No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
quote:qoucela:
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
quote:qoucela:
The Tahunian and Neolithic B was definitely linked with the Fayum- Merimde complex and thus the North African Tjehenu culture of that area. The later Pan-Grave culture of the Medjayu (Bedja) shows a strong connection to the earlier Tehama Arabian culture.
See post above, about the East African connection of south Arabian complexes.
quote:qoucela:
One does not have to be afraid that the Arabian connection of the Tuarek and other Afro-Asiatics denies their African affiliation or remote origins on the African continent.
There is no evidence whatsoever that "Tuaregs" and other "Afrasan" [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic] groups originate in "Arabia". It is in fact the other way around, with Afrasan groups of 'southwest Asia" ultimately deriving from East Africa. However, I'm all ears, as to how you intend to genetically back this up.
Tuaregs, like other "Berber" speaking groups, are characterized by the M81 signature, as a characteristic "Berber" marker, in addition to other E-M215 chromosomes [see Cruciani et al. 2007], which again are deemed to be of Eastern African provenance, not southwest Asia. No evidence of E-M81 signature in "Arabia".
quote:qoucela:
The Tuarek claim of an ancestry in Arabian and Syro-Canaanite origin reverberated by Al Yaquubi and many others since that area should be taken seriously considering the many clan names of the Taureg today - including Mazuragh (Beni Mazurah, from ancient Misrata, Musuri) and Imaslagha or Laguatin(probably the ancient Amlakhu or Meluchha), Makitan (Macetae, Ketama, Uakutameni, ancient Khetim) and the use of the term Ait(Ad) preceeding their names to name just a few of dozens.
Don't know about each and every Tuareg groups oral history of where they originate, but its already been noted here before that this isn't generally true, i.e. claims of ancestry from south Arabia. Tuaregs are in fact amongst the "Berber" groups who have the least extra-African input. Many have predominantly East African E-M215 and west African lineages [in terms of M2, and perhaps M33 lineages]. The same goes for the mtDNA, in terms of the African provenances.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history.
You are well intended and make many good remarks.
So I will add some information about haplogroup E which hoepfully you will find useful.
Halogroup E originated in Africa 45 thousand years ago.
Outside of Africa this halogroup and all it's pre mesolithic variations are almost uknown.
There are serveral subgroups
E1, E2 and E3, further E3 is divisible to E3a and E3b.
E1 and E2 originate in the sahel and are 'almost' non existent outside Africa.
E3 originates in East Africa and splits into E3a which branches off into West Africa and E3b which is East African.
E3b spread from East and SouthEast Africa into West Africa, SouthWest Asia and Europe.
By contrast, in Arabia the most common lineage is J. J is considered native to WestEurasia. E3b and E3a are present in lower levels and denote "African admixture" in Arabs.
Understand then that Taureg have overwhelming E lineages and a very high amount of E1/E2 which are native to the Sahel from 40 thousand years back.
They have relatively little non African paternal lineage and what little they do have likely reflect post Islamic Arabian admixtures.
Therefore they do *not* come from Arabia.
Arabia is the most over-rated - in terms of genetic ancestry - region of the world for Africans, because many Muslims, including some Hausa Nigerian, try to trace their ancesty back to Mohammad, and some Jews try to trace back to King Soloman.
European theorists often exploit this and run with it, but actually at present, no geneticist theorises and Arabian origin for the Taureg because they can be proven genetically to be native to AFrica.
Genetics as ever, is a merciless gadfly to many exotic origin theories which otherwise float around forever, because they are vague and speculative enough that they can not literally be proven nor disproven.
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I am actually not sure that this is an accurate assumption. Are you comfortable making this assertion given the limited samples of Fulani from Niger?
i'm comfortable with relating the existing evidence, whatever it may be.
Evergreen Writes:
Here we part ways. My standard is that I am not comfortable making wholesale claims about Sahelian population origins given the paucity of sampling done in many corners of Sahelian Africa (particularly Niger, Chad and parts of Sudan).
Evergreen Posts:
Bidirectional Corridor in the Sahel-Sudan Belt and the Distinctive Features of the Chad Basin Populations: A History Revealed by the Mitochondrial DNA Genome.
