the subset that gave rise to the basal Eurasian branch probably followed the southern route taking refugium in the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian
Gulf, while the direct ancestors of Europeans and Asians followed the northern route, mixed with
Neanderthals, and hence moved forward, further splitting towards Europe and Asia.
Current
evidence does not allow us to disentangle between the two scenarios, which highlights the urgency
of finding and analysing ancient human specimens in eastern AP/Zagros region"

Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I still remember over a decade ago when I was at my university library reading a book about the anthropology of Arabia coming across a passage about "negroid" skeletal remains being found in the Gulf area of Arabia, and then some years after that Dana Marniche bringing that fact up again. And then after that, Swenet addresses it in his blog here: Why Basal Eurasian is Still African as of Lazaridis et al 2016

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My theory was that the closest thing that'd resemble Lazaridis' BE is a post Bottleneck/Homogenized Iranian/Arabian With limited admixture from other ancient Eurasian groups and no Archaic introgression... the kicker though is that though this population's Autosomal profile fits the description, it isn't responsible for the "BasalEurasian" ancestry we find in all modern west Eurasian populations, however it's the default proximity towards Africans that would create these false positives. So in actually, that is why I suggest caution in putting Lazaridis' "Basal Eurasian" Eurasian in Africa, despite converting my beliefs on indigenous North Africa.
lmao

The world's still catching up.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Hence why the 2013 Lazaridis et al. study showing global admixture analysis at K=6 looks the way it does:

Blue = West Eurasian
Purple = Ancestral South Indian component which includes proto-South Asians and Australasian Aborigines


 -

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:
Originally posted by sudanese:

I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.

If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?

There are two problems with your assumptions.

1. The first 'Eurasians' originated as an offshoot of Africans.

2. There were multiple Out-of-African migrations into Southwest Asia subsequent to the initial one and these intermixed with whatever "Eurasian" i.e. formerly-African peoples were there.

quote:
As TubuYal23 cited:

"The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of “Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers reamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose " In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. by John Benjamins.(2008)

 -


This is the only plausible explanation for Lazaridis's Basal Eurasian ancestry associated with the Gulf area of eastern Arabia and southwest Iran and why its associated skeletal remains show African features.

quote:
Originally posted by TubuYal23:

Do you think those remains and others would line up in any way, with the Nubian complex that can be found in Southern Arabia? I see that you made a thread about it back in 2012.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227647/

The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia

quote:
Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5, ∼128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ∼106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5.
I think it's past time researchers stop messing around and go to the actual source of "eurasians". And end the charade of East Africans being a largely admixed population. When they are most likely the key to all this, since to me any serious notions of so called "Eurasian" backflow to be theoretically impossible, unless there were waves of migration, which to my knowledge can't be proven.
quote:
Originally posted by TubuYal23:

Do you think those remains and others would line up in any way, with the Nubian complex that can be found in Southern Arabia? I see that you made a thread about it back in 2012.

No, because the skeletal remains I speak of such as in Hotu Cave, Iran date to late mesolithic to early neolithic times and thus are far too late to be associated with the Middle Stone Age Nubian Complex. Also, Basal Eurasian ancestry itself is estimated to be ~80,000 years old while the Nubian Complex dates to 106,000 years old, which is even older than any known lineages outside of Africa.

quote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227647/

The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia

quote:
Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5, ∼128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ∼106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5.
I think it's past time researchers stop messing around and go to the actual source of "eurasians". And end the charade of East Africans being a largely admixed population. When they are most likely the key to all this, since to me any serious notions of so called "Eurasian" backflow to be theoretically impossible, unless there were waves of migration, which to my knowledge can't be proven.
The Nubian Complex is archaeological evidence that humans left Africa earlier than previously thought, though no human remains associated with that culture have yet to be discovered. My only point about that thread was to show the tenuous line between African and 'Eurasian'. If Africans were going right next door to Arabia, does that make them any less African and if so, for how long?

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TubuYal23
New
Member # 23503

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TubuYal23     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:
Originally posted by sudanese:

I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.

If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?

There are two problems with your assumptions.

