Meet The Proto-Indo-Europeans

8mike

Regular Member
Messages
55
Reaction score
2
Points
0
i'd really like to read about the culture and habits of the Proto-indo-europeans, but the only thing i have is this
from Wikipedia:
The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a patrilineal society, possibly semi-nomadic, relying largely on agriculture, but partly on animal husbandry, notably of cattleand sheep. They had domesticated horses*eḱwos (cf. Latin equus). The cow (*gwous) played a central role, in religion and mythology as well as in daily life. A man's wealth would have been measured by the number of his animals (small livestock), *peḱus (cf. English fee, Latin pecunia).
They practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites, probably administered by a priestly caste. Burials in barrows or tomb chambers apply to the kurgan culture, in accordance with the original version of the Kurgan hypothesis, but not to the previous Sredny Stog culture nor to the contemporary Corded Ware culture, both of which cultures are also generally associated with PIE. Important leaders would have been buried with their belongings in kurgans, and possibly also with members of their households or wives (human sacrifice, suttee).
Many Indo-European societies know a threefold division of priests, a warrior class, and a class of peasants or husbandmen. Such a division was suggested for the Proto-Indo-European society byGeorges Dumézil.
If there was a separate class of warriors, it probably consisted of single young men. They would have followed a separate warrior code unacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces ofinitiation rites in several Indo-European societies suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs (see also Berserker, werewolf).
As for technology, reconstruction indicates a culture of the late Neolithic bordering on the early Bronze Age, with tools and weapons of very likely of "natural bronze" (i.e., made from copper ore naturally rich in silicon or arsenic). Silver and gold were known, but not silver smelting (as PIE has no word for lead, a by-product of silver smelting), thus suggesting that silver was imported. Sheepwere kept for wool, and textiles were woven. The wheel was known, certainly for ox-drawn wagons.

is there anything else more complete, which shows their habits and the words they used?
 
There're 2 models: the Anatolian model and Steppe model. I do believe in the Anatolian one!

80927902.jpg


41799877.jpg
 
There're 2 models: the Anatolian model and Steppe model. I do believe in the Anatolian one!

The Anatolian hypothesis simply does not work. Common words for horse, wheel/wagon, and metals have been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the first farmers that entered Europe (which are supposed to have spoken PIE according to the Anatolian hypothesis) had none of that. It is thus pretty clear that these farmers cannot have been speakers of Proto-Indo-European.

When talking about a refuted hypothesis, it might be also worth mentioning the Out-Of-India hypothesis which struggles with similar problems. The main problem with it that there are Dravidian loanwords in the Indic languages which are found in no other branch of Indo-European. If PIE originated in India, one would expect all branches of IE to show these Dravidian loanwords. So, it's pretty clear that this one does not work out, either.
 
This book is on Maciamo's recommended book list. In part of it, the Proto-Indo-European language is reconstructed, as Taranis has mentioned here. The author refutes the Anatolian hypothesis effectively.The quote at the end is from Maciamo and reflects the fact that the author of this book did not consider DNA at all.I'm going through it for the second time as it is well worth the time.Horse_Wheel.jpgThe Horse, The Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World , by David W. Anthony"(Let me say that I disagree a bit with chapter 14 though. Anthony doesn't think that a massive invasion of IE steppe people took place toward the Corded-Ware culture. I do because nothing else would explain the strong presence of R1a exactly within the boundaries of the Corded-Ware culture. The problem is that Anthony never mentions once Y-DNA studies, even though his book is from 2007.)"
 
Last edited:
The Anatolian hypothesis simply does not work. Common words for horse, wheel/wagon, and metals have been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-Europeans, and the first farmers that entered Europe (which are supposed to have spoken PIE according to the Anatolian hypothesis) had none of that. It is thus pretty clear that these farmers cannot have been speakers of Proto-Indo-European.
According to me this is not a very strong argument against the Anatolian model that can rule out other arguments that valid the Anatolian model. And for me not a very convincing one!

There must be a simple explanation for it.

It's possible that the PIE people migrated out of 'Kurdistan' after the so called 'Middle Eastern' farmers. There was not just a single wave, but multiple waves of migration out of 'Anatolia'. The most ancient horse chariots and metallurgy you will find in the Near East (Kurdistan and Southern parts of Mesopotamia). So it's possible that horse chariots were invented after the agricultural revolution. And entered Indo-European vocabulary in Europe later.