Ann Hum Genet. 2007 Jan 17
"It is to be expected that the genetic exploration of still UNKNOWN areas of Eastern Chad and Western Sudan will in the near future enable the drawing aside of the veil on other fascinating stories in this remote part of Africa."
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]the general approach of these studies is to speculate on and exotic origin for the fulani, and most often relate surprise when little or no such indicators are found.
In these cases exotic is equated to: Berber, Egyptian, Arabian, and/or Majik-K'zoid.
Evergreen Writes:
I agree with you here. I also agree that most Fulani lineages derive from the western Sahel.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
Evergreen Writes:
Similarity of physiognomy and osteology in no way indicate genetic relatedness. Micro-evolution in the same climatic region (Sahel) would give the illusion of biological affinity. Melanesians migrated out of Africa and retained similarity of physiognomy and osteology with tropical Africans because of micro-evolution in the same climatic region (tropics). Yet genetically a Melanesian is closer to a Chinese Man than a Kenyan.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Evergreen Writes:
Yet there is certainly a process for deducing the phylogeny of Arabia or any other region with living populations.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
Evergreen Writes:
Likewise, the concept of lineage origination using ethnohistorical documentation is not that cut and dry especially when genetics is ignored. A multidisciplinary approach is best.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of Jordan Palestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Evergreen Writes:
1. Language and biological affinity are two different things.
2. Afro-Asiatic and Ethio-Arabians (???) are not mutually interchangable terms.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history.
You are well intended and make many good remarks.
So I will add some information about haplogroup E which hoepfully you will find useful.
Halogroup E originated in Africa 45 thousand years ago.
Outside of Africa this halogroup and all it's pre mesolithic variations are almost uknown.
There are serveral subgroups
E1, E2 and E3, further E3 is divisible to E3a and E3b.
E1 and E2 originate in the sahel and are 'almost' non existent outside Africa.
E3 originates in East Africa and splits into E3a which branches off into West Africa and E3b which is East African.
E3b spread from East and SouthEast Africa into West Africa, SouthWest Asia and Europe.
By contrast, in Arabia the most common lineage is J. J is considered native to WestEurasia. E3b and E3a are present in lower levels and denote "African admixture" in Arabs.
Understand then that Taureg have overwhelming E lineages and a very high amount of E1/E2 which are native to the Sahel from 40 thousand years back.
They have relatively little non African paternal lineage and what little they do have likely reflect post Islamic Arabian admixtures.
Therefore they do *not* come from Arabia.
Arabia is the most over-rated - in terms of genetic ancestry - region of the world for Africans, because many Muslims, including some Hausa Nigerian, try to trace their ancesty back to Mohammad, and some Jews try to trace back to King Soloman.
European theorists often exploit this and run with it, but actually at present, no geneticist theorises and Arabian origin for the Taureg because they can be proven genetically to be native to AFrica.
Genetics as ever, is a merciless gadfly to many exotic origin theories which otherwise float around forever, because they are vague and speculative enough that they can not literally be proven nor disproven.
Hope this helps.
I feel compelled to post that this is the most polite and non-bludgeoning response I've seen you give to a person in a long time Rasol. You are to be commeded fo not giving a nasty reply. You sound like a real academic. My compliments to your scholarly reply.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^I've already pointed out the other flaws of the study having to do with what comprises the sampling "entities", when this chart was posted. I'll see if I can dig out the thread in question. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some close genetic linkage between "Tuareg" [West African Sahelian Tamazigh speaking] groups, and the Bedawi (Beja speakers). I thought it was interesting that according to a poster going by the "Jomo" username, having wrote to Underhill out of curiousity about which groups Underhill detected E-M81 in Sudan, that he was told that it occurred in two Beja subjects.
I understand what you're saying, but in that same study Cavalli_Sforza et al clusters Nubians and Moroccans, Sandawe with Serer, Wolof and Peul and San with Somalis, it just doesn't add up. Check out this chart, its totally crap
It seems funny for me to defending Sforza, because I have much beef with him, but his charts aren't total crap, and I doubt any geneticist would dismiss his admittedly dated work so blithly.
Specifically - I believe what he kept finding in some of his autosomal studies, is ancient relationships based on older population affinities, which actually can be understood [sometimes] in terms of later information.
For example:
Nubians and Morrocans: E3b1. San with Somalis: underived E3b. Wolof and Fulani: uh, that one is self evident.
