posted
A preprint of an article about the ancestry of the Fulani
quote:Abstract
Background The Sahelian Fulani are the largest nomadic pastoral ethnic group. Their origins are still largely unknown and their Eurasian genetic component is usually explained by recent admixture events with northern African groups. However, it has also been proposed that Fulani may be the descendants of ancient groups settled in the Sahara during its last Green phase (12000-5000 BP), as also suggested by Y chromosome results.
Results We produced 23 high-coverage (30 ×) whole genomes from Fulani individuals from 8 Sahelian countries, plus 17 samples from other African groups and 3 Europeans as controls, for a total of 43 new whole genome sequences. These data have been compared with 814 published modern whole genomes and analyzed together with relevant published ancient individuals (for a total of > 1800 samples). These analyses showed that the non-sub-Saharan genetic ancestry component of Fulani cannot be only explained by recent admixture events, but it could be shaped at least in part by older events by events more ancient than previously reported, possibly tracing its origin to the last Green Sahara.
Conclusions According to our results, Fulani may be the descendants of Saharan cattle herders settled in that area during the last Green Sahara. The exact ancestry composition of such ghost Saharan population(s) cannot be completely unveiled from modern genomes only, but the joint analysis with the available African ancient samples suggested a similarity between ancient Saharans and Late Neolithic Moroccans.
posted
They have to be cautious in their choice of words because not all ancient Saharans would have been genetically similar to late Neolithic Moroccans. The migration patterns of people during the Green Sahara period were diverse so while it is likely that the Fulanis and Hausa people may have ancestors from a late neolithic moroccan-like population, this should not be generalized to all ancient Saharans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sampling for this is amazingly lacking of populations in and around the current Sahara. It is almost like they say one thing but the samples say something totally different. The only way to try and reconstruct at a high level Saharan DNA is to sample populations across the Sahara. Which means popualtions Northern Mauritania, Northern Mali, Northern NIger, Northern Chad, Northern Sudan, Southern Egypt, Southern Libya, Southern Algeria and so forth. Yet it is explicitly those populations that are not included in this study.
Weird.
And this is why there are so many gaps in the DNA record in Africa because these people refuse to sample those living Saharan groups let alone try and get some ancient Saharan DNA.
These kinds of models are only going to give you relationships among populations sampled not those you haven't sampled. And therefore it doesn't represent any accurate mapping of genetic relationships if you omit the closest neighbors to the one at question.
At the end of the day it is basically another example of them using biased data to reinforce and support this nonsense of Africa stopping south of the Sahara and Eurasian being to the North. But even with that biased sampling the obvious fact that there were African DNA lineages in the Sahara is still showing up. These people are funny in how they play games with the data. The Fulani being a Sahelian group would obviously be descended from those who moved into the Sahara during the last wet phase. But according to this paper the main question is whether the Fulani DNA is closer to "Africans" or "Non Africans". There is no "ancient Saharan African" DNA component, which SHOULD be what they are looking for. Because according to them and their a-priori nonsense, that doesn't exist. Because no where in this paper do they model anything approaching a "Saharan African" DNA component, either it is "sub saharan", "north African", "Eurasian" or "Anatolian", with "North African" of course being closer to "Eurasian".
