Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: White Europeans Evolved Only 5,500 Years Ago

  1. #31
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 06:44 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Sardonic Misanthrope
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    386
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    369
    Thanked in
    183 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodelinda View Post
    It is ridiculous, IMO, as an anthropologist, to say that "white Europeans" only evolved about 5,500 years ago. This seems patently false to me, and I'm too tired to present the juried anthropological publications to back up what I say, but you are on the right track in questioning this.
    "We" painted the Pleiades with 7 stars onto cave walls with airbrush technique some 37,000 years ago.

    Secondly, no one was "black" at 50,000 years ago. "Medium brown" is the skin color usually given to our ancestors at that point (no known Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe at that point). There were some pigments in the population (we think) that weren't just melanin, but also reddish and yellowish. It's somewhat simplifying to point to the !Kung-san as an example, but it's not a bad model. They are darker than most Europeans are today, but lighter than many other Africans.
    The San people are Asians, not Africans, and have migrated into Africa.

    Darker skinned Africans evolved near the equator (and mostly in West Africa - long story) at around the same time that lighter skinned humans were evolving in Eurasia (what today we'd call northern Europe and northern Asia). The reasons why people streamed toward the north are complex and interesting, but they were certainly there, along the North Sea, by 40,000BP.
    Indeed, probably longer.
    But to get the riddle solved it would be vital to understand that there is a multi-regional development of humans, not a single cradle. The Out of Africa theory is bullocks.

    Makes it also easier to grasp the idea that "we" are really Neanderthals.

    Frankly, it looks like Neanderthals (in Europe since 300,000BP) were lighter skinned. They had, amongst them, genes for very light skin and for green eyes and red hair. These are all adaptations to living with less light, during Ice Ages. To what degree that these people knew that their light skin was preferable for survival is of course unknown, but I think they had some idea. At any rate, natural selection favored them. Are they the source of our own light skin? No one knows. Are they the same species as us? By older definitions of species, yes. But these are human constructs, you are welcome to have your own view. We certainly interbred with them to some degree.
    Natural selection? Organised, cultured societies, however small, will excert cultural selection. Man grew out of the natural pressure with the ability to make fire at the latest and replaced purely natural pressure and influence with cultural preference.

    Even fish excert cultural selection. Some river perches, while belonging to the same species and even share a living space with direct contact, have stopped interbreeding between the groups chosing different styles to lay eggs. One group still digs holes into the ground sand, the other choses caves (everything from antique vases to modern garbage). Observation has shown that the offspring raised this or that way will not chose mates from the other group. So there is clearly something at play what one could call "cultural", conscious selection or preference.

    There's no good reason to think man, who painted the Pleiades with 7 stars onto cave walls proving an extended understanding and knowledge of concepts, was the play-ball of nature until we fell off the trees some 5 or 6 thousand years ago.^^

    (((They))) are saying that the average of Neanderthal genes in Europeans (and they already had to admit that Africans dont have Neanderthal genes) is about 3%. The amount of identifiable Neanderthal genes however is much higher (if they'd look at the right places within the genome, that is, which they dont), more like 30%. Considering that most of the genome is neutral stuff which we also share with plants, like 60% or so, leaves only like 10% difference which in turn easily can be attributed to in-species evolution/cultural-driven selection, without big jumps anymore, just refinery and alteration. Most of it goes into the "junk DNA", which isnt junk at all. So, well, many people dont like it, but we are really the Neanderthals, just like 50k-100k years later.



    This is a facial reconstruction done by forensic scientists in the 50s, before all the "politically correct" nonsense hit the field.
    I really hate what (((they))) made of the Neanderthals. They even exchanged the exponats in the famous Neanderthal museum with the new, "politically correct" version somewhen in the 80s I think, making them look more brutish and primitive than they really were.

    "Physically modern man" was invented by the UN in 1960, an invention in which not a single biologist, anthropologist, geneticist, whatever relevant scientist was involved, but instead a lot of cultural relativists (from the Frankfurt school) and "sociologists". So it's nonsense.