So, with all due respect, according to me the horse-argument is a bull argument and not convincing at all. Also it's a fact that metallurgy that entered the Balkans is from Anatolia and NOT from the Steppe!
 
According to me this is not a very strong argument against the Anatolian model that can rule out other arguments that valid the Anatolian model. And for me not a very convincing one!

There must be a simple explanation for it.

Why is it not a strong argument against the Anatolian hypothesis? Because you say so? Because you're biased and for some reason want everything revolve around Kurdistan? May I remind you that the earliest recorded inhabitants of what today constitutes Kurdistan were the Hurrians, who demonstrably spoke a non-Indo-European language. Likewise, the pre-Hittite inhabitants of central Anatolia, the Hattians, were also a non-Indo-European people. There's no point debating this.

It's possible that the PIE people migrated out of 'Kurdistan' after the so called 'Middle Eastern' farmers. There was not just a single wave, but multiple waves of migration out of 'Anatolia'. The most ancient horse chariots and metallurgy you will find in the Near East (Kurdistan and Southern parts of Mesopotamia). So it's possible that horse chariots were invented after the agricultural revolution. And entered Indo-European vocabulary in Europe later.

You're messing up facts. The oldest evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from the Bronocice pot, Poland, from circa 3500 BC. The oldest evidence for domesticated horses comes from the Sredny Stog Culture in the Ukraine. If the word for "wheel" or "wheeled vehicle" entered Indo-European vocabulary later (after the spread of PIE), we would be able to see this due to the adherence/non-adherence to sound laws. We don't.

There's also clear evidence of a massive demographic changes occured between the Neolithic and today. Ötzi is giving us a lot of evidence for that.

So, with all due respect, according to me the horse-argument is a bull argument and not convincing at all. Also it's a fact that metallurgy that entered the Balkans is from Anatolia and NOT from the Steppe!

Well, with all due respect, mind your language.
 
Why is it not a strong argument against the Anatolian hypothesis? Because you say so? Because you're biased and for some reason want everything revolve around Kurdistan? May I remind you that the earliest recorded inhabitants of what today constitutes Kurdistan were the Hurrians, who demonstrably spoke a non-Indo-European language. Likewise, the pre-Hittite inhabitants of central Anatolia, the Hattians, were also a non-Indo-European people. There's no point debating this.
Well there're a lot West-European folks that believe in the Anatolian model. To me the Anatolian model makes most sense.

It's true that Northern Mesopotamia (Kurdistan) has been always (until today) occupied by the Hurrians. And it's true that Hurrian language of 2000 BC. doesn't belong to Indo-European group. But I truly believe that the ancient Hurrian language and Proto-Indo-European language share the same ancestor(s). Maybe the ancestor of the Hurrian language entered into the Balkans mixed with a native language there and evolved into a Proto-Indo-European-Centum language.

You're messing up facts. The oldest evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from the Bronocice pot, Poland, from circa 3500 BC. The oldest evidence for domesticated horses comes from the Sredny Stog Culture in the Ukraine. If the word for "wheel" or "wheeled vehicle" entered Indo-European vocabulary later (after the spread of PIE), we would be able to see this due to the adherence/non-adherence to sound laws. We don't.

There's also clear evidence of a massive demographic changes occured between the Neolithic and today. Ötzi is giving us a lot of evidence for that.
I'm not talking about the wheeled vehicles or about who invented the wheel. I'm just saying that the horse drawn wheeled vehicle (horse chariots) probably originated in Mesopotamia, Sumer (Battle Standard of Ur, 2600 BC.)

?? Only the oldest evidence for domesticated horses of the so called "Corded Ware pottery era" comes from the Sredny Stog culture in the Ukraine. But it's not the oldest example of horse domestication. The oldest examples of horse domestication you will find in the Middle East and Central Asia.

True, that's what I'm saying. there were multiple waves into Europe from the East.
 
Why is it not a strong argument against the Anatolian hypothesis? Because you say so? Because you're biased and for some reason want everything revolve around Kurdistan? May I remind you that the earliest recorded inhabitants of what today constitutes Kurdistan were the Hurrians, who demonstrably spoke a non-Indo-European language. Likewise, the pre-Hittite inhabitants of central Anatolia, the Hattians, were also a non-Indo-European people. There's no point debating this.



You're messing up facts. The oldest evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from the Bronocice pot, Poland, from circa 3500 BC. The oldest evidence for domesticated horses comes from the Sredny Stog Culture in the Ukraine. If the word for "wheel" or "wheeled vehicle" entered Indo-European vocabulary later (after the spread of PIE), we would be able to see this due to the adherence/non-adherence to sound laws. We don't.

There's also clear evidence of a massive demographic changes occured between the Neolithic and today. Ötzi is giving us a lot of evidence for that.



Well, with all due respect, mind your language.

The kurgan Hypothesis is old and rejected by modern, as also the theory of IE as out of India or Greek-balkanic etc, even the Hettit theory is rejected due to the low forms and grammar of Hettit,
The case of Sesclo Dimini gives clear a North minor asia and south West Caucas wich passed from Balkans to Kurgan, and not a Eurasian Steppe language,
The Kurgan Theory does not explain the pottery that is founded in Greece much before the Steppe,
Neither the existance of 2 cultures,

although we consider Hettits as IE they might not be, but instead they learn IE,
Hettit grammar Genders does not fit with any other modern IE, only roots and sounds fits well to a pro satem-centum split,
The case of Steppe or Scythian as primary IE language carriers, does not fit with the one we call old IE languages (Greco-Aryan Sanshqrit etc)
Besides scythians and Turkic share same Dna R1a,

the anatolian model is rejected, simply does fit with the Horse culture,
Although the Anatolian model fits Very well with Metallurgy,
And there is a word for melting Silver at least in Greek,
The case of Making IE as Horse riders IS TOTTALY WRONG

consider Dorians-Spartans used no Horses in Battle

Besides in Egypt Horse was known since when?

the Scythianization of IE is wrong,
even the reconstructed attempt no matter how % is accurate is evidence not a proof,
The sure is That there is no Anatolian model, neither a Eurasian steppe model,
Neither a Maykomp - Kurgan start, archaiologists put it away long time ago,
the dilema is South west Caucas-south of Black sea, or North East caucas-west Of Caspian Sea?

and the for the friend who wrote the book about IE as Eurasian steppe and rejects the minor-Asian Balkanic,

Ka+Ko -> kha (l) + ko (copper-chalkolith) χαλκος
a word that DOES EXIST IN NO EURASIAN LANGUAGE
instead copper κυπρος etc compare with κυππαρισος (the green color of copper rust)
same with PIE axein (black) μελαν cerno black swartz noir ???

so the case of Eurasian steppe is tottaly wrong, as also the Hettit of PIE,

the question is the 'Black hat' people of Messopotamia were IE from North East caucas?
The Colchis Αια (awia) were the first IE goat breeders? (SW caucas)

why all ancient IE at least in south corridor were in mood with Gold and hunt the Gold sources
Colchis-Golden fleece, Paktolos Lydia, Kroisos-χρυσος, Gallikos Makedonia, Tyroll Austria, Medas the king etc
the most ancient the tomb the more the Gold we find?
compare the Thracian tombs in Bulgaria,
also why Goat is so strong relative with IEans and not the sheep or pig,
also why 'auroch' plays so important role in Heroism

Besides how sure we are that Otzi spoke IE?

the Kurgan Hypothesis explain only the North corridor Germans and Slavs, not Greco-Aryan not Indo-Iranian
it even assumes that Celts came before all from Russia!!!!!
ARE WE SERIOUS???? if R1b's are younger from R1b-L20 THEN HOW COME CELTS WERE EURASIANS STEPPE PEOPLE?

except if R1b is not IE. then who? R1a it might be, but is also strong among Turkish populations, ESPECIALLY IN CAUCAS,
then who? I ydna? J2b or J2a Ydna
I y-dna can give very well European part, but can it expalin the Asian-Indian?
J2 is a strong candidate, but mostly as a non traveling tribes, and surely from south to North,
Although some J2b might be the ones we called Warriors tribes, or traveling-devastating tribes since they exist from Italy to India