I do know that Sforza is both Eurocentrist and oft cited by Eurocentrists though, so I realise the 'tricky' nature of my position with regards to him.
mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b* and Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study. Given the bidirectional geneflow in the Nile Valley, Nubians should be clustering closest to the Egyptians rather than Moroccans, there is no way Cavalli-Sforza's dendogram can be defended.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%, while having only 1% of E-M81.
Evergreen Writes:
Which study are you using as a basis for this claim?
Its B-M109, not 106
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
This is especially required if you are claiming that no such affinity exists...which is the bases for calling it a contradiction from Sforza, correct?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Evergreen Writes:
This points out the need for a better understanding of SE European and SW Asian archaeology and biological anthropology. We now know that paleolithic NE Africans and Neolithic Levantines had cranial and likely biological affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans. We know that the "neolithic" led to the advent of complex societies or "civilization" in SE Europea and SW Asia. We also know that the "neolithic" was a long evolving process (not an event) that spread from tropical Africa into Eurasia during the late Pliestocene from the Nile Valley. Hence we know that complex society in SE Europe and SW Asia is rooted in technological and psycho-spiritual advances derived among the Black peoples of Africa. We know this. The next step in the evolution of our understanding is to develop a fuller picture of back-migration and change in SE Europe and SW Asia during the post Natufian/pre-dynastic period. When did "Asiatic" types supplant "Negroid" Natufians in the Levant. Did central Europeans flow back down into SE Europe and Anatolia during the late Neolithic? Who were tha Nabateans? Why do Yemeni men have such low frequencies of haplogroup E3b, etc.?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
This is especially required if you are claiming that no such affinity exists...which is the bases for calling it a contradiction from Sforza, correct?
I took my E3b* from a study on Somalis where it was found at 1.5%. Even with 17% from the study you took your figure from it makes no sense for San to cluster with Somalis, it would make a better case for Ethiopians since they share haplogroup A Ethiopians and or Bantu speakers, since they have E3a also. I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
This doesn't make any sense, for by that logic they should cluster closer to Bantu speakers than to West Africans like Serer and Wolof, mayne it still makes no sense in the same way its senseless for him to say Nubians cluster closer to Moroccans than other Nile Valley populations.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not necessarily, Wolof also have E3b1 and M1, Sandawe have E3b, this means they have a common East African component which may be distinct and in addition to the E3a component that they share with some Bantu.
Also we have to be careful with dendrograms and the physical distance they display.
I'd like to see the point to point fst distance between each paired groups, expressed as and integer.
I have Sforza History/Geography, and Genes/Languages volumes, so I'll see if I can dig up some data.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
I don't know. San either have a specific ancestral relationship with East Africans or they do not.
And there have been several post Sforza claims that they in fact, do so, including from Tishkoff and others. Somali have more E3b* than some other Ethiopian groups as well...so perhaps thats a factor.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I made no claims that there wasn't any affinity, just that southern African San clustering closer to Somalis is spurious
I don't know. San either have a specific ancestral relationship with East Africans or they are not.
And there have been several post Sforza claims that they in fact, do so, including from Tishkoff and others. Somali have more E3b* than some other Ethiopian groups as well...so perhaps thats a factor.
Cavalli-Sforza mad the yet again spurious claim that San are a mixture sub-Saharan African and Southwest Asian, that old 1994 work of his suspect.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes, and somehow show that geographically closer populations with historic documentations of intermingling can be relatively more genetically distant [via autosomal analysis] than any two given populations who have considerably been separated from one another in both a spatial and temporal sense.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:mayne that atuosomal dendogram is full of contradictions, Somalis have little to no E3b*
According to: Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Somali have E3B* at 17 %, whereas San have E3b* at between 12% and 35%.
^ note: i'm not trying to use Cruciani's new private nomenclatures because I don't understand it yet.
So, if you are going to relate based on this, you will need to explain to me the exact relationship between Somilian and SouthEast African E3b, and how it cannot be linked to the autosomal affinities between Somalians and South/South East Africans.
I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia, as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features, and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
The Bantu, Wolof etc. are not the original settlers of the places they now live. Using place names Diop early illustrated that these people formerly lived further East. In addition , the oral traditions of these people speak of "small blacks" living in these areas when the present inhabitants arrived on the scene.