    However, welcome to the site
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefrchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  3. #32
    New Member Theodelinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 05:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    H-mDna
    Ancestry
    Welsh, Scots, English, German, French, other
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Age
    63
    Family
    Grandparent
    Occupation
    Anthropologist
    Politics
    Unknown
    Religion
    Tribal
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    I guess I should say that i consider humans as part of nature. And I would say "sexual selection" rather than "cultural selection," but sexual selection includes all manner of strategies that are culture-bound. It's very likely that certain skin colors and eye colors were considered more valuable in a mate, just as today. My own work in a small town in America shows that blue-eyed people are far more likely to mate with other blue-eyed people than a model of random mating for eye color would suggest.

    The preference for particular breeding grounds is natural (and the production of culture is natural as well). But I get what you're saying and it is an important distinction to make. In humans, the number of variables subject to mental processes is great. I'm just not sure to what degree these are conscious, but certainly mating choices are among the most heavily subject to cultural forces (arranged marriages, non-arranged marriages, and most especially, polygyny).

    I'm quite familiar with that facial reconstruction. The genetics of that reconstruction seem to support its accuracy. It's pretty exciting that we now know so much about the features, skin color and eye color of these ancient people. And amazing, if that reconstruction was done in the 1950's, how right they got it (I can't find the provenance of that widely-circulated picture, but all the reconstructions of her show her with similar facial features, and nowadays, with the red hair and pale skin and eyes). Do you know who those scientists were? I don't even know where it's located, physically. Would love to see it.

    I agree that the junk DNA isn't really junk (and that view is slowly changing within the official juried science).

    OOA is not entirely bollocks. For a long time, the center of our FMHS gene pool was in East Africa (I believe it was NE Africa), where alleles from all over the Old World were drifting and flowing. It's obvious from gene drift studies (such as of betaglobin) that plenty of important mutations occurred outside of Africa. However, there's not way that FMHS originally evolved in, say, Australia or the New World. Lots of rogue anthropologists believe that members of our genus (H. erectus in particular) are really archaic HS and that they arrived in and around the Black Sea (Lake) at around 1.8 MYA (H. habilis got there even earlier). So there's been longterm habitation of Eurasia and H. heidelburgensis may be ancestral to both H.n and H.s I think calling H.h a different species than us is problematic, as well.

    The point you made about how we really have to look at only a small number of our genes (and then a percentage of those) to talk about human variation cannot be said often enough.

    My current project (which has stalled out at about 11,000BP for various reasons) has been to trace the various strands of evidence regarding early Europeans. There really is no accessible, thorough book on the peopling of Europe, because no anthropologist wants to touch the subject due to political correctness. We're supposed to be interested in the rest of the world, on the view that Europe has already had too much attention. That's me summarizing the situation as quickly as I can. I started out tracing the history of art, as it is a truism that there's more art in one site in Europe at 28.000BP or 22,000BP than in all the rest of the world put together. It's not an artifact of discovery, either, as the rest of the world has been scoured.

    Why would that be? I also believe writing was invented in Europe and that the Phoenicians are a kind of myth (they were not Semitic linguistically or genetically, IMO, but boy is that hard to say out loud at an anthropological gathering and while the evidence is too scant for me to try to publish it - and why would I want to argue with that particular anthropological audience?). The linguistic evidence that the Phoenicians were not Semitic is, to me, convincing but further, the silliness of the idea that the Phoenicians simply showed up in Palestine or Lebanon or Syria one day and built their own cities is preposterous. No boating people simply boats around without homelands, they had to have had them elsewhere. Since they were bringing an alphabet heavily based on runes...well...anyway...I know you get my point (and it's nice to have someone to say it to).

    The Fully Modern HS I am speaking of was not invented by any political organization, it's just the only way that anthropologists have of distinguishing between the African version (Omo at 200,000BP, now confirmed to be ancestral via mtDNA) and the later version that populated the rest of the world. The accomplishments of that second group are so amazing, it cannot be overestimated and they were certainly genetically and otherwise different from the Omo people.