For me it much stronger that South west Caucas-minor Asian IE speakers moved to Balkans (Sesclo-dimini) and then to Kurgan and Kukuteni (Suomi-Saami lands) via Balkans rather from Asia,
 
I fought in Iraq in 2008 and had many dealings with the Kurdish people I found them fascinating. Even know modern wise they are Iraqi they are completely different in almost every way. Many look European. As soon as we cleared check point 5 into Kurdistan it was like a light switch had been flipped they have commerce the city's are well kept. They are very clannish not in the religion way but family way. I seen many red heads in the Kurdish population as soon as I'm able I will post pics of the people and places I took
 
The kurgan Hypothesis is old and rejected by modern, as also the theory of IE as out of India.

except if R1b is not IE. then who? R1a it might be, but is also strong among Turkish populations, ESPECIALLY IN CAUCAS,
then who? I ydna? J2b or J2a Ydna
I y-dna can give very well European part, but can it expalin the Asian-Indian?
J2 is a strong candidate, but mostly as a non traveling tribes, and surely from south to North,
Although some J2b might be the ones we called Warriors tribes, or traveling-devastating tribes since they exist from Italy to India

For me it much stronger that South west Caucas-minor Asian IE speakers moved to Balkans (Sesclo-dimini) and then to Kurgan and Kukuteni (Suomi-Saami lands) via Balkans rather from Asia,
Actually you might be right. My biggest problem against the Kurgan model is that Central Asia & India lack 'European' haplogroups I2, N1C1 and even the European subclades of R1a.

There's a lot of criticism on the the Kurgan model that was invented by Marija Gimbutas. Only think about the criticism of scientists like Mallory, Schmitt, Krell, Renfrew, Gray, Atkinson, Diakonoff, etc.

Ok, let say it's true that PIE homeland was somewhere located in Ukraine, how is it then possible that there almost ain't no hg. I2 in Central Asia, but West Asian hg. J2 instead?
 
But I truly believe that the ancient Hurrian language and Proto-Indo-European language share the same ancestor(s).

There's no evidence what so ever that Hurrian (or, Hurro-Urartian) and PIE share a close relationship. What has been suggested is a link between Hurro-Urartian and one of the Caucasian language families (compare хурро-урартские и восточнокавазские языки, "Hurro-Urartian and the Northeast Caucasian languages).

The only connection that exists between Hurrian and Indo-European are loanwords in Hurrian (from the so-called Mitanni), but these are not from PIE but from Indo-Iranic. Also, bear in mind that Hurrian is attested from the 15th century BC and was a contemporary of Hittite and Mycenaean Greek. Indo-Iranic loanwords don't make Hurrian an Indo-European language, just like, say Romance loanwords in Basque don't make Basque an Indo-European language, or Arabic loanwords in Spanish don't make Spanish a Semitic language.

Maybe the ancestor of the Hurrian language entered into the Balkans mixed with a native language there and evolved into a Proto-Indo-European-Centum language.

No offense, but that statement above is quite revealing about your level of understanding of linguistics.

Actually you might be right. My biggest problem against the Kurgan model is that Central Asia & India lack 'European' haplogroups I2, N1C1 and even the European subclades of R1a.

The European subclades of R1a are probably younger, and R1a and N1c1 probably didn't intermix until the Corded Ware period, when R1a expanded northwards.

Ok, let say it's true that PIE homeland was somewhere located in Ukraine, how is it then possible that there almost ain't no hg. I2 in Central Asia, but West Asian hg. J2 instead?

Why should there be I2? If you look at Sparkey's analysis of Haplogroup I, there should be almost no overlap with Haplogroup I back in the Neolithic: the only candidate is I2a1b1a. Another piece of evidence comes from the ancient DNA we found so far: R1a has been found in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, as well as (much later) the Urnfield Culture.

Haplogroup J2 is too rare and not widespread enough, in my opinion. It's far more probable to explain the spread of J2 by differente events. Also, mind you, there's been no sample of anicent J2.

Regarding Yetos:

Hittite language: what happened in Hittite is that apparently male and female gender were merged into a single gender. This is unusual, but consider that the Romance languages for instance have merged male and neutral gender. Does that make Romance non-IE? Hardly.

Regarding horses, the idea that the Proto-Indo-Europeans used horses isn't "totally wrong". There's a common word for 'horse' that is attested in almost all branches of Indo-European (reflected in Greek as "hippos"). There's also common words for wheel/wheeled vehicle (compare Greek "kyklos" and Sanskrit "chakra") and "yoke".

Greek "Chalkos" actually has a cognate in the Balto-Slavic languages (Latvian "Dzelezs", Russian "Zhelezo"), where it means "iron" instead of "copper", however.

Regarding Ötzi, I didn't say that Ötzi spoke an Indo-European language, but that he most probably didn't speak an Indo-European language.
 
There's no evidence what so ever that Hurrian (or, Hurro-Urartian) and PIE share a close relationship. What has been suggested is a link between Hurro-Urartian and one of the Caucasian language families (compare хурро-урартские и восточнокавазские языки, "Hurro-Urartian and the Northeast Caucasian languages).

The only connection that exists between Hurrian and Indo-European are loanwords in Hurrian (from the so-called Mitanni), but these are not from PIE but from Indo-Iranic. Also, bear in mind that Hurrian is attested from the 15th century BC and was a contemporary of Hittite and Mycenaean Greek. Indo-Iranic loanwords don't make Hurrian an Indo-European language, just like, say Romance loanwords in Basque don't make Basque an Indo-European language, or Arabic loanwords in Spanish don't make Spanish a Semitic language.



No offense, but that statement above is quite revealing about your level of understanding of linguistics.



The European subclades of R1a are probably younger, and R1a and N1c1 probably didn't intermix until the Corded Ware period, when R1a expanded northwards.



Why should there be I2? If you look at Sparkey's analysis of Haplogroup I, there should be almost no overlap with Haplogroup I back in the Neolithic: the only candidate is I2a1b1a. Another piece of evidence comes from the ancient DNA we found so far: R1a has been found in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, as well as (much later) the Urnfield Culture.

Haplogroup J2 is too rare and not widespread enough, in my opinion. It's far more probable to explain the spread of J2 by differente events. Also, mind you, there's been no sample of anicent J2.

Regarding Yetos:

Hittite language: what happened in Hittite is that apparently male and female gender were merged into a single gender. This is unusual, but consider that the Romance languages for instance have merged male and neutral gender. Does that make Romance non-IE? Hardly.

Regarding horses, the idea that the Proto-Indo-Europeans used horses isn't "totally wrong". There's a common word for 'horse' that is attested in almost all branches of Indo-European (reflected in Greek as "hippos"). There's also common words for wheel/wheeled vehicle (compare Greek "kyklos" and Sanskrit "chakra") and "yoke".

Greek "Chalkos" actually has a cognate in the Balto-Slavic languages (Latvian "Dzelezs", Russian "Zhelezo"), where it means "iron" instead of "copper", however.

Regarding Ötzi, I didn't say that Ötzi spoke an Indo-European language, but that he most probably didn't speak an Indo-European language.

The case of Hettit by the little we know, is strange is not only the genders, but cases like προστακτικη seems 2os (πλαγιος) λογος seems not exist. and have 2 kinds of second person,
For me classify Hettit as IE, by the words toponyms, and vocabulary, but we know that Hettit is an exonym,
my question is not if Hettit language was IE, but Hettits, were they IE or they learn the Language before enter minor asia, or at minor asia?
cause here we have a strange case, you gave as an example the Latin, which at least for me has also connection with minor Asia, and the Hatti, The non IE Greek and minor Asian,

about J2 HG what age you wanted to Be?(how much ancient?) and what age you estimate the expansion of IE?
simply the J2 which is basic in India Middle east-minor Asia, Greece-Balkans South-West Europe and in Caucas, is absent in the North Germanic-Slavic and maybe Scythians, Although I do not know about Tocharians,
if it is present in Tocharians then we might have view,
so J2 is rejected as what? as a not palaiolithic or Neolithic? cause in that case surely fits with the IE expansion era, the only reasons that we can exclude it is if it is Palaiolithic-Neolithic or does exist in certain areas, like in Baltic IEans, ( I still do not know the % in Tocharians), yet that does not prove anything, since we might have a later expand by another group who was pre-assimilated, simply gives a reason to exclude it,

The case of minor Asia as Starting Point as also the case of Kurgan gives similar problems,
It seems like Indo-Iranian Slavic Germanic have the one we call North East Caucas
While Greco-Aryan, Celtic Italo-Latin Armenian have the south West Caucas and minor Asia
 
Last edited:
The European subclades of R1a are probably younger, and R1a and N1c1 probably didn't intermix until the Corded Ware period, when R1a expanded northwards.

Why should there be I2? If you look at Sparkey's analysis of Haplogroup I, there should be almost no overlap with Haplogroup I back in the Neolithic: the only candidate is I2a1b1a. Another piece of evidence comes from the ancient DNA we found so far: R1a has been found in the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, as well as (much later) the Urnfield Culture.

Haplogroup J2 is too rare and not widespread enough, in my opinion. It's far more probable to explain the spread of J2 by differente events. Also, mind you, there's been no sample of anicent J2.
Well, there's a lot J2 in the Balkans, even in the modern day Ukraine (Kurgan area), Central Asia and India. How widespread do you want to have it?

R1a is also widespread but there's no I2* in Central Asia or India. And R1a and I* have been always living together in 'Kurgan' area! 'Native' Kurgan folks were R1a* and I*.

Also R1a in Central Asia is a native haplogroup in Central Asia. The only non-native haplogroup in Central Asia and India is J2*. Native Central-Asians were basically R1a*, R2a* and maybe L*.
Native Indian (Dravidian) = H*

So my conclusion is that Kurgan area is not the right place to be called PIE urheimat!
 
Well, there's a lot J2 in the Balkans, even in the modern day Ukraine (Kurgan area), Central Asia and India? How widespread do you want to have it?

J2 is nearly absent in northern Europe and western Europe. The distribution of J2 in much of Europe also mirrors the expansion of the Roman Empire, from which I conclude that J2 was probably restricted to the Mediterranean (Italy and southern Balkans) before the classical period. Which excludes it from being associated with the spread of Indo-European languages.

R1a is also widespread but there's no I2* in Central Asia or India. And R1a and I* have been always living together in 'Kurgan' area! 'Native' Kurgan folks were R1a* and I*.

Well, if you think about it, there should be no I2*. Bear in mind that all individual subclades of Haplogroup I (or, I should say, Haplogroup I1, and all subclades of Haplogroup I2) are essentially Neolithic in age. That is, they represent individual male lineages that survived the Neolithic. For instance, Haplogroup I2-M26 is thought to be ca. 8000 years old.

I* (ancestor of I1 and I2) is far older than PIE in any case - it probably appeared around or slightly before the last glacial max.

Also R1a in Central Asia is a native haplogroup in Central Asia. The only non-native haplogroup in Central Asia and India is J2*. Native Central-Asians were basically R1a* and R2a*.

That's also impossible, due to the same reason (the age/timeframe).

In my opinion, R1a-M417 is associated with the Kurgan culture. Asian R1a is mostly R1a-Z93, which is a subclade of R1a-M417. In contrast, European R1a is dominated by the other main subclade of R1a, R1a-Z283. Overall, I find this quite consistent with the Kurgan scenario.
 
You don't understand me. With hg. 'I*' I do mean some modern sublaclades of hg. I in general. And with hg. 'I2*' I do mean some modern subclades of hg. 'I2*' in general. I don't know which subclades of I2* existed at taht time but I'm sure that native Kurgan folks were not entirely R1a at all. That's just impossible!

According to me Kurgan folks in the Steppe were actually R1a and I2-something dominant folks with some minor Southeast European (hg. E), Caucasian (Hg. G2 -something) and Central Asian haplogroups (native Central Asian R1a-type and R2a).
 
I forgot also the North European/Baltic/Uralic hg. N1 -something in the Kurgan natives.
 
I forgot also the North European/Baltic/Uralic hg. N1 -something in the Kurgan natives.

I do not Believe N1 as an IE, probably a sarmatian DNA
 
I do not Believe N1 as an IE, probably a sarmatian DNA

Haplogroup N in Europe probably stems from the (most probably Proto-Uralic speaking) people of the Comb Ceramic Culture.

European_Middle_Neolithic.gif


Haplogroup-N.gif
 

This thread has been viewed 53242 times.

Back
Top