The archaeological, linguistic and other data make it clear that the TMRCA for the speakers of most Black African speakers was probably 8000-6000ybp.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the question should rather be: how does the TMRCA, as attested to by E3b, can be linked to genetic distance found between populations, especially when they have been separated for a considerable time, naturally in addition to geographical & corresponding cultural separation?
The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
Do you know how TMRCA of Y chromosome markers are reached? Please elaborate on how TMRCA, as discerned from these markers, doesn't approximate to the time of the most recent common ancestor, but rather TMRCA is 'much later than many people on the forum assume'.
quote:Clyde Winters:
First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia, as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features, and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
That humanity likely arose on the eastern corner of Africa is a well known idea. So, apparently people who now dwell in the western, northern and southern ends of the continent had to have moved there at some point.
quote: The Bantu, Wolof etc. are not the original settlers of the places they now live. Using place names Diop early illustrated that these people formerly lived further East. In addition , the oral traditions of these people speak of "small blacks" living in these areas when the present inhabitants arrived on the scene.
See prior post.
quote:Clyde Winters:
The archaeological, linguistic and other data make it clear that the TMRCA for the speakers of most Black African speakers was probably 8000-6000ybp.
According to whom, from a genetic standpoint? What marker was used to come up with this singular TMRCA and dating?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%...
Evergreen Writes:
It would be of interest to know which sub-clade of E3a was found in Siwa and other parts of the Eastern Sahara and Nile Valley. This area of research is still in its infancy in comparison to the delineation of E3b*. The lower frequency of E3a in the Siwa oasis area could relate to limited population subsistence potential during the mid-holocene dry phase. Potential Saharan populations packing would have been greater along the Nile Valley than in the oasis areas where more ancient hunter-gather populations retained land.
Evergreen Posts:
Sub-populations within the major European and African derived haplogroups R1b3 and E3a are differentiated by previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs.
Hum Mutat. 2007 Jan;28(1):97
Single nucleotide polymorphisms on the Y chromosome (Y-SNPs) have been widely used in the study of human migration patterns and evolution. Potential forensic applications of Y-SNPs include their use in predicting the ethnogeographic origin of the donor of a crime scene sample, or exclusion of suspects of sexual assaults (the evidence of which often comprises male/female mixtures and may involve multiple perpetrators), paternity testing, and identification of non- and half-siblings. In this study, we used a population of 118 African- and 125 European-Americans to evaluate 12 previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs for their ability to further differentiate individuals who belong to the major African (E3a)- and European (R1b3, I)-derived haplogroups. Ten of these markers define seven new sub-clades (equivalent to E3a7a, E3a8, E3a8a, E3a8a1, R1b3h, R1b3i, and R1b3i1 using the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature) within haplogroups E and R. Interestingly, during the course of this study we evaluated M222, a sub-R1b3 marker rarely used, and found that this sub-haplogroup in effect defines the Y-STR Irish Modal Haplotype (IMH). The new bi-allelic markers described here are expected to find application in human evolutionary studies and forensic genetics.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes
They don't.
It's and oversimplication of course but try looking at autosomes as measuring distance, and sex chromosome as measuring origin.
They are two interdependant, but nontheless distinct properties.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela:
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
I am glad you have helped confirm my belief in the East African origins of the Syro-Canaanite peoples. So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Evergreen Writes:
The issue is NOT about modern populations in Arabia deriving directly from ancient populations in Arabia. The issue is about your claim that modern Tuareg derive in the maind from ancient Arabians. There is NO evidence to support this.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development....
Evergreen Writes:
It is of interest that you would characterize the Near Eastern Neolithic as "the Neolithic agricultural revolution". What made this process revolutionary?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The major problem with dating the rate of separation of these groups is that much of the dating for the TMRCA for these groups was much later than many people on the forum assume.
I don't quite follow this, but let's continue...
quote: First of all the Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and etc. speakers originally lived in Nubia,
What is the basis for originating Niger-Congo language in Nubia?
quote: as a result it is obvious that these groups although spread from West to East Africa would share many genetic features
This is definitely the case, regardless of where in Africa they originate.
quote: and the genetic distance between populations would not be as great as many researchers assume.
Not really. I've tried to explain genetic distance in Africa in terms of physical distances in geography.
The average distance between major cities in Russia is over 10 times greater than the average distance between major cities in Western Europe.
Many large cities on the western border of Russia are closer to larger European cities than they are to cities on the Eastern borders of Russia.
How can this be?
Does it make sense?
Of course it does.
This is simply because Russia is vastly larger physically than Western Europe. It may be that two Russian cities, a part of the nation of Russia, and founded by Russians and therefore equally Russian by any sane definition of the word, are nonetheless, over a thousand miles away from each other. In contrast to Sweden for instance where the cities are physically quite close to each other.
The same thing goes for Africa. Africa is vastly larger GENETICALLY than say, Europe.
To San speakers from Southern Africa carrying Y chromosome hapoltype A, might show enormous distance from each other genetically, while also showing the same paternal lineage A.
Haplotype A is like Russia - it's huge, and it's ancient. It was accumulating distinction in different Khoisan [and other] groups for 10's of thousands of years before any non African haplgroups even existed.
This is rather difficult to understand I know, so I hope my analogy helps. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Evergreen Writes:
Back migration of E3b* carrying Greeks, Arabs, and Turks have had a huge impact on North Africa within the last few thousand years. This is part of the reason we see such diversity in North Africa today. However, the primary origin of the Tuareg is not found with this back flow.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now
The above is red hering, because everyone acknolwedges this, an acknolwedging this doesn't validate your claim.
People move around - yes.
Genetic frequencies change - yes.
Taureg are recent migrant from Arabia - no.
Why?
Because they have genetic lineages which originate in Africa 40 thousand years ago, and, and this part is important to try to understand - are *the same* ancient lineages that other Africans living in the sahara have, and which are not found in Arabia.
To simplify, Taureg and other Black Africans have the same ancestry.
Arabians have different ancestry.
No matter how many hypothetical games we play, with imaginary population migrations rooted in selective interpretations of dubious Islamic mytho-lineages [and equally selective dismissals of Taureg legends to the contrary of 'the hypothesis'], there is simply no getting around this fact.
Taureg are genetically African.
They are not genetically Arabian.
There is genetic evidence of their African origin.
There is none to suggest that they *ever* lived in Arabia, or that could even suggest a coherent theory of how that would *even be possible.*
It is worth noting as and aside, that linguists regard the progenator of Berber languages as originating in the Horn/Sudan region in the Holocene, and that Berber languages do not exist East of the Nile, much less outside of Africa.
So genetics is consistent with linguistic data in this regard.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
One does not have to be afraid that the Arabian connection of the Tuarek and other Afro-Asiatics denies their African affiliation or remote origins on the African continent.
There is no evidence whatsoever that "Tuaregs" and other "Afrasan" [you know it as "Afro-Asiatic] groups originate in "Arabia". It is in fact the other way around, with Afrasan groups of 'southwest Asia" ultimately deriving from East Africa. However, I'm all ears, as to how you intend to genetically back this up.
Tuaregs, like other "Berber" speaking groups, are characterized by the M81 signature, as a characteristic "Berber" marker, in addition to other E-M215 chromosomes [see Cruciani et al. 2007], which again are deemed to be of Eastern African provenance, not southwest Asia. No evidence of E-M81 signature in "Arabia".
I'm already aware that the new genetic studies are confirming that the original Berbers were of east African affiliation. But the newest genetic studies are not confirming any more than what earlier studies of genetically determined dental and cranial traits had already concluded. But, even earlier physical anthropology scholarship could distinguish between modern populations of a particular region and ancient ones. Since the modern are rather oriented toward biological relationships between simultaneously populations they are not the best resource for making the determinations about the whereabouts of people 3000 years ago.
quote:qoucela:
The Tuarek claim of an ancestry in Arabian and Syro-Canaanite origin reverberated by Al Yaquubi and many others since that area should be taken seriously...
/QUOTE]Don't know about each and every Tuareg groups oral history of where they originate, but its already been noted here before that this isn't generally true, i.e. claims of ancestry from south Arabia. Tuaregs are in fact amongst the "Berber" groups who have the least extra-African input. Many have predominantly East African E-M215 and west African lineages [in terms of M2, and perhaps M33 lineages]. The same goes for the mtDNA, in terms of the African provenances. [/QB]
Again, I am not claiming Tuaregs or the original Berber population are not biologically affiliated with Africans. I am claiming it is not inconceivable that the direct ancestors of the Tuareg may have been those African populations occupying the Syro-Arabian area 3 -4 thousand years ago. Or, for that matter that the original population Kabyle population could have migrated to Africa from a more northerly region over 2500 years ago.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am claiming it is not inconceivable that the direct ancestors of the Tuareg may have been those African populations occupying the Syro-Arabian area 3 -4 thousand years ago.
^ Inconceivable is a weasel word. It's not inconceivable that the pyramids were built by aliens instead of egyptians.
The problem is, there is no evidence for either of these two far fetched claims.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by qoucela: No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Respectfully, this is not and accurate statement either.
In fact it's a not atypical comment of those very unfamiliar with genetics.
The basic principal of modern population genetics is that your blood carries your history.
We can tell a goodly amount about the ancient historical physical relationships between any two populations by examining their current dna.
DNA is biological history...
Hope this helps. ________________________________________ Hi there. Yes, it does help me in understanding how high in regard the new genetic scholarship is held and influencing those interested in the history and contributions of ancient African related peoples. Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
For example, if my mother's MtDNA were to show that her ancestors were related to the Yoruba of Nigeria, that may say nothing of where the Yoruba were at the time her African American ancestors left Africa, or even what dialect was spoken unless we had aware of oral tradition or historical documents testifying to where they were.
And if her MtDNA might show a connection to modern Dumphries Scotland, that would say nothing of the population was located when they immigrated to America.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement
^ I know of no geneticist, linguist, physical anthropologist, or archeoligist who would support this statement.
Most modern non genetic historical scientist incorporate genetics into their discipline.
They do not attempt to ignore it, and advance theory contradicted by genetics.
Science progresses. Genetics is here. We have to use this tool, and not run from it, while citing myths and legends as pseudo-evidence in opposition of it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
Evergreen Writes:
Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, although similarity of physiognomy and osteology can not verify genetic relationship it certain can be an indication of one!
Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond fully to the rest of your assertions unless you make clear which Melanesians, Kenyans, etc. you are talking about. Surely you are not saying the indigenous Fijians and the so-called Negritos of Papua are the same people biologically although they and the ancestors of the Chinese may have had some genetic exchange in the recent past between themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: The same can not be said of the pastoral or so called red Fulani living further north who are obviously less mixed with "West Africans" as you call them and show close physiognomies and osteological connections to Northeast Africans or Cushitic- speakers.
Evergreen Writes:
Similarity of physiognomy and osteology in no way indicate genetic relatedness. Micro-evolution in the same climatic region (Sahel) would give the illusion of biological affinity. Melanesians migrated out of Africa and retained similarity of physiognomy and osteology with tropical Africans because of micro-evolution in the same climatic region (tropics). Yet genetically a Melanesian is closer to a Chinese Man than a Kenyan.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
^ i 2nd the request. 4 thousand years ago in the lavantine, no taureg texts, no taureg language, no taureg archology cites, no taureg culture, and oh yes... no taureg genetic lineages.
quote:Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond fully to the rest of your assertions unless you make clear which Melanesians, Kenyans, etc. you are talking about
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Evergreen Writes:
The issue is NOT about modern populations in Arabia deriving directly from ancient populations in Arabia. The issue is about your claim that modern Tuareg derive in the maind from ancient Arabians. There is NO evidence to support this.
----------------------------------------- Thanks for informing me of what the issue is not about, and remember those are your words, not mine.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I notice some correlations being made between 'autosomal' marker findings and Y chromosome markers. I can understand that this is being rationaled to the extent of invoking the last shared common ancestry between said groups; however what I cannot understand, is to assume that autosomal markers would be effective in clearly discerning this as does the Y chromosomes
They don't.
It's and oversimplication of course but try looking at autosomes as measuring distance, and sex chromosome as measuring origin.