    It's astonishing that the 1950's reconstruction got the coloring right. It's as if the artists were psychic.

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


  5. #33
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 11:27 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scott. English, 3/16 Irish English, 4/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalist / Eclectic
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    551
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    351
    Thanked in
    227 Posts
    It's an academic question. Go back far enough in time and we were all star dust. It only takes a few hundred years for a population to establish a strong identity.

  6. #34
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 06:44 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Sardonic Misanthrope
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    386
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    369
    Thanked in
    183 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodelinda View Post
    I'm quite familiar with that facial reconstruction. The genetics of that reconstruction seem to support its accuracy. It's pretty exciting that we now know so much about the features, skin color and eye color of these ancient people. And amazing, if that reconstruction was done in the 1950's, how right they got it (I can't find the provenance of that widely-circulated picture, but all the reconstructions of her show her with similar facial features, and nowadays, with the red hair and pale skin and eyes). Do you know who those scientists were? I don't even know where it's located, physically. Would love to see it.
    Unfortunately, I have a bad name memory^^, but it was done by Spanish anthropologists using forensic reconstruction with medical data of how muscles are conjuncted to bones and all that stuff. They really had a serious approach to it. Not exactly sure where the find itself was from, but I think it was also Spain or France.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefrchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  7. #35
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 06:44 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Sardonic Misanthrope
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,466
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    386
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    369
    Thanked in
    183 Posts
    UN / UNESCO 1950 "The Race Question"

    The statements were signed by some of the leading researchers of the time, in the field of sociology, psychology, biology, cultural anthropology and ethnology.

    The original statement was drafted by Ernest Beaglehole; Juan Comas; Luiz de Aguiar Costa Pinto; Franklin Frazier, sociologist specialised in race relations studies; Morris Ginsberg, founding chairperson of the British Sociological Association; Humayun Kabir, writer, philosopher, and twice Education Minister of India; Claude Lvi-Strauss, one of the founders of ethnology and leading theorist of structural anthropology; and Ashley Montagu, anthropologist and author of The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity, who was the rapporteur.

    The text was then revised by Ashley Montagu following criticisms submitted by Hadley Cantril; E. G. Conklin; Gunnar Dahlberg; Theodosius Dobzhansky, author of Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937); L. C. Dunn; Donald Hager; Julian Huxley, first director of UNESCO and one of the many key contributors to modern evolutionary synthesis; Otto Klineberg; Wilbert Moore; H. J. Muller; Gunnar Myrdal, author of An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944); Joseph Needham, a biochemist specialist of Chinese science; and geneticist Curt Stern.

    {...}

    The introduction states that it was inevitable that UNESCO should take a position in the controversy. The preamble to the UNESCO constitution states that it should combat racism. The constitution itself stated that "The great and terrible war that has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races."[1]:1

    A 1948 UN Social and Economic Council resolution called upon UNESCO to consider the timeliness "of proposing and recommending the general adoption of a programme of dissemination of scientific facts designed to bring about the disappearance of that which is commonly called race prejudice." In 1949, the UNESCO adopted three resolutions which committed it to "study and collect scientific materials concerning questions of race", "to give wide diffusion to the scientific material collected", and "to prepare an education campaign based on this information." Before undertaking this campaign, the scientific position had to be clarified.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

    From the full document:

    It should not be forgotten, however, that new methods and techniques of appraising results are being put into practice every day. At the present moment, it is impossible to demonstrate that there exist between ”races” differences of intelligence and temperament other than those produced by cultural environment. If, tomorrow, more accurate tests or more thorough studies should prove that ”races” as such do, in fact, have different innate faculties or aptitudes, Unesco’s moral position on the race question would not be changed.
    Racism is a particularly vicious and mean expression of the caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined groups. Instead of being based on scientific facts, it is generally maintained in defiance of the scientific method. As an ideology and feeling, racism is by its nature aggressive. It threatens the essential moral values by satisfying the taste for domination and by exalting the contempt for man. Concern for human dignity demands that all citizens be equal before the law, and that they share equally in the advantages assured them by law, no matter what their physical or intellectual differences may be. The law sees in each person only a human being who has the right to the same consideration and to equal respect. The conscience of all mankind demands that this be true for all the peoples of the earth. It matters little, therefore, whether the diversity of men’s gifts be the result of biological or of cultural factors.
    http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/001...2/128291eo.pdf

    This basically is straight from the Frankfurt School / Cultural Marxist handbook on how to undermine cultural and ethnic identity, mixing race reality with "racism" (a term invented by Leon Trotsky to silence political opponents during the Russian Revolution) to claim moral authority.

    As the document points out itself, Unesco is not going to abstain from further propaganda even if proof to the contrary kicks them in the face. And since they claim the authority to 'disseminate truth' into the scientific community (and no longer the other way round, finds and facts support or shred apart a theory), a good deal of since then "disseminated truth" is propaganda, not facts.

    UNESCO "Declaration on Race and Racial prejudice", 1978, based on the "Statement on the Nature of Race and Racial Differences", 1951

    All human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock. They are born equal in dignity and rights and all form an integral part of humanity.
    Essentially, the Race Relations body of UN exists to talk away the biological differences, and where they cannot be denied to exist, impose a moral commandment on them to be ignored. To come up with a multi-regional development of more than one human species goes against the doctrine of the UN.

    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefrchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to velvet For This Useful Post:


  9. #36
    Senior Member Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    State
    Finland Swede Community Finland Swede Community
    Location
    Ostrobothnia
    Gender
    Age
    20
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    600
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    860
    Thanked in
    509 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    "We" painted the Pleiades with 7 stars onto cave walls with airbrush technique some 37,000 years ago.



    The San people are Asians, not Africans, and have migrated into Africa.



    Indeed, probably longer.
    But to get the riddle solved it would be vital to understand that there is a multi-regional development of humans, not a single cradle. The Out of Africa theory is bullocks.

    Makes it also easier to grasp the idea that "we" are really Neanderthals.



    Natural selection? Organised, cultured societies, however small, will excert cultural selection. Man grew out of the natural pressure with the ability to make fire at the latest and replaced purely natural pressure and influence with cultural preference.

    Even fish excert cultural selection. Some river perches, while belonging to the same species and even share a living space with direct contact, have stopped interbreeding between the groups chosing different styles to lay eggs. One group still digs holes into the ground sand, the other choses caves (everything from antique vases to modern garbage). Observation has shown that the offspring raised this or that way will not chose mates from the other group. So there is clearly something at play what one could call "cultural", conscious selection or preference.

    There's no good reason to think man, who painted the Pleiades with 7 stars onto cave walls proving an extended understanding and knowledge of concepts, was the play-ball of nature until we fell off the trees some 5 or 6 thousand years ago.^^

    (((They))) are saying that the average of Neanderthal genes in Europeans (and they already had to admit that Africans dont have Neanderthal genes) is about 3%. The amount of identifiable Neanderthal genes however is much higher (if they'd look at the right places within the genome, that is, which they dont), more like 30%. Considering that most of the genome is neutral stuff which we also share with plants, like 60% or so, leaves only like 10% difference which in turn easily can be attributed to in-species evolution/cultural-driven selection, without big jumps anymore, just refinery and alteration. Most of it goes into the "junk DNA", which isnt junk at all. So, well, many people dont like it, but we are really the Neanderthals, just like 50k-100k years later.



    This is a facial reconstruction done by forensic scientists in the 50s, before all the "politically correct" nonsense hit the field.
    I really hate what (((they))) made of the Neanderthals. They even exchanged the exponats in the famous Neanderthal museum with the new, "politically correct" version somewhen in the 80s I think, making them look more brutish and primitive than they really were.

    "Physically modern man" was invented by the UN in 1960, an invention in which not a single biologist, anthropologist, geneticist, whatever relevant scientist was involved, but instead a lot of cultural relativists (from the Frankfurt school) and "sociologists". So it's nonsense.

    However, welcome to the site

    Right.

    Couple of comments what I have read:

    * Even if some 20-30% of different Neanderthals genes have survived to these days (among of all people), there is none which is linked to making sound/speaking?

    * Finns might have highest amount of Neanderthals genes among of Europeans, but some Asians have those even more ... still we are talking small differences ... levels 0.x%.

    * Some Asians will have Denisovan's genes too ... for example Nepal's Sherpas (those might help them to be in high places).

    I believe that those Neanderthals genes which have survived until these days .... those have had positive influences to humans (or at least not anything negative). And those genes which have had clear negative influences ... have died away. Long time ago.

    Anyway... I don't either think that they have been ''too ugly/too unattractive'' (their looks) vs ''modern humans''. If they would have been that, then no mixing would have ever existed.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


  11. #37
    New Member Theodelinda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 05:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    H-mDna
    Ancestry
    Welsh, Scots, English, German, French, other
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Age
    63
    Family
    Grandparent
    Occupation
    Anthropologist
    Politics
    Unknown
    Religion
    Tribal
    Posts
    7
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Thank you for the interesting ideas, Velvet.

    I disagree about the origins of the San people (although they may have some Asian genes, many of the drifting markers that are most telling of Asian ancestry are not present - and having those markers doesn't mean that a group has ever set foot in Asia).

    Of course, I'm still confused in this discussion about the data (wikipedia is okay as a summary, but as a wikipedian who never has time to get around to updating even the most basic articles, I wouldn't rely on it for the more nuanced points).

    Neanderthal had entirely different mtDNA and y-chromosomes than we do, which is significant in terms of lineage. Most ancient cultures did not allow people to self-select marriage partners, but practiced several forms of arranged marriages. Physical attraction was not a big issue (there's quite a bit on that from contemporary peoples, so my point is that using physical attractiveness as a main mating principle is not universal). Being able to survive and provide were important. I should also mention that human diversity was not the same as today (you need more people to get more diversity; each local population was probably somewhat distinct - today we'd call them inbred, resulting in specific local characteristics...people often find their own kind attractive).

    Higher status people (later called "nobles" or "margraves" or "chiefs") traveled more and managed to get more distant partners (at least from Roman times onward, which is really where we have the data).

    The Romans saw the Germans as distinct and different, and the Gauls saw the Germans as different, it must have been based on several factors. (And it was vice versa).

  12. #38
    Senior Member Finnish Swede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Last Online
    1 Hour Ago @ 02:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    Finnish Swede
    Ancestry
    Father: Swedish, Mother Finnish Swede
    Subrace
    Sub-Nordid
    Country
    European Union European Union
    State
    Finland Swede Community Finland Swede Community
    Location
    Ostrobothnia
    Gender
    Age
    20
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    No specific ideology
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    600
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    106
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    860
    Thanked in
    509 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodelinda View Post

    Neanderthal had entirely different mtDNA and y-chromosomes than we do, which is significant in terms of lineage.
    Oh, do you know more about this topic? Or can you post links? So their ''haplogroups'' .... mtDNA and Y were totally different versus any present humans have had? Yes, I have heard about that (earlier), but never really seen the haplogroups of Neanderthals. Or actually any infos of those. So that would be interesting.





    The mixing of those two humans have been needed to be both ''difficult'' and also ''painful'' process .... even if ''life'' tends to find its ways.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Finnish Swede For This Useful Post:


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. DNA Shows All Europeans Descended From Belgian Tribe Who Lived 35,000 Years Ago
    By Nachtengel in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 07:48 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 28th, 2012, 11:35 AM
  3. Western European Sleep Patterns 500-200 Years Ago
    By Adalheid Friunt in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Saturday, January 15th, 2011, 05:19 PM
  4. Agricultural Revolution' Began in Israel up to 12,500 Years Ago
    By symmakhos in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, September 1st, 2006, 11:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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