quote: We further explored the link between Fulani (A and B) and ancient people by performing D-statistics in the form D(Fulani, sub-Saharan Africa, Eurasia/North Africa, Chimpanzee), where a) Fulani were alternatively represented by FulaniA or FulaniB; b) excluding the Southern Africa and Northern European regions from sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia/North Africa respectively; c) testing both FulaniA and FulaniB also as sub-Saharan groups and d) using Chimpanzee as outgroup. Overall, the Eurasia/North Africa pool tended to share more alleles with both Fulani clusters rather than central/western African people and less compared to eastern African populations (both ancient and modern). However, when focusing on the relationships between the two Fulani clusters and the ancient north-western African individuals in the form D(FulaniA, FulaniB, ancient North-western Africa, Chimpanzee), we observed that FulaniA were closer to all the 3 ancient north-western African groups than FulaniB (Additional File 1, Table S3 and Additional File 3, Figure S3). When analyzed by qpWave/qpAdm framework with two putative sources, both Fulani groups were modeled by an ancient sample from Cameroon (about 7000 BP) and the Early Neolithic Moroccans (about 6000 BP), with Iberomaurusian-like component being higher among FulaniA (Additional File 1, Table S3A). In addition, FulaniA were also successfully modeled by modern Berbers and modern Sahelian people. When 3 putative sources were tested, we observed that FulaniA can be only modeled by the same two previous ancient sources plus the eastern Sahelian Agew at approximately the same proportions, while FulaniB could be successfully modeled by two sub-Saharan sources and a northern African one, with the latter accounting for no more than 27% (Additional File 1, Table S3B).
In their own words, they are implying or assuming that any population of the wet sahara must have been closer to "North Africans/Eurasians" and not a distinct population set of their own, which makes absolutely no sense. Keeping in mind that the distance between the Fulani samples and those of North Africans is over 1,000 miles, north to South. And if you include the distance from East to West, that means they are skipping over an area of 3 million square miles. That is unheard of in DNA studies. That is greater than the area of the Western European land area.
And of course they confirm the reason for their sampling bias because in their minds, the ancient wet sahara was a zone of mixture between "mixed" African/Eurasian groups with no distinct African component. This is confirmed in their own words. Which of course is logically false and only based on nonsensical patterns of DNA samples.
quote: The exact genetic ancestry composition of the “ghost” Saharan populations cannot be assessed without ancient individuals from that area at that time; however, on the basis of the ancient data currently available, we can propose that they were genetically similar to the Late Neolithic Moroccans here analyzed, although this group already shows the Iranian Neolithic/CHG component that was probably more diluted further south, while the yellow western African component was possibly present at higher proportions (Fig. 5).
So according to them this 3 million square mile region of the Sahara can best be modeled as late Neolithic Moroccan...... Amazing.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As usual with the cryptic pic posts. What does the Nile Valley have to do with the topic?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: A preprint of an article about the ancestry of the Fulani
quote:Abstract
Background The Sahelian Fulani are the largest nomadic pastoral ethnic group. Their origins are still largely unknown and their Eurasian genetic component is usually explained by recent admixture events with northern African groups. However, it has also been proposed that Fulani may be the descendants of ancient groups settled in the Sahara during its last Green phase (12000-5000 BP), as also suggested by Y chromosome results.
Results We produced 23 high-coverage (30 ×) whole genomes from Fulani individuals from 8 Sahelian countries, plus 17 samples from other African groups and 3 Europeans as controls, for a total of 43 new whole genome sequences. These data have been compared with 814 published modern whole genomes and analyzed together with relevant published ancient individuals (for a total of > 1800 samples). These analyses showed that the non-sub-Saharan genetic ancestry component of Fulani cannot be only explained by recent admixture events, but it could be shaped at least in part by older events by events more ancient than previously reported, possibly tracing its origin to the last Green Sahara.
Conclusions According to our results, Fulani may be the descendants of Saharan cattle herders settled in that area during the last Green Sahara. The exact ancestry composition of such ghost Saharan population(s) cannot be completely unveiled from modern genomes only, but the joint analysis with the available African ancient samples suggested a similarity between ancient Saharans and Late Neolithic Moroccans.