I know that autosomes can measure genetic distance; that is besides the point. The point is, how could autosomal analysis show that any two given populations with shared most recent history [naturally wherein inter-societal miscegenation is well documented] in geographical proximity to be any less genetically closer to one another than either two are to geographically distant groups with whom they “only” share a ‘distant’ common recent ancestry [as per Y chromosome and mtDNA markers] and have been considerably separated from the latter both in temporal and spatial sense? Wouldn’t you expect to see that populations which have more ‘recently’ crossbred in geographical proximity, despite possible different distribution patterns of TMRCA associations, to be relatively genetically closer when analyzed from the autosomal standpoint?
quote:rasol:
They are two interdependant, but nontheless distinct properties.
Of course.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela:
No one knows what lineages were in Arabia in ancient times so we don't know what lineages originated in Arabia.
Of course we do. How do you think TMRCA is attained? What do microsatellite diversity, sub-clade diversity and frequency distribution, and level of microsatellite differentiation mean to you?
Well, I think they should mean very little if we can't acknowledge the fact that there have been population movements and migration in the past that may have led to wide difference in genetic and biological makeup between a couple thousand years ago and now. My whole point here is that biological populations within demographic areas move and change.
Who said that populations don't move?
quote:qoucela:
Judging from your response, you must also have seen some DNA studies concluding that most modern populations in Arabia are directly evolved from ancient populations in Arabia. I would like to view them.
Judging from your response, you must not have read past discussions on this board. Try Semino et al.'s 'origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y chromosome haplogroups E and J, or Luis et al.'s Nile Valley-Levantine corridor Vs the African Horn study, amongst others.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
The concept of lineage origination in genetics is not that cut and dry especially when ethnohistorical documentation is ignored.
I for one consider that the people of ancient Arabia particularly of the Neolithic B Ghassulian and Chalcolithic periods of JordanPalestine were cultures of the Afro-Asiatics or Ethio-Arabians.
Yes, the south Arabian cultures like the Tihama have been deemed to have some associations with East Africa, with contribution coming largely from the African side. As for the rest of 'southwest Asia", the Neolithic agricultural revolution of the Levantine region was largely an in situ development, having occurred after population flows from the Nile Valley, along with new lithic cultures. With this spread, came proto-Afrasan languages that would form the basis of the Semitic languages now spoken in the region. These populations are characterized by YAP+ E-M215 chromosomes - again, marking "East African" contribution, as opposed to "southwest Asian" origin.
I am glad you have helped confirm my belief in the East African origins of the Syro-Canaanite peoples. So why is it so hard to fathom that such people could not have moved back into Africa a few thousand years ago as their own traditions claim they did.
Who said that people could not, and have not, moved back into Africa? Your claim about Tuareg origins from outside of Africa, is what is baseless and that they proclaim to be of extra-African, in absence of pending objective corroboration. You need to be able to discern what is being said and what isn't.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sandawe have never clustered with West Africans in any study.
Sandawe live in Tanzania among mostly Bantu, of west African origin, and consequently Sandawe have E3A as well as E3b.
Are you saying that it is a contradiction to find autosomal affinity between Sandawe and West Africans?
Having a closer affinity to West Africans than to Bantus? Yes, I think there is a anomaly with that.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: [QUOTE]As far as I know about the Siwa, paternally they are E-V6 and B-M106, I'm not sure what E-DYS271 one is, maybe its E3a(?), but Siwa have it at a percentage of 6%...
Evergreen Writes:
It would be of interest to know which sub-clade of E3a was found in Siwa and other parts of the Eastern Sahara and Nile Valley. This area of research is still in its infancy in comparison to the delineation of E3b*. The lower frequency of E3a in the Siwa oasis area could relate to limited population subsistence potential during the mid-holocene dry phase. Potential Saharan populations packing would have been greater along the Nile Valley than in the oasis areas where more ancient hunter-gather populations retained land.
Evergreen Posts:
Sub-populations within the major European and African derived haplogroups R1b3 and E3a are differentiated by previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs.
Hum Mutat. 2007 Jan;28(1):97
Single nucleotide polymorphisms on the Y chromosome (Y-SNPs) have been widely used in the study of human migration patterns and evolution. Potential forensic applications of Y-SNPs include their use in predicting the ethnogeographic origin of the donor of a crime scene sample, or exclusion of suspects of sexual assaults (the evidence of which often comprises male/female mixtures and may involve multiple perpetrators), paternity testing, and identification of non- and half-siblings. In this study, we used a population of 118 African- and 125 European-Americans to evaluate 12 previously phylogenetically undefined Y-SNPs for their ability to further differentiate individuals who belong to the major African (E3a)- and European (R1b3, I)-derived haplogroups. Ten of these markers define seven new sub-clades (equivalent to E3a7a, E3a8, E3a8a, E3a8a1, R1b3h, R1b3i, and R1b3i1 using the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature) within haplogroups E and R. Interestingly, during the course of this study we evaluated M222, a sub-R1b3 marker rarely used, and found that this sub-haplogroup in effect defines the Y-STR Irish Modal Haplotype (IMH). The new bi-allelic markers described here are expected to find application in human evolutionary studies and forensic genetics.
I'm not clear on the E3a subclade they may have, but they do have B-M109 which is of great interest and 1% of E-M81. Haplogroup is rare to nil in Berber speakers exept for the Siwa.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
I also want to inform you that if you would like a biography of books that have led me to the conclusions I have I can send you them through personal email. As I have spent the last 30 years studying in both an academic and non-academic sphere the evolution of theories and problems in the study of African physical anthropology and history, I can assure you the list is pretty sufficient.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: [QUOTE]Unfortunately, I also agree with you that DNA focuses mainly on biological history and can not say much in regard to ancient population movement, linguistic or cultural history.
Evergreen Writes:
Actually this is untrue. DNA can tell us much about ancient population movement, linguistics and cultural history when studied in a multidisciplinary fashion. Please lay out the multidisciplinary model that supports Tuareg origins in SW Asia ~4,000 years ago?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago
^ Don't be silly. This isn't a fact. It is and unsubstantiated claim.
posted
Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa? I think my claim has been that Africans settled in the Syro-Canaan and Arabian areas in ancient times and that these Ethio-Arabian Afro-Asiatics are the people from which the Tuareg are derived. If the peoples of the neolithic and chalcolithic cultures of the Levant and Arabia have originated in Africa than the Tuareg would have had to have been originally of African descent. I don't think anyone has said anything here that contradicts my conclusions.
Who said that people could not, and have not, moved back into Africa? Your claim about Tuareg origins from outside of Africa, is what is baseless and that they proclaim to be of extra-African, in absence of pending objective corroboration. You need to be able to discern what is being said and what isn't. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago evidence of recent intrusion. However, most of the evidence that shows a connection to populations of the area is mostly archeological, physical anthropological, ethnohistorical, linguistic and logical. Sorry, there is no model to invoke here, but you can provide your multi-disciplinary model showing where the Tuareg tribes came from since you've implied there is one.
You bet.
Lineages:
code:
Y chromosomes---> Hg E - African . mtDNA-----------> Haplogroups L1, L2, L3,U6 - African
Language: "Berber"/Tamazigh - strictly African
Cultural anthropology: Documented accounts involving "Tuareg" groups: all place them strictly in Africa at the time of documentation.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The words "could have" don't imply it is already a fact. However, I will tell you, like I told Evergreen that I can provide a list of books that can be read that do provide a substantial amount of evidence to show a Near Eastern (Ethio-Arabian) component in the Tuareg and for that matter certain other Afro-Asiatics now living in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: I don't consider the fact that the bulk of the ancestors of the Tuareg could have lived between the Gulf of Ailah and the southern Levant between 3000 years ago
^ Don't be silly. This isn't a fact. It is and unsubstantiated claim.
Your job is to produce evidence.
Don't repeat claims, that you cannot evidence.
thanks.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The words "could have" don't imply it is already a fact.
Don't use the word fact, if you don't mean to imply it, and can't back it up.
Using the word fact in then begging off the requirements for proof, is dissembling, and not evidencing.
You're slipping fast.
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Who said Tuareg originated outside of Africa?
Are you saying Tamasheq speakers [Taureg] originated in Africa....migrated into Arabia, came back into Africa, then disappeared from Arabia?
Lay out your chronology for the African origin of the Tamasheq - their expansion into Arabia, return to Africa....and mysterious disappearance without a trace from Arabia, and all within the last 4,000 years...of *recorded* history. (???)
posted
^Actually you are citing me in that last piece, in response to qoucela. He/she appears to be having problems with the quotation function. At any rate, you've still got the gist of his/her mentality about "Tuaregs" in your post.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic