Page 286 of 342 FirstFirst ... 186236276284285286287288296336 ... LastLast
Results 2,851 to 2,860 of 3411

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #2851
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,308
    Ethnicity
    Venetharum natio populosa
    Nationality
    Polish
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-L1029>YP263>Y2912*
    mtDNA (M)
    H141,U5a1b1j(W)

    Poland Poland Pomerania
    Quote Originally Posted by Waldemar View Post
    About the late Goths:

     
    Ukraine
    "Women from Popivka have the most similarity to women from cemeteries of Baltic region 2—5 cent. and in less degree to the Przeworsk culture of Poland."

    Poland
    "The comparison of the compositions established for men and women in total allowed to capture - apart from the similarity of the Masłomęcz group to the populations representing the Wielbark and Cherniakhiv culture - also the typological references of the population from Gródek to the Black Sea Scythosarmates, from Masłomęcz - to the Scythosarmates from the Middle Transnistria and the inhabitants of Lithuania from the 3rd-4th century AD."

    Moldova
    "The typological characteristics of the skeletal series studied until now in our country, but especially of those from Moldova, belonging to the Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture, indicates a regional variability, belonging, in general, to the great Europoid group. The Mongoloid elements are rare (at Sântana de Mureş – two cases, at Independenţa – two cases, at Pietriş – two cases, at Valea Seacă – one case, at Mihălăşeni – one case), usually weakly represented, in association with the predominant elements. In the necropolis from the 4th century A.D. from Săbăoani, the Mongoloid elements are missing. In the case of this typological polymorphism, Mediterranoid forms, like the Proto-Europoid ones (lightly attenuated and gracilizated), is the predominant content of the populations of this culture, they can be attributed to the local background."


    Genetic diversity of Mas-VBIA was a result of two demographic events:
    1) Migration of Goths east of Vistula and admixture with local populations,
    2) Migration of the admixed populations towards Black Sea, admixture with the local steppe populations and back migration of the Chernyakhov people to the Maslomecz

     
    Google translate:
    A barbaric meeting point over Sieniocha at the end of antiquity? A younger cemetery from the late Roman period and the beginning of the migration period on site 1 in Swaryczów, district Zamojski, voivodeship Lublin

    Located in the Sieniocha river valley in the south-western part of the Hrubieszowska Valley, the site has been regularly inspected since 2005. In the Roman period and in the early phase of the migration of peoples, it fulfilled only a sepulchral function. At that time, it had an organized spatial structure and, in fact, consisted of two cemeteries: an older and a younger one, with two completely different features of the funeral rite. It seems very likely that both the external borders of both parts of the cemetery and the space between them were strictly defined by an undefined type of fence. The period of its use as a whole runs from phase B2 / C1-C1a to the beginning of the migration period. The older cemetery (I) is located in the north-western and western part of the site. In terms of the funeral rite, it has all the features of the classic, bi-ritual necropolis of the Wielbark culture. The only deviation from this definition are the remains of wooden column structures discovered on it, probably constituting an integral part of the places where the deceased are buried in the form of markings of graves on the ground, wreaths or circles surrounding the burial site, and perhaps even serving as a roof over the central part of the cemetery. In this form, it has no analogues in the European Barbaricum. The younger cemetery (II), which is the subject of the occurrence, directly adjoins the older one from the east and south-east. Its characteristic feature is the presence of only cremation burials, in the complete absence of inhumation graves, and the level of the cremation layer on its surface containing relics and burned human bones. It was most likely established at the end of the functioning of the older cemetery or shortly after its abandonment, but at a time when the relics of the older necropolis were clearly visible on the surface of the area, which may explain the strict separation of both cemeteries - the new one was created in the vicinity of the older one, without disturbing its space. This happened no earlier than the end of the Younger Roman Period. The cemetery was used until the beginning of the migration period. The youngest monuments discovered within it are dated no later than phase D2. The younger necropolis in many respects does not have close analogies in the area of ​​Barbaricum, but due to the features of the funeral rite, it is associated with the circle of Gothic cultures. From the moment it became clear that the site in Swaryczów consists of two cemeteries, the question arose as to whether the two sites are still used as a burial place for one local community, and the two different burial forms are only the result of a change in the treatment of the bodies of the deceased. or was the younger necropolis created as a result of the arrival of new settlers in the area? In the course of several years of research in the area of ​​the younger cemetery in Swaryczów, the attention was drawn to the more and more frequent, evident, unusual for the Wielbark culture (assumed at that time) elements of burial equipment (e.g. an iron bit) or relics from various parts of the Central European Barbaricum, including both items from the north - from the circle of Baltic cultures - and from the south - from the Cherniakhiv culture and perhaps even more distant parts of Western and Eastern Europe. It is surprising that some of them occurred in the context of the same funerary complexes. After examining most of the cemetery space, attention was also paid to the layout of the locations of individual graves or their entire groups creating more or less clearly separated clusters. It seems justified to depart from the interpretation of the younger object as strictly related to the Wielbark culture. If you add that during one of the burials iron objects of a military nature were discovered, which could be interpreted as a grave with a weapon, this is an obvious departure from the funeral norms of the culture mentioned. Observations made in relation to this cemetery give an irresistible impression that it was a place of burying the deceased coming from a group of people who were bound by the rules of the funeral rite and using material inventory identified with the broadly understood circle of Gothic cultures, but at least some of which be "strangers" to the local community and come from different parts of the Barbaricum. Of course, at the present stage of research, it is only a hypothesis, but not without grounds for positive verification. However, it is in line with the trend observed not only in the entire southern part of the Gothic culture circle, but also in the neighboring area of ​​the Masłomęcka group.

    https://phavi.umcs.pl/at/attachments...-wystapien.pdf

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Waldemar For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-30-2021),  ambron (07-31-2021),  ChrisR (07-30-2021),  leonardo (07-30-2021),  Riverman (07-30-2021),  Uka (07-30-2021)

  3. #2852
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,673
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelmendasi View Post
    The Liburnians and Delmatae or Illyrian tribes of the Dalmatian coastline certainly did not speak Romance languages (i.e. languages evolving from Vulgar Latin). The consensus is that the Liburnian onomastic area and language was closest to the Venetic language which was spoken in north-east Italy and portions of modern Slovenia, this group is usually classified as belonging to the Italic branch of Indo-European.

    The Delmatae and neighbouring tribes on the other hand belonged to a separate onomastic area that is usually grouped together with that of the Pannonian tribes and is unrelated to the Liburnian-speaking area, if anything it is closest to the core or southern Illyrian onomastic area. Likewise, Messapian also appears to be unrelated to Liburnian and closer to the core Illyrian linguistic territories.
    I expect the more Urnfield influenced Pannonians to be more E-V13 heavy than the Liburnians, but we'll see with more samples. That's also a connection up Bohemia, Moravia and Southern Poland, possibly a minor very early contribution to the Proto-Slavs, later more lineages being picked up by East Germanics and Slavs.
    Which leads back to the Moravian E-V13.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (07-30-2021)

  5. #2853
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,205
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by Waldemar View Post
    Google translate:
    A barbaric meeting point over Sieniocha at the end of antiquity? A younger cemetery from the late Roman period and the beginning of the migration period on site 1 in Swaryczów, district Zamojski, voivodeship Lublin

    Located in the Sieniocha river valley in the south-western part of the Hrubieszowska Valley, the site has been regularly inspected since 2005. In the Roman period and in the early phase of the migration of peoples, it fulfilled only a sepulchral function. At that time, it had an organized spatial structure and, in fact, consisted of two cemeteries: an older and a younger one, with two completely different features of the funeral rite. It seems very likely that both the external borders of both parts of the cemetery and the space between them were strictly defined by an undefined type of fence. The period of its use as a whole runs from phase B2 / C1-C1a to the beginning of the migration period. The older cemetery (I) is located in the north-western and western part of the site. In terms of the funeral rite, it has all the features of the classic, bi-ritual necropolis of the Wielbark culture. The only deviation from this definition are the remains of wooden column structures discovered on it, probably constituting an integral part of the places where the deceased are buried in the form of markings of graves on the ground, wreaths or circles surrounding the burial site, and perhaps even serving as a roof over the central part of the cemetery. In this form, it has no analogues in the European Barbaricum. The younger cemetery (II), which is the subject of the occurrence, directly adjoins the older one from the east and south-east. Its characteristic feature is the presence of only cremation burials, in the complete absence of inhumation graves, and the level of the cremation layer on its surface containing relics and burned human bones. It was most likely established at the end of the functioning of the older cemetery or shortly after its abandonment, but at a time when the relics of the older necropolis were clearly visible on the surface of the area, which may explain the strict separation of both cemeteries - the new one was created in the vicinity of the older one, without disturbing its space. This happened no earlier than the end of the Younger Roman Period. The cemetery was used until the beginning of the migration period. The youngest monuments discovered within it are dated no later than phase D2. The younger necropolis in many respects does not have close analogies in the area of ​​Barbaricum, but due to the features of the funeral rite, it is associated with the circle of Gothic cultures. From the moment it became clear that the site in Swaryczów consists of two cemeteries, the question arose as to whether the two sites are still used as a burial place for one local community, and the two different burial forms are only the result of a change in the treatment of the bodies of the deceased. or was the younger necropolis created as a result of the arrival of new settlers in the area? In the course of several years of research in the area of ​​the younger cemetery in Swaryczów, the attention was drawn to the more and more frequent, evident, unusual for the Wielbark culture (assumed at that time) elements of burial equipment (e.g. an iron bit) or relics from various parts of the Central European Barbaricum, including both items from the north - from the circle of Baltic cultures - and from the south - from the Cherniakhiv culture and perhaps even more distant parts of Western and Eastern Europe. It is surprising that some of them occurred in the context of the same funerary complexes. After examining most of the cemetery space, attention was also paid to the layout of the locations of individual graves or their entire groups creating more or less clearly separated clusters. It seems justified to depart from the interpretation of the younger object as strictly related to the Wielbark culture. If you add that during one of the burials iron objects of a military nature were discovered, which could be interpreted as a grave with a weapon, this is an obvious departure from the funeral norms of the culture mentioned. Observations made in relation to this cemetery give an irresistible impression that it was a place of burying the deceased coming from a group of people who were bound by the rules of the funeral rite and using material inventory identified with the broadly understood circle of Gothic cultures, but at least some of which be "strangers" to the local community and come from different parts of the Barbaricum. Of course, at the present stage of research, it is only a hypothesis, but not without grounds for positive verification. However, it is in line with the trend observed not only in the entire southern part of the Gothic culture circle, but also in the neighboring area of ​​the Masłomęcka group.

    https://phavi.umcs.pl/at/attachments...-wystapien.pdf
    I would not be surprised that similar to Novgorod in later times some trade hubs were created also earlier.
    For Novgorod for example, it had Prussian street, Chuds corner, German corner, etc, etc. And those guys would bury their dead somewhere. Maybe we deal with a similar hub here, with Balt traders having "Prussian street" and Chernyakhov southerners "Chernyakhov corner", etc, etc.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     altvred (07-30-2021),  leonardo (07-30-2021),  Riverman (07-30-2021),  Ryukendo (07-30-2021)

  7. #2854
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    551
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y33
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-Y6938
    mtDNA (P)
    G2a

    Russian Federation Russia Tatarstan Arms Russia Mordovia Timurid
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    I would not be surprised that similar to Novgorod in later times some trade hubs were created also earlier.
    For Novgorod for example, it had Prussian street, Chuds corner, German corner, etc, etc. And those guys would bury their dead somewhere. Maybe we deal with a similar hub here, with Balt traders having "Prussian street" and Chernyakhov southerners "Chernyakhov corner", etc, etc.
    If I recall correctly, the biggest concentration of foreigners in Novogord was the 'Gothic' Quarter - which housed merchants mainly from Gotland and Lubeck. I believe something in a similar vein existed on Gotland for Novgorodian traders.

    It's a bit off-topic, but it's interesting to note that the Viking-Age samples from Gotland are quite diverse, with many showing Baltic_BA/LVA_BA, Balto-Slavic-like, Scandinavian autosomal profiles, or a mixture of them. I'm not aware of the archeological context of these samples, and somebody might shed some more light on the topic, but I'm willing to wager that at least some of them were traders/merchants that came from the East Baltic coast.
    YDNA (P): R-Y33
    YDNA (P, maternal line): R-Y20756
    YDNA(M): E-Y6938

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to altvred For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-30-2021),  Bygdedweller (08-01-2021),  Dewsloth (07-31-2021),  parastais (07-30-2021),  Riverman (07-30-2021)

  9. #2855
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,673
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by altvred View Post
    If I recall correctly, the biggest concentration of foreigners in Novogord was the 'Gothic' Quarter - which housed merchants mainly from Gotland and Lubeck. I believe something in a similar vein existed on Gotland for Novgorodian traders.

    It's a bit off-topic, but it's interesting to note that the Viking-Age samples from Gotland are quite diverse, with many showing Baltic_BA/LVA_BA, Balto-Slavic-like, Scandinavian autosomal profiles, or a mixture of them. I'm not aware of the archeological context of these samples, and somebody might shed some more light on the topic, but I'm willing to wager that at least some of them were traders/merchants that came from the East Baltic coast.

    Also, considering the Rus and Gaelic Vikings, there was something like a heathen Northern culture dominated by the Vikings customs, but including in some places and conditions people of non-Scandinavian origin. Something similar can be expected for earlier times, in the context of a culturally very dominant leading group. Even if they had the same or similar gear, they must not be from the same group such a framework. There is no general rule for such frameworks, every case needs to be investigated on its own.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Alain (07-30-2021),  altvred (07-30-2021)

  11. #2856
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,189
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-BY32817
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1l
    Y-DNA (M)
    E-CTS1273*

    Albania Kosovo
    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    on your first paragraph ...........I can agree , but this is an old analysis , which was refuted by many linguists ..........The Romans only placed the Venetics and the Istrians as one group under region number 10 as they where similar ......The liburnians they placed on their own

    I presume you looked at this map to say Liburnians and Venetics are the same ...............see map, so are the Catari
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._(English).svg

    The dalmatians and the pannonians seem to be only together from circa 500BC until the illyrian revolt against the Romans in 15BC

    There is no Dalmatians named before this period of 500BC, Historians claim that the Dalmatians are a southern branch of the Liburnians , who came from and are linked to the Catari tribe of modern Slovenia


    Maybe the Liburnian as stated below relied on more land based food , then the sea due to the large land area they owned


    Catari
    Catari was the name of a tribe belonging to the Venetic peoples that are sometimes confused [Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992,ISBN 0631198075,page 81,"... " In Roman Pannonia the Latobici and Varciani who dwelt east of the Venetic Catari in the upper Sava valley were Celtic but the Colapiani of the Colapis (Kulpa) valley were Illyrians ( ..."] with Illyrians.
    The connection between the Liburnians and the Venetic-speaking tribes has not been refuted, if anything it is the current consensus supported directly by linguistic evidence such as onomastics. It has been made evident through the works of prominent linguists and historians such as Géza Alföldy and Radoslav Katičić. Whether or not the Romans grouped the Liburnians with the Veneti and other Venetic-speaking tribes is a different thing entirely and likely had little or nothing to do with linguistics. The archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence available has made it abundantly clear that the Delmatae and neighbouring tribes were separate from the Liburnians and were closer to the Pannonian tribes. At most, the Liburnians simply influenced these tribes via trade and exports, they were not branches of the Liburni.
    Ydna: J1>P58>YSC234>ZS241>BY32817 (Y179831)

    Maternal Ydna: E-V13>CTS1273*

    Mtdna: T1a1l

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kelmendasi For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (07-30-2021),  Riverman (07-30-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (07-30-2021)

  13. #2857
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,144
    Sex
    Location
    Australia
    Ethnicity
    Italian Alpine
    Nationality
    Australian and Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    T1a2b- SK1480
    mtDNA (M)
    H95a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-S8172
    mtDNA (P)
    T2b17

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Ladinia Austria Tirol
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelmendasi View Post
    The connection between the Liburnians and the Venetic-speaking tribes has not been refuted, if anything it is the current consensus supported directly by linguistic evidence such as onomastics. It has been made evident through the works of prominent linguists and historians such as Géza Alföldy and Radoslav Katičić. Whether or not the Romans grouped the Liburnians with the Veneti and other Venetic-speaking tribes is a different thing entirely and likely had little or nothing to do with linguistics. The archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence available has made it abundantly clear that the Delmatae and neighbouring tribes were separate from the Liburnians and were closer to the Pannonian tribes. At most, the Liburnians simply influenced these tribes via trade and exports, they were not branches of the Liburni.
    Do you mean this ?

    The Liburnian language is an extinct language which was spoken by the ancient Liburnians, who occupied Liburnia in classical times. The Liburnian language is reckoned as an Indo-European language, in the Centum group. Alternative speculations place it on the same Indo-European branch as the Venetic language or on a separate branch. No writings in Liburnian are known. The only Liburnian linguistic remains are Liburnian toponyms and some family and personal names in Liburnia, in Latinized form from the 1st century AD. Smaller differences found in the archaeological material of narrower regions in Liburnia are in a certain measure reflected also in these scarce linguistic remains. There are three groups of names: one in northern Liburnia structurally similar to those of Histri and Veneti; another linked to the Dalmatae, Iapodes and other Illyrians; and a third group of names common throughout Liburnian territory. Names of local deities also had different regional distributions, while toponyms, in both structure and form, show more diversity and wider dispersion, like Pre-Indo-European (Mediterranean), Indo-European and local features. This caused many speculations about their language. Due to a certain similarities, Géza Alföldy has concluded that Liburni and Histri belonged to Venetic language area, while Jürgen Untermann has linked only Liburnians at the eastern Istrian coast to Veneti, and R. Katičić included them to the North-Adriatic language area before he has finally stated that they had been separate entirety, ethnically and by language. S. Čače has noted that appurtenance of the Liburnian language to the North-Adriatic area rather than to Iapodes and Dalmatae is hard to prove due to scarce remains. The Liburnians were essentially different to Histri and Veneti, culturally and ethnically, seen especially in burial tradition, by which they were the closest to Dalmatae. Liburnian language developed on the Indo-European basis, but strong traditions were dragged from the Pre-Indo-European times, which is especially noticed in their social relations, undoubtly related to their separate cultural development, territorial isolation and ethnical integration and features. The grouping of Liburnian with Venetic is based on a part of the Liburnian onomastics. In particular, some Liburnian anthroponyms show strong Venetic affinities, with common or similar names and a number of common roots, such as Vols-, Volt-, and Host- (<PIE *ghos-ti-, stranger, guest, host). Liburnian and Venetic names also share suffixes in common, such as -icus and -ocus. These features set Liburnian and Venetic apart from the Illyrian onomastic province, though this does not preclude the possibility that Venetic-Liburnian and Illyrian may have been closely related, belonging to the same Indo-European branch. In fact, a number of linguists argue that this is the case, based on similar phonetic features and names in common between Venetic-Liburnian on the one hand and Illyrian on the other. The Liburnians were conquered by the Romans in 35 BC. The Liburnian language eventually was replaced by Latin, undergoing language death probably very early in the Common era.


    I have one book by Geza Alfoldy called Noricum.................I will try to get this one about language and see


    ancient scripts state
    LIBURNI
    Eth. LIBURNI (Λιβυρνοί, Scyl. p. 7; Strab. vi. p.269, vii. p. 317; Appian, App. Ill. 12; Steph. B. sub voce Schol. ad Nicand. 607: Pomp. Mela, 2.3.12; Plin. iii,. 25; Flor. 2.5), a people who occupied the N. part of Illyricum, or the district called LIBURNIA (Λιβυρνὶς χώρα, Scyl. p. 7; Λιβουρνία, Ptol. 2.16.8, 8.7.7; Plin.3.6, 23, 26; Peut. Tab.; Orelli, Inscr. n. 664). The Liburnians were an ancient people, who, together with the Siculians, had occupied the opposite coast of Picenum; they had a city there, Truentum, which had continued in existence amid all the changes of the population (Plin. Nat. 3.18). Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 50, trans.) has conjectured that they were a Pelasgian race. However this may be, it is certain that at the time when the historical accounts of these coasts begin they were very extensively diffused. Corcyra, before the Greeks took possession of it, was peopled by them. (Strab. vi. p.269.) So was Issa and the neighbouring islands. (Schol. ad Apollon. 4.564.)

    They were also considerably extended to the N., for Noricum, it is evident, had been previously in. habited by Liburnian tribes; for the Vindelicians were Liburnians (Serv. ad Viry. Aen. 1.243), and Strabo (iv. p.206) makes a distinction between them and the Breuni and Genauni, whom he calls Illyrians. The words of Virgil (l.c.), too, seem distinctly to term the Veneti Liburnians, for the “innermost realm of the Liburnians” must have been the goal at which Antenor is said to have arrived.

    Driven out from the countries between Pannonia and the Veneti by the Gallic invasion, they were compressed within the district from the Titius to the Arsia, which assumed the title of Liburnia.



    and Messapic language ...from Iapydes
    The Iapydes were a mixed nation of Celts and Pannonian Illyrians with a strong Venetic element.

    Iapydes are noted in only two places....hinterland Liburnia and a Pannonian/Thracian mix in modern Hungary
    Last edited by vettor; 07-30-2021 at 08:35 PM.


    My Path = ( K-M9+, LT-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS3767+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, BY143483+ )


    Grandfather via paternal grandmother = I1-CTS6397 yDna
    Great grandmother paternal side = T1a1e mtDna
    Son's mtDna = K1a4p

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to vettor For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (07-30-2021)

  15. #2858
    Registered Users
    Posts
    516

    Waldemar, the Slavic homeland (Slavic innovation center) had to lie where, on the one hand, the old Slavic toponymy was retained in the greatest amount, and on the other hand, Germanic, Celtic, Scythian/Sarmatian and Roman influences were reaching. Thus we find an explanation for the Germanic, Celtic, Iranian and Roman lexical convergences with the Proto-Slavic.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ambron For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (07-31-2021)

  17. #2859
    Registered Users
    Posts
    527
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    Waldemar, the Slavic homeland (Slavic innovation center) had to lie where, on the one hand, the old Slavic toponymy was retained in the greatest amount, and on the other hand, Germanic, Celtic, Scythian/Sarmatian and Roman influences were reaching. Thus we find an explanation for the Germanic, Celtic, Iranian and Roman lexical convergences with the Proto-Slavic.
    Linguistically it seems all Celtic and Latin influence was mediated through Germanic. So they had to be reasonably distant from the Roman and Celtic world.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Granary For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (07-31-2021)

  19. #2860
    Registered Users
    Posts
    944
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Y20359
    mtDNA (M)
    H1c9a

    Quote Originally Posted by Granary View Post
    Linguistically it seems all Celtic and Latin influence was mediated through Germanic. So they had to be reasonably distant from the Roman and Celtic world.
    So, somewhere between the Germanic and Sarmatian worlds?

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to leonardo For This Useful Post:

     ambron (08-01-2021)

Page 286 of 342 FirstFirst ... 186236276284285286287288296336 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. G25 Distance Maps to selected Early Medieval Samples
    By ph2ter in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 09-19-2021, 10:48 AM
  2. Medieval Pashtun Samples
    By J Man in forum Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 05:37 AM
  3. Early Medieval Czech DNA (years 600-900 AD)
    By Tomenable in forum Central
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-19-2018, 01:07 PM
  4. Early Medieval Germanic barrow burials
    By JonikW in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2018, 12:34 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

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