I just read the paper and there are several things that stand out to me. First off, I find it interesting how the paper does not mention the fact that the main reason why the Fulani have been of such special interests to anthropologists is because of their 'unique' facial features. Despite being Sub-Saharan West Africans, they have long been distinguished for their aquiline facial features which have long been associated by Westerners as "Eurasian". Second, as the paper mentions the Fulani can be divided into two primary divisions. With 'Fulani A' being the archetypical pastoral Fulani with aquiline features while 'Fulani B' which is sedentary living near the coast do show recent European admixture from colonists but in features are no different from other West Africans. Third, the Fulani despite their aquiline features show the highest percentage of Y-chromosome E1b1a (M2) with Nigerian Fulani carrying it at 100%. However they also carry Eurasian mt lineages U5 and H1 associated with Maghrebi populations while they also possess a significant amount of Ancestral North African autosomal markers which strangely the paper alludes to but does not specify. In fact to the contrary, the authors tend to combine North Africa/Eurasian together which obviously obfuscates the differences between said populations. Speaking of autosomes, the paper also brought up the lactase persistence allele T-13910 that is "typical of European populations", yet gives the impression that the allele was introduced to the Fulani from European populations even though we reviewed a study here showing that the LP T-13910 allele in Fulani displays higher diversity than Maghrebi Berbers and even predates the forms found in Europeans!
It is actually quite funny considering how the paper admits that African populations are the most diverse with PCAs showing a divergence of Khoisan and Central African foragers first before Non-Africans from other Africans. Yet the authors also admit that their databases lack entire genomes for significant African populations including that of the subject Fulani in their study! Not to mention that the Sahara Desert did not exist during the Holocene and thus no 'North vs. Sub-Saharan divide'.
But yes, the main point seems to be that the Green Saharan population of the Tassili region appears to be an ancestral link between the Maghrebi on the hand while the rest of their ancestry is Sub-Saharan West Africa.
However the paper also suggests a third ancestral line unique to the Green Saharan area of Tassili which could possibly represent another 'ghost population'.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They have to be cautious in their choice of words because not all ancient Saharans would have been genetically similar to late Neolithic Moroccans. The migration patterns of people during the Green Sahara period were diverse so while it is likely that the Fulanis and Hausa people may have ancestors from a late neolithic moroccan-like population, this should not be generalized to all ancient Saharans.
LOL
All your statements above are indeed correct and seem to be the truthful phase of your self-contradictory double-speak. If only you would take your own advise and stop projecting your identity of modern coastal Maghrebi white Berbers with ancient Nile Valley Africans!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The sampling for this is amazingly lacking of populations in and around the current Sahara. It is almost like they say one thing but the samples say something totally different. The only way to try and reconstruct at a high level Saharan DNA is to sample populations across the Sahara. Which means populations Northern Mauritania, Northern Mali, Northern Niger, Northern Chad, Northern Sudan, Southern Egypt, Southern Libya, Southern Algeria and so forth. Yet it is explicitly those populations that are not included in this study.
Weird.
And this is why there are so many gaps in the DNA record in Africa because these people refuse to sample those living Saharan groups let alone try and get some ancient Saharan DNA.
These kinds of models are only going to give you relationships among populations sampled not those you haven't sampled. And therefore it doesn't represent any accurate mapping of genetic relationships if you omit the closest neighbors to the one at question.
Actually, to their credit they confessed in the Background section that they had incomplete genomes for modern African populations including the Fulani that is the focus of their study. They acknowledged multiple times the tremendous diversity of Africa and how they have gaps in their data so their conclusions are not concrete but do point to an ancient origin in the Sahara.
quote:At the end of the day it is basically another example of them using biased data to reinforce and support this nonsense of Africa stopping south of the Sahara and Eurasian being to the North. But even with that biased sampling the obvious fact that there were African DNA lineages in the Sahara is still showing up. These people are funny in how they play games with the data. The Fulani being a Sahelian group would obviously be descended from those who moved into the Sahara during the last wet phase. But according to this paper the main question is whether the Fulani DNA is closer to "Africans" or "Non Africans". There is no "ancient Saharan African" DNA component, which SHOULD be what they are looking for. Because according to them and their a-priori nonsense, that doesn't exist. Because no where in this paper do they model anything approaching a "Saharan African" DNA component, either it is "sub saharan", "north African", "Eurasian" or "Anatolian", with "North African" of course being closer to "Eurasian".