1. The first 'Eurasians' originated as an offshoot of Africans.

2. There were multiple Out-of-African migrations into Southwest Asia subsequent to the initial one and these intermixed with whatever "Eurasian" i.e. formerly-African peoples were there.

quote:
As TubuYal23 cited:

"The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of “Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers reamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose " In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. by John Benjamins.(2008)

 -


This is the only plausible explanation for Lazaridis's Basal Eurasian ancestry associated with the Gulf area of eastern Arabia and southwest Iran and why its associated skeletal remains show African features.

quote:
Originally posted by TubuYal23:

Do you think those remains and others would line up in any way, with the Nubian complex that can be found in Southern Arabia? I see that you made a thread about it back in 2012.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227647/

The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia

quote:
Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5, ∼128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ∼106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5.
I think it's past time researchers stop messing around and go to the actual source of "eurasians". And end the charade of East Africans being a largely admixed population. When they are most likely the key to all this, since to me any serious notions of so called "Eurasian" backflow to be theoretically impossible, unless there were waves of migration, which to my knowledge can't be proven.
quote:
Originally posted by TubuYal23:

Do you think those remains and others would line up in any way, with the Nubian complex that can be found in Southern Arabia? I see that you made a thread about it back in 2012.

No, because the skeletal remains I speak of such as in Hotu Cave, Iran date to late mesolithic to early neolithic times and thus are far too late to be associated with the Middle Stone Age Nubian Complex. Also, Basal Eurasian ancestry itself is estimated to be ~80,000 years old while the Nubian Complex dates to 106,000 years old, which is even older than any known lineages outside of Africa.

quote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227647/

The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia

quote:
Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5, ∼128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ∼106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5.
I think it's past time researchers stop messing around and go to the actual source of "eurasians". And end the charade of East Africans being a largely admixed population. When they are most likely the key to all this, since to me any serious notions of so called "Eurasian" backflow to be theoretically impossible, unless there were waves of migration, which to my knowledge can't be proven.
The Nubian Complex is archaeological evidence that humans left Africa earlier than previously thought, though no human remains associated with that culture have yet to be discovered. My only point about that thread was to show the tenuous line between African and 'Eurasian'. If Africans were going right next door to Arabia, does that make them any less African and if so, for how long?

Depending on the timeline of genetic distance/drift, they'd certainly be considered African. The origins of so-called "Eurasian" start becoming pretty clear in my eye's once one looks at the obvious connective tissue.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Correct. But when you take that genetic drift into account, you must admit that modern Sub-Saharans especially certain populations of Sub-Saharans like West Africans are not as closely related to the proto-Eurasians despite both being African.

In fact, modern North Africans are more related to Eurasians especially Southwest Asians and Europeans than Sub-Saharans are because genetically North Africans are intermediate to Sub-Saharans and Eurasians as shown in their non-metric dental morphology.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TubuYal23
New
Member # 23503

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for TubuYal23     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Correct. But when you take that genetic drift into account, you must admit that modern Sub-Saharans especially certain populations of Sub-Saharans like West Africans are not as closely related to the proto-Eurasians despite both being African.

In fact, modern North Africans are more related to Eurasians especially Southwest Asians and Europeans than Sub-Saharans are because genetically North Africans are intermediate to Sub-Saharans and Eurasians as shown in their non-metric dental morphology.

I guess it depends on which North African group, we're speaking of given the bridge between it and the middle east, and the coast with the Mediterranean in general. We know that groups like the Fulani could be labeled north African, given their history in the area, despite being deemed central African. And they aren't exactly, linked to "Eurasian" let alone the Tebu people's. So, certain modern North African groups being more related to a string of Eurasians aka southwest Asians/Europeans, makes sense given what we know about migration in/to that part of Africa. Lots of gene flow and admixture would create the conditions for there to be an intermediate at least morphologically.

For me this all depends on how we define "Eurasians" from East African and Eurasians, from Asia/Europe. And how are they related or unrelated in terms of comparison?


 -

Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mansamusa:

The Arabian Peninsula is strategic for investigations centred on the early structuring of modern humans in the wake of the out-of-Africa migration. Despite its poor climatic conditions for the recovery of ancient human DNA evidence, the availability of both genomic data from
neighbouring ancient specimens and informative statistical tools allow modelling the ancestry of
local modern populations. We applied this approach to a dataset of 741,000 variants screened in
291 Arabians and 78 Iranians, and obtained insightful evidence. The west-east axis was a strong forcer of population structure in the Peninsula, and, more importantly, there were clear continuums throughout time linking western Arabia with the Levant, and eastern Arabia with Iran and the Caucasus. Eastern Arabians also displayed the highest levels of the basal Eurasian lineage of all tested modern-day populations, a signal that was maintained even after correcting for a possible bias due to a recent sub-Saharan African input in their genomes. Not surprisingly, eastern Arabians were also the ones with highest similarity with Iberomaurusians, who were, so far, the best proxy for the basal Eurasians amongst the known ancient specimens. The basal Eurasian lineage is the signature of ancient non-Africans who diverged from the common European-Eastern Asian pool before 50 thousand years ago, prior to the later interbred with Neanderthals. Our results appear to indicate that the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf was the possible home of basal Eurasians, a scenario to be further investigated by searching ancient Arabian human specimens.


https://academic.oup.com/gbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/gbe/evab194/6364187

I find it strange that nowhere in the paper are the Hotu Cave skeletal remains mentioned which yielded the highest amount of basal Eurasian ancestry yet known per the 2016 Lazaridis et al. paper.

Also, does anyone find it more than a coincidence that Eastern Arabians besides allegedly having the highest Basal Eurasian also happen to have the highest in Arab-Indian HBS disorder?

 -

Note that sickle cell anemia was also cited in Neolithic Eastern Mediterranean populations (Egyptian & Natufian) were cited by Angel (1972) and Pinhasi et al. (2010).

3 interesting abstracts about Ancient Egypt, Soqotra, Pastoral Neolithic Sahara.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Interesting that (in this analysis) Iberomaurusian ancestry does not show variation (does not really seem to go up to >5%) as more Egyptian samples are posted. This shows the great modularity/compartmentalization of African ancestry components as late as the Bronze Age, where even 'nearby' N. African samples can share one component (Natufian-like), but not much else to the point where Egyptians are connected to Iberomaurusians with Natufian-like and disconnected from Iberomaurusians in terms of the rest of their ancestry. Takarkori genomes seem to say the same thing ("a previously unknown lineage" that has "remained isolated for most of its existence" yet the population was "most closely related to Taforalt").

I also alluded to this (ie modularity linking otherwise very different populations), here and here .

quote:
Originally posted by SlimJim:

I wonder what everyone makes of the significant Iran/CHG-like ancestry. There simply isn't enough in the Levant at the time to be explained via Levantine migrants, it has to be Mesopotamia and/or Caucasus-linked.

Also how will these results be reconciled with the Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist DNA in which there MENA DNA was essentially purely Natufian-like, probably reflecting a local Egyptian + Neolithic Levantine/Anatolian profile but based on these results Old Kingdom Upper Egyptians had 20%+ Iranian/CHG ancestry which somehow completely missed Lower Nubia given the lack of such ancestry in the East African pastoralists aswell as modern Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn.



--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Also, does anyone find it more than a coincidence that Eastern Arabians besides allegedly having the highest Basal Eurasian also happen to have the highest in Arab-Indian HBS disorder?

Interesting point. Though I'm skeptical of claims of Arabians being some relict population (e.g. claims of a special affinity to Natufians, or the source of mtDNA L3 and OOA migrations, and now with the claim of high Basal Eurasian and affinity to Taforalt). Though I'm sure some isolated Arabians like Soqotris can have some unusual affinities for the region (it's believable because isolated Sardinians also have it with EEF).

Back in 2013 there were unconfirmed claims of pockets of L3* in coastal Arabia (Eastern Province), but no updates on that, so far.

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
In 2013 another research team tried that "pure Arabian" approach, and tried to sweep the African mtDNAs under the rug.

quote:
The Saudi Arabian Genome Reveals a Two Step Out-of-Africa Migration

The two most frequent mitochondria haplogroups [30% each) were the Middle Eastern U7a and the African L. The presence of the L haplogroup common in Africa was unexpected given the clustering of the Saudis with Europeans in the phylogenetic tree and suggests some recent African admixture. To examine this further, we performed formal tests for a history of admixture and found no evidence of African admixture in the Saudi after the split. Taken together, these analyses suggest that the L3 haplogroup found in the Saudi were present before the bottleneck 50,000 YBP. Given the TMRCA estimates for the L3 haplogroup of approximately 70,000 YBP and the timing of the Out-of-Africa split, these analyses suggest that L3 haplogroup arose in the Middle East with a subsequent back migration and expansion into Africa over the Horn-of-Africa during the lower sea levels found during the glacial period bottleneck.
http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130122833.htm



Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Yes I concur that other than the Soqotri who are an isolated insular population, I doubt the presence of any actual continuation with very ancient populations in the Arabian peninsula.

I'm sure you've heard of the 'Beringian Standstill' theory. Have you heard the the same theory for Arabia?

Ancient humans may have paused in Arabia for 30,000 years on their way out of Africa

The link to the study can be found here.

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Never heard of it. Thanks.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone's thoughts on Mahra and other South Arabians being closest related to Natufians?

 -

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3