Yes that is my main qualm with the paper is this melding of North African with Eurasian knowing that the ANA autosomal component is not Eurasian in origin at all but North African and that ancient West Eurasians inherited ANA. Even West Eurasians themselves are diverse with Basal Eurasian likely being African in origin being different to say Western (European) Hunter-Gatherers. Or that even Anatolian First Farmers show East African (Hadza) admixture according to the PCA of Loosdrecht et al.!
quote:In their own words, they are implying or assuming that any population of the wet Sahara must have been closer to "North Africans/Eurasians" and not a distinct population set of their own, which makes absolutely no sense. Keeping in mind that the distance between the Fulani samples and those of North Africans is over 1,000 miles, north to South. And if you include the distance from East to West, that means they are skipping over an area of 3 million square miles. That is unheard of in DNA studies. That is greater than the area of the Western European land area.
Actually, their own findings seems to debunk the North African/Eurasian cluster as shown:
quote:Finally, the third group is represented by the Fulani people (orange/red triangles). Differently from the two previous groups, the Fulani cluster is more homogeneous along both PCs, occupying a defined region in the PCA space, between western/central Africa and the non-African regions along PC2. Along the PC1, the position of the Fulani cluster is above the line of the northern African sample, differently from eastern African and African admixed groups that lie below. This observed difference between the Fulani and the other two groups with a well-known Eurasian component may suggest a different source of the non-sub-Saharan ancestry in the Fulani genomes, in addition to differences between the groups contributing to their sub-Saharan ancestry. Despite the Fulani general homogeneity, it is worth noting that not all the individuals fall in the Fulani cluster: indeed, some of them fall in the western/central African groups or among the African-admixed samples, suggesting that admixture events between Fulani and different neighboring populations may have shaped their genetic pool at some extent [15,43].
^ They clearly admit their profile is different from other North Africans associated with alleged "Eurasian admixture" like East Africans which shows distinction.
quote:And of course they confirm the reason for their sampling bias because in their minds, the ancient wet Sahara was a zone of mixture between "mixed" African/Eurasian groups with no distinct African component. This is confirmed in their own words. Which of course is logically false and only based on nonsensical patterns of DNA samples.
No, they admit there are gaps in their data and only making assessments based on what is available.
quote:So according to them this 3 million square mile region of the Sahara can best be modeled as late Neolithic Moroccan...... Amazing.
That's not what they said. Read it again.
quote:The exact genetic ancestry composition of the “ghost” Saharan populations cannot be assessed without ancient individuals from that area at that time; *however, on the basis of the ancient data currently available*, we can propose that they were genetically similar to the Late Neolithic Moroccans here analyzed, although this group already shows the Iranian Neolithic/CHG component that was probably more diluted further south, while the yellow western African component was possibly present at higher proportions (Fig. 5).
As you can see, similar is not same, and without samples from ancient individuals this is the best they could come up with.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems there must be many more analysed ancient genomes from the Sahara itself to entangle who actually lived there during the wet phases and their relationship with peoples living in Sahara and around it today. For exmple which peoples of today are the peoples of Gobero (Kiffians and Tenereans) related too? Have they managed to extract any DNA from them yet?
Same with the Uan Muhuggiag mummy from Libya. How is he related to modern groups genetically?
So more ancient DNA, and correlation between archaeology and genetics ought to give a more detailed picture of who the Green Sahara peoples were.
Uan Muhuggiag in Libya
Gobero in Niger
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
So more ancient DNA, and correlation between archaeology and genetics ought to give a more detailed picture of who the Green Sahara peoples were.
Yes this appears to be the number one major issue when it comes to Africa the place is just under researched unlike a place like Europe. (Strange as you'd think the cradle of humanity when have garner more interest.)
Is there anyway we can generate more interest or money to help fund the work and testing of these kind of projects?
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Lack of ancient samples is one problem, but genomic databases are lacking in modern African samples. In fact the authors of the paper even admit they don't even have a statistically complete sample for the Fulani! Thus their results, like so many other studies on African populations, is still incomplete. Note when they say "non-Sub-Saharan ancestry" they are referring to autosomal signal that differs from the stereotypical "Sub-Saharan" signal as epitomized by the IBD Yoruba sample. So one can argue that "Sub-Saharan" is a rather poor label since Southern African Khoisan, Central African foragers (Pygmies), and East African foragers (Hadza) have their own unique markers different from the IBD sample yet all are geographically "Sub-Saharan". At the same time people automatically assume non-Sub-Saharan means "Eurasian" when indigenous North Africans are not Eurasian and have their own ANA markers but even "Eurasians" are diverse like Basal Eurasian and Neolithic Iranian etc. So it should come as no surprise that North Africans probably had other markers besides ANA.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems there must be many more analysed ancient genomes from the Sahara itself to entangle who actually lived there during the wet phases and their relationship with peoples living in Sahara and around it today. For example which peoples of today are the peoples of Gobero (Kiffians and Tenereans) related too? Have they managed to extract any DNA from them yet?
Same with the Uan Muhuggiag mummy from Libya. How is he related to modern groups genetically?
So more ancient DNA, and correlation between archaeology and genetics ought to give a more detailed picture of who the Green Sahara peoples were.
Uan Muhuggiag in Libya
Gobero in Niger
Good questions. Uan Muhuggiag who was discussed here represents the earliest known mummified bodies in Africa predating Egyptian mummies. Interestingly, he was labeled as 'black' due to certain features like wide nose and prognathism which is strange because such features are also found in Egyptians.
As for Gobero..
We talked about the ancient populations of that site before. There were two successive populations of that area. The first were the Kiffians (8,000-6,000 BCE) were a tall robust people craniofacially similar to the Iberomarusians of the Maghreb. These Kiffians disappeared from the area and were replaced by the Tenerians (5,000-3,000 BCE) who were characterized by being short and slender with narrow so-called "Mediterranean" craniofacial forms.
As far as I know, there have been no genetic analyses done on either Uan Muhuggiag or on members of the two populations of Gobero. However, there was one study done on two 7,000 human remains from southern Tadrart Acacus, Libya showing they carried a basal form of mtDNA hg N1.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually, to their credit they confessed in the Background section that they had incomplete genomes for modern African populations including the Fulani that is the focus of their study. They acknowledged multiple times the tremendous diversity of Africa and how they have gaps in their data so their conclusions are not concrete but do point to an ancient origin in the Sahara.
But the point still stands that they didnt use any populations that still do exist today in the Sahara. Therefore in their model they compare populations of West Africa and the Sahel with those from the coasts of North Africa and then Europe many thousands of miles away, leaving out any population in the Sahara all together. That simply is astonishingly lacking even the most basic relevant data. Like I said, no populations from Northern Mali, Chad, Niger and Sudan or populations from Southern Algeria, Libya and Egypt. This implies or suggests that the populations of the current Sahara are not relevant to the ancestry of the Fulani not to mention whatever populations were in the ancient Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:So according to them this 3 million square mile region of the Sahara can best be modeled as late Neolithic Moroccan...... Amazing.
That's not what they said. Read it again.
That is what they literally said because again, there are no Saharan populations modeled in this paper, so the relationship can only be between the populations they actually sampled. Which in this case means a relationship between Fulani and Neolihic Moroccans. Which means that the ancient Saharan populations are subsumed by the Neolithic Moroccan population as a proxy. Surely even modern samples from the Sahara would better provide actual proxies for ancient Saharan ones, including mixture over time from coastal Eurasian migrations.
quote: Indeed, considering the presence of the azure (Levantine) and red (WHG) components in Fulani, in addition to the orange (Iberomaurusian) one, and the absence of the blue (Iran Neolithic/CHG) component, we can postulate that their non-sub-Saharan component dates back to about 8000-7000 years ago from a source population similar (except for the blue component) to the Late Neolithic Moroccans (dated about 5000 BCE, considering their radiocarbon time estimates) (Additional 2, Supplementary Table S2). In addition, the qpAdm analysis also points to a period corresponding to 7000 BP considering the radiocarbon time estimates of the two ancient sources that successfully modelled both FulaniA and FulaniB (Additional 2, Supplementary Table S4). Intriguingly, this time window corresponds to the period of the last Green Sahara.
And the principal component analysis even states this further, along with some of the other primary populations on other diagrams:
quote:Looking at the PCA in more detail, we can observe that three groups of samples form long stretches from central/western African cluster to northern African and Eurasian clusters: 1) the eastern African samples (shades of green); 2) the African admixed (grey); 3) the Fulani individuals (red/orange triangles).
There is no Saharan component anywhere in this model.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As you can see, similar is not same, and without samples from ancient individuals this is the best they could come up with.
It is pointless to model the genetic history of the Sahara without sampling actual modern populations in the Sahara. That is just a pointless exercise and just reinforces their arbitrary need to separate Africa between Sub Saharan and North Africa. There is absolutely no reason they could not have sampled northern Neighbors to the Fulani who still exist in the Sahara, including the Songhai, Tuareg, Toubu and so forth. Keep in mind that the Songhai were the biggest Empire ever in West Africa extending across much of the Sahel.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems there must be many more analysed ancient genomes from the Sahara itself to entangle who actually lived there during the wet phases and their relationship with peoples living in Sahara and around it today. For exmple which peoples of today are the peoples of Gobero (Kiffians and Tenereans) related too? Have they managed to extract any DNA from them yet?
Same with the Uan Muhuggiag mummy from Libya. How is he related to modern groups genetically?
So more ancient DNA, and correlation between archaeology and genetics ought to give a more detailed picture of who the Green Sahara peoples were.
Uan Muhuggiag in Libya
Gobero in Niger
Archaeologically speaking - Uan Muhuggiag is part of the Saharo-Sahelian / Sudanic cultures presumably of Strong Nilo Saharan (Dinka) like ancestry using the models we have today.
Gobero - Both Kiffian and Tenerian Seem like the ancestors of certain Western Africans. From data available (cultural, dental, osteological), i would guess they are a 3 way mix of West African (predominant), Nilo Saharan, Early Neolithic Moroccan IAM. If Gobero residents are NOT related to the ancestors of west Africans then they are likely Strongly Nilo Saharan + IAM with minor Natufian. Again this is using the models we have today.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Yes I saw an article once where they compared the teeth of the Kiffians with now living populations and saw similarities with some West African peoples. Unfortunately I have not been able to find the article again, but I will keep searching.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^ Yes I saw an article once where they compared the teeth of the Kiffians with now living populations and saw similarities with some West African peoples. Unfortunately I have not been able to find the article again, but I will keep searching.
Scholar.google.com > "Joel Irish Gobero" > First result.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^ Yes I saw an article once where they compared the teeth of the Kiffians with now living populations and saw similarities with some West African peoples. Unfortunately I have not been able to find the article again, but I will keep searching.
Scholar.google.com > "Joel Irish Gobero" > First result.
quote:However, considering the results of the admixture analysis (K=6), we can try to define broad time windows. Indeed, considering the presence of the azure (Levantine) and red (WHG) components in Fulani, in addition to the orange (Iberomaurusian) one, and the absence of the blue (Iran Neolithic/CHG) component, we can postulate that their non-sub-Saharan component dates back to about 8000-7000 years ago from a source population similar (except for the blue component) to the Late Neolithic Moroccans (dated about 5000 BCE, considering their radiocarbon time estimates) (Additional 2, Supplementary Table S2). In addition, the qpAdm analysis also points to a period corresponding to 7000 BP considering the radiocarbon time estimates of the two ancient sources that successfully modelled both FulaniA and FulaniB (Additional 2, Supplementary Table S4). Intriguingly, this time window corresponds to the period of the last Green Sahara.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone found any cranial studies on Fulani-- metric or nonmetric??
I've only come across a couple that compare the Fulani to neighboring populations but never on a continental or global scale that you see with Egyptians.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LOL ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic