Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 230

Thread: Why a large portion of E-V13 in the Iron Age might have been Dacian

  1. #131
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,896
    Sex

    As for Reutlingen/Naue II swords (and the Giurgiu short sword), which appeared with Fluted Ware in Bulgaria, here some details from a fairly recent (2000's) research:

    Artifacts of the Reutlingen type have been discovered over a very large area from the
    south of Scandinavia to Peloponesos and from the Rhine basin to the Black Sea, [6] and
    recently discoveries have been reported even in Anatolia. [7] However, the spreading is
    not uniform, existing some regions of concentration and others represented by much fewer
    discoveries. Among the latter, one counts the extra-Carpathian zone in Romania and the
    territory of Bulgaria and Greece. [8]
    It is however interesting that, in the Balkan area, the discoveries are concentrated
    mainly in the southern part of Romania, Wallachia, and in the north of Bulgaria, some
    of them just on the Danube line. In addition to the two pieces from Drajna de Jos, on
    the Romanian territory one finds specimens belonging to some variants in the ensemble
    of the Reutlingen type: B ̆alce ̧sti and Matee ̧sti (district of Vˆalcea), Techirghiol (district of
    Constant ̧a). On the territory of Bulgaria there are 10 discoveries of swords with tongues
    at the hilt, of which 7 to the north and 3 to the south of the Balkans. [9] The 7 specimens
    discovered on the territory between the Danube and the Balkans arise from Orjahovo
    (Orehovo), [10] V ̆arbica (deposit II), [11], Bajkal, [12] Kruˇsevo, [13] Balkanski [14] and
    Vasil Levski, [15] to which one adds the specimen of smaller dimensions from the Razgrad Museum (inventory No. 117), discovered in the neighborhood. [16] Among these
    specimens the first two belong to the Reutlingen type.
    The artifact from Giurgiu has very close analogues (except, of course, for the dimen-
    sions) just in the sword from Orjahovo and in the fragmentary artifact from V ̆arbica,
    both cited as belonging to the Gu ̧sterit ̧a variant by T. Bader. [17] These two specimens
    have been ascribed in the early horizon of the culture of the fields of urns (von Brunn
    stages I-III) [18] by B. H ̈ansel, [19] respectively in the subgroup I defined by I. Panayotov
    (the second horizon of deposits from Bulgaria: XIIIth century B.C.). [20] On the other
    hand, T. Bader dates, as a function of the synchronisms revealed by the various deposits,
    the great majority of the specimens belonging to the Reutlingen type discovered on the
    territory of Romania in the Cincu-Suseni period (HaA1, circa XIIth century B.C.), but
    ascribes three or four deposits (among which is also the one from Drajna de Jos) for the
    slightly earlier period Uriu-Dom ̆ane ̧sti (Bronze D, circa XIIIth century B.C.) [21] Conse-
    quently, taking into account the analogies proposed by us with the specimens from Drajna
    de Jos, Orjahovo and V ̆arbica II, we favor a dating of the short sword from Giurgiu in the
    XIIIth century B.C., probably towards the end of the century; a date around 1200 B.C.
    is very likely.
    Here we have an example for a sword probably moving from Bulgaria to Romania:

    We could express the idea of an association of the sword from Giurgiu with the Bulgarian
    swords, having a close composition and also similitude in typology, geographic area and
    dating. Taking into account the analogies proposed by us with the Bulgarian specimens,
    Especially those of Drajna de Jos, Orjahovo and V ̆arbica II, we favor a dating of the short
    sword from Giurgiu in the XIIIth century B.C., probably towards the end of that century,
    around 1200 B.C.
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0304058.pdf

    I'm under the general impression that there is some problem with the Bulgarian archaeological excavation of the Urnfield period and I read, even from Bulgarian archaeologists themselves, that there is a lack of systematic settlement excavations. This might be even worse if dealing with a people which left no regular burials which are easy to spot, if the settlements being still largely undone.

    Therefore there is every reason to find more in Bulgaria from the Urnfield/transitional period.

    We have a general lack of sword finds from East of the Carpathians, which might in part be attributed to the distance from the production and trade centres like in Teleac or the less effective weapon on horseback, but I don't think that's all. Compare with the sword data base:
    http://chc.sbg.ac.at/schwerter/map.php

    I think the available swords were longer in use and less often deposited, plus the distance, less often used weapon in these areas, especially on horseback in the context of the time, and the worse excavation efforts, all might play in together.

    To be sure I went through the data base and practically none of the 4 Reutlingen swords from Bulgaria being found in a systematic excavation. One being found while ploughing, the other provenience is unclear. These are the sites in the data base, as far as they could be told by the finders:
    Orechovo
    Razgard
    Vărbica (depot find)
    Vasil Levski (probably burial, but destroyed through ploughing, therefore unclear)

    I found this interesting information on the find from

    Andererseits kann auch ein mal3gebliches Nachleben der
    Hornerschwerter 32 auf dem Balkan gegenuber
    den ăgăischen Typen erwogen werden 33 .
    Aufschlul3reich ist hierbei auch der Hort von
    VĂRBICA II, der eine frilhbronzezeitliche
    Schaftlochaxt enthălt 34 , die zusammen mit
    Tilllenbeilen und dem Fragment eines Naue II-
    Schwertes der Hănselschen Hortfundstufe II
    (Lesura-Vărbica) in den Boden gekommen
    ist 35 • Ein zusătzliches Argument filr das
    eventuell lăngere Zirkulieren der Schwerter
    nordlich der Ăgăis ist ihr gr613erer
    Abnutzungsgrad im Vergleich zu den
    griechischen Funden, was natilrlich auch dem
    Umstand geschuldet sein kann, dal3 die
    ăgăischen Schwerter überwiegend in Grăbern
    gefunden wurden, wăhrend die balkanischen
    meist aus Horten stammen.
    So unlike in Greece, were often fairly new swords being put into a grave, in the Balkans the swords being almost always deposited in hoards, rarely in burials. And those found were often very worn down, like used to the end. So probably further away from the production centres, rich burials with swords and large hoards with high quality swords were simply more common, because having those swords ready was a question of life and death and the availability of new swords, in that turbulent transitional period in Bulgaria, was simply not given.

    Therefore we can't rule out that many more Naue II swords entered Bulgaria from the North, with the Urnfield/Gáva influence, but that we simply have a bad record for that region and time period. Everything considered, this seems to be highly likely. Even more in the time they were cut off from the source, when the Cimmerian invasion and tumults within the sphere destroyed production and trade centres like Teleac.

    Either there were no elites, or the elites did not take their weapons with them into the grave, but inherited their followers:

    Moglicherweise ist die Zeit
    jedoch reif, sich von der Vorstellung zu
    verabschieden, die Eigentlimer der
    balkanischen Schwerter hătten eme
    Ăhnlichkeit mit den Herrschern in den
    mykenischen Schachtgrăbern oder denen der
    reichen Bestattungen im Epirus und den
    Rhodopen gehabt. Angesichts der beschriinkten
    Quellenlage zur Spătbronzezeit im Balkanraum
    ist es riskant, sich mit der Interpretation der
    Weitergabe von Schwertern von Generation zu
    Generation zu weit vorzuwagen. An dieser
    Stelle soll nur darauf hingewiesen werden, da13
    die Grlinde fiir diesen Brauch moglicherweise
    in einer grundsătzlich von der ăgăischen Welt
    zu unterscheidenden Sozialstruktur oder, mit
    anderen Worten, im Fehlen einer ausgeprăgten
    Elite zu suchen sind. Wahrscheinlich besal3en
    Miinner mit gr613erem Einflu13 und Ansehen
    diese Waffen fiir eine gewisse Zeit oder sogar
    ihr Leben Jang. Nach ihrem Tod gingen die
    wertvollen Gegenstănde dann in die Hănde
    ihrer Kinder oder anderer Mitglieder der
    Gesellschaft über.
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Af3o4SXWB3pIw2

    So we might deal, similar to cremation for the remains of the body, with a more fundamental problem for the material legacy of weapons and swords in particular. But that doesn't mean they weren't there or weren't used, and of course introduction by contacts to the North or South.

  2. #132
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,118
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    Like we have ancient DNA from the Central Balkans which suggests exactly that these people were not E-V13 rich
    We have 0 aDNA samples from the central Balkans and from most regions of the Balkans which aren't coastal.

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

     olive picker (01-25-2023),  Straboo (01-25-2023)

  4. #133
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,896
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    We have 0 aDNA samples from the central Balkans and from most regions of the Balkans which aren't coastal.
    We have Encrusted Pottery from the North West and North of it, we have the samples from Macedonia, like mentioned, and there is just not enough E-V13 in the non-Thracian context, nothing comparable with the post-Psenichevo Thracians, not even with the Transtisza Avar era people. If that would have been it, which makes archaeologically not much sense, because of the dynamics in the region and time, the area should have been packed and radiate strongly into the environment, including Greeks.
    I have to agree with you that the sampling is not sufficient, but what we got doesn't like its strong there, but being only mildly distributed at best, beyond the Daco-Thracian ethnic borderline. With Basarabi, I'm confident we get it, with groups related to Channelled Ware and Basarabi, I'm confident too, and this includes groups which got such influences, even the Eastern Illyrians, but it won't be the bulk of it, surely not. Even less so before the LBA.

  5. #134
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,108
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruzmi View Post
    We have 0 aDNA samples from the central Balkans and from most regions of the Balkans which aren't coastal.
    Which at this point is just annoying.

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

     olive picker (01-25-2023),  Straboo (01-25-2023)

  7. #135
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,213

    I just wondering, why does these scientist behind the southern arc paper didn't bother testing more skeletal remains from the Kapitan Andreevo site dated to BA.
    It's not like there weren't because I was reading about it and there are actually lots of LBA inhumations as well.
    If you want to understand more about the human migrations and history of a given place you need multiple samples from different epochs in order to confirm or eliminate different scenarios.
    Sampling only or mainly from one epoch only just leaves you with many question marks.

    Otherwise we are now left with pages of spamming for archaeological cultures and what not...

    But let's return to the aDna evidence we have thus far.
    How does a population turns out almost completely dominated by a certain yDna marker that apparently arrived overwhelmingly with a North Carpathian population from the eastern fringes of Slovakia and Hungary and most north-wetsern Romania and which mixed with the native Thracian female population without leaving serious auDna trace behind?
    Anyone knows?

    I've heard funny excuses that these migrants lost their auDna signature because of the mixing with the female population and that these were very polygamous and had many wifes thus allowing em to grow up in population in a short time.
    But doesn't matter how many wifes one have, the children will always inherit half from the father and half from the mother.
    Yes the male population will inherit foreign yDna but it's auDna will be shifted towards the mothers only half way.
    It's what happened with the Steppe intruders in northern and western Europe.
    Heavily R1b dominated but different auDna wise from their predecessors who arrived from the Steppe and packed serious amount of EEF genetics and even WHG but still had a clear and very strong Steppe signal.

    Modeling BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA with these populations:
     

    GRC_Mycenaean,0.107847,0.1563915,-0.008108,-0.0646808,0.0216962,-0.0271222,-0.0005288,-0.0021345,0.00542,0.047336,0.005521,0.0169352,-0.012785,-0.0006195,-0.0163882,-0.0098118,0.0210245,0.0036108,0.0123188,-0.0039705,-0.0058648,0.0001858,-0.0065935,0.0011448,-0.0007185
    HUN_LBA_Halva,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096, 0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008 018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
    ROU_Arman_BA,0.1252053,0.1472515,0.0463228,0.00581 4,0.0559592,-0.0036255,-0.0031335,0.0084998,0.0239633,0.0300992,-0.0018403,0.0049205,-0.0080028,-0.0009173,-0.0077815,0.0099442,0.0164718,-0.0016468,0.0010262,0.0066695,0.0059688,0.0090265,-0.0045397,-0.027293,0.0002795
    HUN_LBA,0.1295687,0.1465745,0.0582652,0.0313848,0. 0514455,0.0066005,0.0054835,0.0035767,0.0153053,0. 0163103,-0.0030583,-0.0003993,-0.0022547,0.0008715,-0.0022168,0.0081542,0.008714,0.0011192,0.0031423,0 .0030222,-0.0006862,0.0045958,-0.0040467,-0.0092982,-0.0029538
    SRB_BA,0.124921,0.1462362,0.0350722,0.0002422,0.03 76993,-0.0041835,0.0019975,0.00225,0.011811,0.0282922,0.0 010555,0.0034098,-0.0098488,0.0009978,-0.010281,-0.0025192,0.0072362,0.0010135,0.0054372,-0.0041583,-0.0004678,0.0017315,-0.0004005,-0.008435,-0.0041012
    SRB_IA,0.12862,0.138112,0.031301,-0.005814,0.025235,-0.000279,0.00564,0.002538,0.001841,0.011663,-0.001624,0.007044,-0.007136,-0.001239,-0.004207,-0.002652,0.002868,0,0.004399,-0.000625,0.002745,0.007048,0.012941,0.001928,-0.006227
    BGR_MLBA,0.125205,0.103584,0.050911,0.082688,0.002 77,0.031794,-0.00094,0.004846,-0.025361,-0.035718,-0.005846,-0.000599,-0.005203,-0.023671,0.029316,0.021082,0.009518,-0.001014,-0.001885,0.002501,-0.000749,-0.001607,0.005546,0.011086,0.000599
    MDA_Cimmerian,0.1001643,-0.0111707,0.042992,0.048127,-0.0266713,0.0068793,0.004465,0.0027693,-0.019975,-0.0287933,-0.007199,-0.0011993,-0.000545,-0.0191297,0.0218057,0.006983,-0.0022163,0.007137,-0.0010893,-0.0045857,-0.0117293,0.004287,-0.0002053,0.010363,-0.0017563
    MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA,0.1263435,0.108154,0.056568,0. 093347,-0.007386,0.0333275,0.00235,-0.0020765,-0.032417,-0.042643,0.0023545,0.001274,-0.000669,-0.018235,0.0278905,0.007425,-0.005476,-0.006271,0.0017595,0.00494,0.000437,0.004575,0.009 305,0.0042775,-0.001796
    MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA,0.126913,0.097491,0.0531 74,0.093993,-0.0007695,0.034164,-0.00141,0.005769,-0.0318035,-0.0475635,-0.005927,0,-0.003345,-0.017822,0.0277545,0.013524,-0.0063235,-0.007095,-0.003645,0.008942,-0.0016845,0.0001235,6.15e-05,0.0096395,0.0020955
    MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA,0.126344,0.110693,0.059962,0.0 85918,-0.004924,0.034861,0.00846,0.009,-0.025975,-0.04647,0.005196,-0.001798,-0.004608,-0.018717,0.025651,0.010872,-0.009909,-0.002027,0.005908,0.000125,0.004492,0.00136,-0.002342,0.013014,0.00012
    ROU_Trestiana_BA,0.124067,0.100537,0.047517,0.1062 68,0.009232,0.032351,0.00094,0.003461,-0.035792,-0.042825,0.001949,0.007943,0.00223,-0.027387,0.02918,0.018828,0.005085,-0.001394,-0.001006,0.02001,-0.006364,0.005193,0.001849,0.001807,-0.013532
    BGR_C,0.121411,0.1750097,0.007794,-0.0857027,0.045547,-0.0393237,-0.0033683,0.0023847,0.0329283,0.0727123,0.0012993, 0.013188,-0.022299,-0.0008257,-0.0297683,-0.013878,0.0076493,0.000929,0.008338,-0.0140483,-0.0114383,0.0042453,0.004314,-0.0021687,-0.0045503
    BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA,0.125205,0.144205,0.00301 7,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
    TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA,0.112685,0.171624,-0.018479,-0.080104,0.005847,-0.030399,0.002585,-0.006692,0.005318,0.041914,-0.002761,0.001649,-0.014717,0.001514,-0.02443,0.002784,0.011474,-0.002914,0.01433,-0.00963,-0.015098,-0.000371,0.001602,0.003133,-0.002634
    HUN_MBA_Fuzesabony,0.1252055,0.132019,0.064488,0.0 615315,0.030467,0.026913,0.0094,0.0089995,0.008181 ,-0.0120275,-0.002111,-0.0039715,0.0053515,0.004473,0.0090255,0.0088835,0 .000913,-0.0017735,0.0010055,0.008879,0.008111,0.0026585,0. 004683,-0.0074705,-0.002694
    HRV_Jag_MBA,0.1242297,0.143625,0.0679356,0.0359453 ,0.0617696,0.0105183,0.0032229,0.0108786,0.0213873 ,0.0144487,-0.0022271,-0.0040037,0.0050543,0.0107543,-0.0123894,-0.0005491,0.0063143,0.0037646,0.0043456,0.0046809, 0.008895,0.0020316,-0.0049476,-0.0252531,-0.0022069
    HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat,0.1274818,0.143596,0. 0500816,0.0178942,0.042777,0.0041274,0.0039012,0.0 025386,0.0114126,0.0141782,0.0027608,0.003417,-0.0051734,0.00011,-0.0040172,0.0001326,-0.0016688,0.0010642,0.0028658,-0.0011256,-0.0023708,0.001385,-0.0027116,-0.0100734,-0.0007424


    this is what happens:

    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA
    Distance: 1.1368% / 0.01136814
    31.2 BGR_C
    28.6 SRB_BA
    24.6 GRC_Mycenaean
    14.4 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
    1.2 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA


    The model rejects the Hungarian LBA and IA populations and Carpathian populations such as ROU_BA.
    And even with the Mycenaeans and western Anatolians the IA Thracians from the Eastern Rhodopes still require big chunk of BGR_C.
    The most northern source here is SRB_BA which is Mokrin of course and which is how Belegis II might have looked like.
    No matter what mental gymnastics someone pulls out he needs to explain first and foremost the big chunk of BGR_C in these results.
    The samples from the Tell cultures of Ezero and Kran are nowhere close to be the source of this.
    And I honestly doubt a population living close to the northern Carpathians would be more similar to SRB_BA than to to other Hungarian LBA and IA people or even other Carpathian populations.

    Any other talk about archaeological cultures is a waste of time because arguing with someone who calls Psenichevo a Hallstattian culture is really a waste of time.
    Last edited by Aspar; 01-25-2023 at 12:21 AM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aspar For This Useful Post:

     Archetype0ne (01-25-2023),  Straboo (01-25-2023),  XXD (01-25-2023)

  9. #136
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,896
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I just wondering, why does these scientist behind the southern arc paper didn't bother testing more skeletal remains from the Kapitan Andreevo site dated to BA.
    It's not like there weren't because I was reading about it and there are actually lots of LBA inhumations as well.
    If you want to understand more about the human migrations and history of a given place you need multiple samples from different epochs in order to confirm or eliminate different scenarios.
    Sampling only or mainly from one epoch only just leaves you with many question marks.
    Absolutely. And they should apply next generation yDNA sequencing, because its oftentimes a safer marker for migrations than just autosomal DNA.

    How does a population turns out almost completely dominated by a certain yDna marker that apparently arrived overwhelmingly with a North Carpathian population from the eastern fringes of Slovakia and Hungary and most north-wetsern Romania and which mixed with the native Thracian female population without leaving serious auDna trace behind?
    Anyone knows?
    Let's recapitulate some of the other influences on the culture and region:
    - Encrusted Pottery (no E-V13, even higher WHG, worse fit)
    - Monteoru (essentially the same thing, just a bit less WHG)
    - Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni (Srubna derived steppe groups were R-Z93 dominated, high steppe, worse fit, local substrate was mostly Monteoru, so if it wasn't Wietenberg, we are in a worse spot)
    - Local Bulgarian samples so far are more like Monteoru than anything else. The data from the MBA-LBA is insufficient, but what we got doesn't look like it harboured an EBA-LBA E-V13 source

    The Greek samples are also critical, because those moved through Bulgaria and had contacts to those areas: No E-V13 yet, but haplogroups rather associated with the pre-Thracian East Carpathian-Lower Danubian sphere, more likely so.

    Therefore there is no perfect fit, but we now have multiple E-V13 samples, of which some must have spread at the time of these Bulgarian samples and earlier, which have different autosomal profiles. More West Balkan, Central Balkan, even Caucasian. Just like the Srubna derived R-Z93, which plot with Southern Thracians, Caucasians etc. So the autosomal profile seems to have switched in different groups early on, before these sampled individuals lifetime.


    I've heard funny excuses that these migrants lost their auDna signature because of the mixing with the female population and that these were very polygamous and had many wifes thus allowing em to grow up in population in a short time. But doesn't matter how many wifes one have, the children will always inherit half from the father and half from the mother.
    Yes the male population will inherit foreign yDna but it's auDna will be shifted towards the mothers only half way.
    It's what happened with the Steppe intruders in northern and western Europe.
    The Bell Beaker Iberian case or the I2 Middle Neolithic expansion are different, though. There are other such examples. And: We don't know the starting point, because we have no Gáva profile, no Belegis II-Gáva profile, no Chisinau-Corlateni or whatever, we have no relevant profile. And they would have started to mix on the way and for centuries afterwards, including with backflow from the Aegean-Anatolian, with which they were connected in the EIA.

    The model rejects the Hungarian LBA and IA populations and Carpathian populations such as ROU_BA.
    The funny part is that Monteoru is not part of the Carpathian cremation block, but closer to Bulgaria and more involved in Noua-Coslogeni. Otherwise Serbian BA might be more alike indeed, and Late Gáva Mezocsat would be better to use than HUN_LBA which was Western (Kyjatice-EP) shifted.

    And even with the Mycenaeans and western Anatolians the IA Thracians from the Eastern Rhodopes still require big chunk of BGR_C.
    The most northern source here is SRB_BA which is Mokrin of course and which is how Belegis II might have looked like.
    Agreed to some degree, but the Mokrin sample is just a wild mix, of people which didn't survive. Even if Belegis II-Gáva would have been similar, it would have been for different reasons and being part of the Carpathian cremation block. So at best, for your model, its a stand-in, a temporary placeholder, for what will come from Gáva/Belegis II-Gáva, and you basically know that. Mokrin in this context is an anachronism.

    No matter what mental gymnastics someone pulls out he needs to explain first and foremost the big chunk of BGR_C in these results.
    The samples from the Tell cultures of Ezero and Kran are nowhere close to be the source of this.
    If E-V13 was that big, there, in this hammered and pushed down region in the LBA-EIA, why didn't Greeks have it? Plenty of it and already early on? I don't doubt that Aegean-Anatolian/local East Balkan ancestry was transmitted, the question is just how and when. And my best guess is it was mostly female mediated and being unrelated to E-V13 originally.
    And what kind of population do you see in the record which fits the bill? Which culture?
    So they survived Cernavoda, Yamnaya, Greeks, Srubna/Noua-Coslogeni, Encrusted Pottery, Channelled Ware, Babadag/Cimmerians and while they survived all that, they expanded like the R-L2 Tumulus culture/Urnfielders? Just in that corner of the Balkans? Because that's the job they would have done going by the modern E-V13. Quite astonising, if they did all that in the Eastern Rhodopes or where do you place them?

    And I honestly doubt a population living close to the northern Carpathians would be more similar to SRB_BA than to to other Hungarian LBA and IA people or even other Carpathian populations.
    They being mostly Cotofeni derived, with Southern and Eastern connections. To put it that way, they won't be a worse fit than all the samples and groups mentioned above! And these were the main other influences of significance, because Psenichevo didn't grew locally, Basarabi even less so, in South Eastern Thrace from local MBA roots.

    If we would assume, for a moment, that things started with Gáva and moved down to Belegis with strong admixture, sex biased pattern:
    -> Belegis II-Gáva 50 percent max
    -> North Bulgaria 25 percent max
    -> South Bulgaria 12,5 percent max

    Because I agree with lots of you insofar, as there was not necessarily just one direct migration from the Carpathian basin down, but multiple, step by step migrations of related groups from the wider Gáva-related Channelled Ware sphere. This resulted in local admixture events and then, in the next stage, these already mixed people moving on.

    Now put in mixed Late Gáva/Mezocsat with 12,5 %, which is not perfect, because they are still Western admixed, probably also a bit Southern, like you suggest, but I question that this would be significant, and things look completely different. Add to that regional continuous admixture from the Aegean-Anatolian sphere, including Greek contacts and backflow from the Thracians in Anatolia, and you get a percentage of probably about 10 %. It might be higher or lower, but you won't get anything like 50 %.
    And we all know how variable the outcome for G25 can be, if
    a) the admixture is small and similar to other references
    b) we don't even have the right reference to use, not for the locals, nor the newcomers.

    And Aspar, you know very well that the BGR_IA samples can be modelled with Mezocsat with a fairly acceptable distance. Even though we lack all the right references. So its not like you can, with such models, exclude any such scenario of multiple stage admixture events. You just can't do that.
    Very interesting is also that Mezocsat is often a better fit than both the Western fringe samples, Encrusted Pottery or Monteoru. That's quite telling as well.

    But I just want you to accept that Gáva-related influence on Bulgaria was present, which is clear as day and proven archaeologically. Not necessarily direct Gáva migration on a large scale, but clear Gáva-related influence in the Fluted Ware horizon, which contributed, directly, to Psenichevo.
    That's there and so is there a path for migration. Anything else needs to be clarified by ancient DNA and all samples need to be put into a proper archaeological context. Not like that "Pre-Gáva era" samples which are clearly Tumulus culture and Kostany-Füzesabony outliers, which don't the local Eastern Carpathian basin element.

    In the end we will know whether only a few Gáva migrants reached Bulgaria (like the one buried in the cremation grave with a Gáva A type pottery or some warrior elite burials), and caused a large cultural shift, or whether it was about a tribal, clan migration as well, either from the North and East (Gáva-Holihrady-Grăniceşti) or West (Belegis II-Gáva), or probably even related groups from the pre-Gáva horizon of the Carpathians being involved - or none at all. That's something only ancient DNA can answer with certainty.
    Last edited by Riverman; 01-25-2023 at 01:18 AM.

  10. #137
    Registered Users
    Posts
    455
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Albanian
    Nationality
    Macedonian
    Y-DNA (P)
    J2b2-L283/J-FT29003

    Albania North Macedonia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I just wondering, why does these scientist behind the southern arc paper didn't bother testing more skeletal remains from the Kapitan Andreevo site dated to BA.
    It's not like there weren't because I was reading about it and there are actually lots of LBA inhumations as well.
    If you want to understand more about the human migrations and history of a given place you need multiple samples from different epochs in order to confirm or eliminate different scenarios.
    Sampling only or mainly from one epoch only just leaves you with many question marks.


    Otherwise we are now left with pages of spamming for archaeological cultures and what not...

    But let's return to the aDna evidence we have thus far.
    How does a population turns out almost completely dominated by a certain yDna marker that apparently arrived overwhelmingly with a North Carpathian population from the eastern fringes of Slovakia and Hungary and most north-wetsern Romania and which mixed with the native Thracian female population without leaving serious auDna trace behind?
    Anyone knows?

    I've heard funny excuses that these migrants lost their auDna signature because of the mixing with the female population and that these were very polygamous and had many wifes thus allowing em to grow up in population in a short time.
    But doesn't matter how many wifes one have, the children will always inherit half from the father and half from the mother.
    Yes the male population will inherit foreign yDna but it's auDna will be shifted towards the mothers only half way.
    It's what happened with the Steppe intruders in northern and western Europe.
    Heavily R1b dominated but different auDna wise from their predecessors who arrived from the Steppe and packed serious amount of EEF genetics and even WHG but still had a clear and very strong Steppe signal.

    Modeling BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA with these populations:
     

    GRC_Mycenaean,0.107847,0.1563915,-0.008108,-0.0646808,0.0216962,-0.0271222,-0.0005288,-0.0021345,0.00542,0.047336,0.005521,0.0169352,-0.012785,-0.0006195,-0.0163882,-0.0098118,0.0210245,0.0036108,0.0123188,-0.0039705,-0.0058648,0.0001858,-0.0065935,0.0011448,-0.0007185
    HUN_LBA_Halva,0.133173,0.136081,0.065242,0.049096, 0.048932,0.013387,0.003055,0.006231,0.009408,0.008 018,-0.003085,-0.005245,0.000446,0.006193,-0.006922,0.016839,0.024773,-0.004054,-0.007165,0.013381,0.005241,0.001237,0.000863,-0.012893,-0.00934
    ROU_Arman_BA,0.1252053,0.1472515,0.0463228,0.00581 4,0.0559592,-0.0036255,-0.0031335,0.0084998,0.0239633,0.0300992,-0.0018403,0.0049205,-0.0080028,-0.0009173,-0.0077815,0.0099442,0.0164718,-0.0016468,0.0010262,0.0066695,0.0059688,0.0090265,-0.0045397,-0.027293,0.0002795
    HUN_LBA,0.1295687,0.1465745,0.0582652,0.0313848,0. 0514455,0.0066005,0.0054835,0.0035767,0.0153053,0. 0163103,-0.0030583,-0.0003993,-0.0022547,0.0008715,-0.0022168,0.0081542,0.008714,0.0011192,0.0031423,0 .0030222,-0.0006862,0.0045958,-0.0040467,-0.0092982,-0.0029538
    SRB_BA,0.124921,0.1462362,0.0350722,0.0002422,0.03 76993,-0.0041835,0.0019975,0.00225,0.011811,0.0282922,0.0 010555,0.0034098,-0.0098488,0.0009978,-0.010281,-0.0025192,0.0072362,0.0010135,0.0054372,-0.0041583,-0.0004678,0.0017315,-0.0004005,-0.008435,-0.0041012
    SRB_IA,0.12862,0.138112,0.031301,-0.005814,0.025235,-0.000279,0.00564,0.002538,0.001841,0.011663,-0.001624,0.007044,-0.007136,-0.001239,-0.004207,-0.002652,0.002868,0,0.004399,-0.000625,0.002745,0.007048,0.012941,0.001928,-0.006227
    BGR_MLBA,0.125205,0.103584,0.050911,0.082688,0.002 77,0.031794,-0.00094,0.004846,-0.025361,-0.035718,-0.005846,-0.000599,-0.005203,-0.023671,0.029316,0.021082,0.009518,-0.001014,-0.001885,0.002501,-0.000749,-0.001607,0.005546,0.011086,0.000599
    MDA_Cimmerian,0.1001643,-0.0111707,0.042992,0.048127,-0.0266713,0.0068793,0.004465,0.0027693,-0.019975,-0.0287933,-0.007199,-0.0011993,-0.000545,-0.0191297,0.0218057,0.006983,-0.0022163,0.007137,-0.0010893,-0.0045857,-0.0117293,0.004287,-0.0002053,0.010363,-0.0017563
    MDA_CrihanaVeche_BA,0.1263435,0.108154,0.056568,0. 093347,-0.007386,0.0333275,0.00235,-0.0020765,-0.032417,-0.042643,0.0023545,0.001274,-0.000669,-0.018235,0.0278905,0.007425,-0.005476,-0.006271,0.0017595,0.00494,0.000437,0.004575,0.009 305,0.0042775,-0.001796
    MDA_MultiCordonedWare_MBA,0.126913,0.097491,0.0531 74,0.093993,-0.0007695,0.034164,-0.00141,0.005769,-0.0318035,-0.0475635,-0.005927,0,-0.003345,-0.017822,0.0277545,0.013524,-0.0063235,-0.007095,-0.003645,0.008942,-0.0016845,0.0001235,6.15e-05,0.0096395,0.0020955
    MDA_Sabatinovka_LBA,0.126344,0.110693,0.059962,0.0 85918,-0.004924,0.034861,0.00846,0.009,-0.025975,-0.04647,0.005196,-0.001798,-0.004608,-0.018717,0.025651,0.010872,-0.009909,-0.002027,0.005908,0.000125,0.004492,0.00136,-0.002342,0.013014,0.00012
    ROU_Trestiana_BA,0.124067,0.100537,0.047517,0.1062 68,0.009232,0.032351,0.00094,0.003461,-0.035792,-0.042825,0.001949,0.007943,0.00223,-0.027387,0.02918,0.018828,0.005085,-0.001394,-0.001006,0.02001,-0.006364,0.005193,0.001849,0.001807,-0.013532
    BGR_C,0.121411,0.1750097,0.007794,-0.0857027,0.045547,-0.0393237,-0.0033683,0.0023847,0.0329283,0.0727123,0.0012993, 0.013188,-0.022299,-0.0008257,-0.0297683,-0.013878,0.0076493,0.000929,0.008338,-0.0140483,-0.0114383,0.0042453,0.004314,-0.0021687,-0.0045503
    BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA,0.125205,0.144205,0.00301 7,-0.001292,0.00677,0,-0.00376,-0.006923,-0.011249,0.001093,0.002761,0.005695,-0.012636,-0.003165,0.000679,-0.005967,0.005998,0.00114,-0.004777,0.004377,-0.001373,0.010881,0.008011,0.003735,-0.003233
    TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA,0.112685,0.171624,-0.018479,-0.080104,0.005847,-0.030399,0.002585,-0.006692,0.005318,0.041914,-0.002761,0.001649,-0.014717,0.001514,-0.02443,0.002784,0.011474,-0.002914,0.01433,-0.00963,-0.015098,-0.000371,0.001602,0.003133,-0.002634
    HUN_MBA_Fuzesabony,0.1252055,0.132019,0.064488,0.0 615315,0.030467,0.026913,0.0094,0.0089995,0.008181 ,-0.0120275,-0.002111,-0.0039715,0.0053515,0.004473,0.0090255,0.0088835,0 .000913,-0.0017735,0.0010055,0.008879,0.008111,0.0026585,0. 004683,-0.0074705,-0.002694
    HRV_Jag_MBA,0.1242297,0.143625,0.0679356,0.0359453 ,0.0617696,0.0105183,0.0032229,0.0108786,0.0213873 ,0.0144487,-0.0022271,-0.0040037,0.0050543,0.0107543,-0.0123894,-0.0005491,0.0063143,0.0037646,0.0043456,0.0046809, 0.008895,0.0020316,-0.0049476,-0.0252531,-0.0022069
    HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat,0.1274818,0.143596,0. 0500816,0.0178942,0.042777,0.0041274,0.0039012,0.0 025386,0.0114126,0.0141782,0.0027608,0.003417,-0.0051734,0.00011,-0.0040172,0.0001326,-0.0016688,0.0010642,0.0028658,-0.0011256,-0.0023708,0.001385,-0.0027116,-0.0100734,-0.0007424


    this is what happens:

    Target: BGR_KapitanAndreevo_IA
    Distance: 1.1368% / 0.01136814
    31.2 BGR_C
    28.6 SRB_BA
    24.6 GRC_Mycenaean
    14.4 TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA
    1.2 BGR_KapitanAndreevo_EMBA


    The model rejects the Hungarian LBA and IA populations and Carpathian populations such as ROU_BA.
    And even with the Mycenaeans and western Anatolians the IA Thracians from the Eastern Rhodopes still require big chunk of BGR_C.
    The most northern source here is SRB_BA which is Mokrin of course and which is how Belegis II might have looked like.
    No matter what mental gymnastics someone pulls out he needs to explain first and foremost the big chunk of BGR_C in these results.
    The samples from the Tell cultures of Ezero and Kran are nowhere close to be the source of this.
    And I honestly doubt a population living close to the northern Carpathians would be more similar to SRB_BA than to to other Hungarian LBA and IA people or even other Carpathian populations.

    Any other talk about archaeological cultures is a waste of time because arguing with someone who calls Psenichevo a Hallstattian culture is really a waste of time.
    Can get behind that sentiment.
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    ― Franz Kafka

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Archetype0ne For This Useful Post:

     Aspar (01-25-2023),  Straboo (01-25-2023),  XXD (01-25-2023)

  12. #138
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,213

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Absolutely. And they should apply next generation yDNA sequencing, because its oftentimes a safer marker for migrations than just autosomal DNA.



    Let's recapitulate some of the other influences on the culture and region:
    - Encrusted Pottery (no E-V13, even higher WHG, worse fit)
    - Monteoru (essentially the same thing, just a bit less WHG)
    - Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni (Srubna derived steppe groups were R-Z93 dominated, high steppe, worse fit, local substrate was mostly Monteoru, so if it wasn't Wietenberg, we are in a worse spot)
    - Local Bulgarian samples so far are more like Monteoru than anything else. The data from the MBA-LBA is insufficient, but what we got doesn't look like it harboured an EBA-LBA E-V13 source

    The Greek samples are also critical, because those moved through Bulgaria and had contacts to those areas: No E-V13 yet, but haplogroups rather associated with the pre-Thracian East Carpathian-Lower Danubian sphere, more likely so.

    Therefore there is no perfect fit, but we now have multiple E-V13 samples, of which some must have spread at the time of these Bulgarian samples and earlier, which have different autosomal profiles. More West Balkan, Central Balkan, even Caucasian. Just like the Srubna derived R-Z93, which plot with Southern Thracians, Caucasians etc. So the autosomal profile seems to have switched in different groups early on, before these sampled individuals lifetime.




    The Bell Beaker Iberian case or the I2 Middle Neolithic expansion are different, though. There are other such examples. And: We don't know the starting point, because we have no Gáva profile, no Belegis II-Gáva profile, no Chisinau-Corlateni or whatever, we have no relevant profile. And they would have started to mix on the way and for centuries afterwards, including with backflow from the Aegean-Anatolian, with which they were connected in the EIA.



    The funny part is that Monteoru is not part of the Carpathian cremation block, but closer to Bulgaria and more involved in Noua-Coslogeni. Otherwise Serbian BA might be more alike indeed, and Late Gáva Mezocsat would be better to use than HUN_LBA which was Western (Kyjatice-EP) shifted.



    Agreed to some degree, but the Mokrin sample is just a wild mix, of people which didn't survive. Even if Belegis II-Gáva would have been similar, it would have been for different reasons and being part of the Carpathian cremation block. So at best, for your model, its a stand-in, a temporary placeholder, for what will come from Gáva/Belegis II-Gáva, and you basically know that. Mokrin in this context is an anachronism.



    If E-V13 was that big, there, in this hammered and pushed down region in the LBA-EIA, why didn't Greeks have it? Plenty of it and already early on? I don't doubt that Aegean-Anatolian/local East Balkan ancestry was transmitted, the question is just how and when. And my best guess is it was mostly female mediated and being unrelated to E-V13 originally.
    And what kind of population do you see in the record which fits the bill? Which culture?
    So they survived Cernavoda, Yamnaya, Greeks, Srubna/Noua-Coslogeni, Encrusted Pottery, Channelled Ware, Babadag/Cimmerians and while they survived all that, they expanded like the R-L2 Tumulus culture/Urnfielders? Just in that corner of the Balkans? Because that's the job they would have done going by the modern E-V13. Quite astonising, if they did all that in the Eastern Rhodopes or where do you place them?


    They being mostly Cotofeni derived, with Southern and Eastern connections. To put it that way, they won't be a worse fit than all the samples and groups mentioned above! And these were the main other influences of significance, because Psenichevo didn't grew locally, Basarabi even less so, in South Eastern Thrace from local MBA roots.

    If we would assume, for a moment, that things started with Gáva and moved down to Belegis with strong admixture, sex biased pattern:
    -> Belegis II-Gáva 50 percent max
    -> North Bulgaria 25 percent max
    -> South Bulgaria 12,5 percent max

    Because I agree with lots of you insofar, as there was not necessarily just one direct migration from the Carpathian basin down, but multiple, step by step migrations of related groups from the wider Gáva-related Channelled Ware sphere. This resulted in local admixture events and then, in the next stage, these already mixed people moving on.

    Now put in mixed Late Gáva/Mezocsat with 12,5 %, which is not perfect, because they are still Western admixed, probably also a bit Southern, like you suggest, but I question that this would be significant, and things look completely different. Add to that regional continuous admixture from the Aegean-Anatolian sphere, including Greek contacts and backflow from the Thracians in Anatolia, and you get a percentage of probably about 10 %. It might be higher or lower, but you won't get anything like 50 %.
    And we all know how variable the outcome for G25 can be, if
    a) the admixture is small and similar to other references
    b) we don't even have the right reference to use, not for the locals, nor the newcomers.

    And Aspar, you know very well that the BGR_IA samples can be modelled with Mezocsat with a fairly acceptable distance. Even though we lack all the right references. So its not like you can, with such models, exclude any such scenario of multiple stage admixture events. You just can't do that.
    Very interesting is also that Mezocsat is often a better fit than both the Western fringe samples, Encrusted Pottery or Monteoru. That's quite telling as well.

    But I just want you to accept that Gáva-related influence on Bulgaria was present, which is clear as day and proven archaeologically. Not necessarily direct Gáva migration on a large scale, but clear Gáva-related influence in the Fluted Ware horizon, which contributed, directly, to Psenichevo.
    That's there and so is there a path for migration. Anything else needs to be clarified by ancient DNA and all samples need to be put into a proper archaeological context. Not like that "Pre-Gáva era" samples which are clearly Tumulus culture and Kostany-Füzesabony outliers, which don't the local Eastern Carpathian basin element.

    In the end we will know whether only a few Gáva migrants reached Bulgaria (like the one buried in the cremation grave with a Gáva A type pottery or some warrior elite burials), and caused a large cultural shift, or whether it was about a tribal, clan migration as well, either from the North and East (Gáva-Holihrady-Grăniceşti) or West (Belegis II-Gáva), or probably even related groups from the pre-Gáva horizon of the Carpathians being involved - or none at all. That's something only ancient DNA can answer with certainty.
    In short as I don't have much time nor will anymore,

    EIA Hungarian population such as Mesocsat are included in the model, just check what population are behind the spoiler please.

    Second, I don't know from where you've got the information that Bulgaria was hampered region but the rest of the Balkans was much more devastated.
    As many authors already acknowledge, the Thracian population during much of the BA and EIA must have been Nomadic because of lack of stratigraphic sites and because of sanctuaries and dolmens high in the mountains.
    As such they resembled the Vlachs and their semi-nomadic lifestyle.

    And anyone knows that such population has much better chances of survival when bad times come than a sedentary population living in the plain.

    Edit: Serbia BA might have been a diverse population with samples resembling the Illyrians of the BA and other resembling Central European Bell Beakers however the later ones were minority and the group average is pretty much close to the Illyrians from Croatia.
    Last edited by Aspar; 01-25-2023 at 08:12 AM.

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

     Straboo (01-25-2023)

  14. #139
    Registered Users
    Posts
    768
    Sex
    Location
    Greece
    Y-DNA (P)
    G-L91>FTA40859
    mtDNA (M)
    T2f2d
    mtDNA (P)
    T2c1

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspar View Post
    I just wondering, why does these scientist behind the southern arc paper didn't bother testing more skeletal remains from the Kapitan Andreevo site dated to BA.
    It's not like there weren't because I was reading about it and there are actually lots of LBA inhumations as well.
    The Southern Arc supplementals have a table with all the remains they attempted to sequence, maybe they didn't manage to get any DNA from those?

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to peloponnesian For This Useful Post:

     XXD (01-25-2023)

  16. #140
    Registered Users
    Posts
    435
    Sex
    Location
    Europe
    Ethnicity
    Roman
    Nationality
    Irish

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    We don't know from which group the Thracian language came from originally, but the top candidates are, like mentioned before:
    - Cotofeni
    - Srubna -> Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni
    - Mierzanowice -> Kostany -> Füzesabony-Otomani
    I put all options on the table because BA proto thracian speakere were not ev13 heavy and theoretically could of been any of these

    Cotofeni (without later Glina) would tie thracian closer to albanian and illyrian, as some propose instead of Balto Slavic if vucedol and cotofeni have common IE roots. However this original " Illyric like Cotofeni language" could be later replaced by a language related to Balto Slavic, say from Mierzanowice culture, but this Balto Slavic like langauge would incorporate "albanianisms or illyrianisms" from the substrat language, thus explaining thracians "pull" towards albanian"

    Cotofeni (with later Glina) (see above)

    Srubna -> Noua-Sabatinovka-Coslogeni (works for Balto Slavic connection, especially if middle dnieper Sosnica was east balt speaking (as i seen most cognates are with east baltic, rather than slavic but I could be wrong, )and provides a long duree model of interaction between Baltic (and Slavic?) and Thacian since middle dnieper culture unified proto balto slavic times. Its presumed Komarov culture spoke Balto Slavic language as well. I dont know if Chernoles, Belogradskaya etc evolve from Noua -Sabatinovka. They are supposed to be derived or inspired by Komarov TCC so maybe they expanded at Sabotinovka expense??? Anyway this model could work in a hypotetical "Balto-Thracian grouping" being subdivided between Balto Slavic and Thracian.

    This scenario could also possibly mean that Costisa/Edenets and/or Monteoro were "para thracian" pre Sabotinovka or even pre thracian)

    - Mierzanowice -> Kostany -> Füzesabony-Otomani (works for Balto Slavic connection (but not for previously alledged "Albanian like" toponyms in the Carpathians) again with a long duree model if unified balto slavic was spoken next door to a pre proto thracian Mierzanowice and/or later balt and slavic in the early expanding Trzeniec culture

    Costisa, Edenets, Monteoro, Glina??? (Its a wildcard, but it is relevant for the Noua-Coslegeni option

    Last Yamnaya (no Cotofeni, arriving after pre proto illyrians)

    Yamnaya-Vucedol, but not Cotofeni (the "Vucedol model", works if Thracian and Albanian have deeper links. Not saying that Thracian is Illyric but that there would be a Thrakic-Illyric group before the later split and going separate ways of Illyric (Messapic, Albanian, Illyrian/Dalmatian???) and thracian. Vucedol may be a good candidate for Thrako-Illyric instead of just pre proto illyrian if we say that east Vucedol and future Bubanj hum III, Vatya, Vatin, Belegis, Armenochori, Brnjica, Paracin, Otomani etc are proto thracian. It works because thracian has to be further away from greek and albanian has to be closer to greek. It would also mean we would need to see post vucedol but pre Cetina and pre Bela Crkva pre proto illyrian group with ancestry common to both later cultures.

    BUT as of now its considered more popular an "Graeco Albanian" super grouping and that currently indirectly supports the Thracian=related to balto slavic argument better.

    Bubanj Hum III, Bubanj Hum IV/Paracin, Brnjica (see above)

    MBA Panonnia (could of been spoken by MBA tell cultures in Pananonian plain before the tumulus invasions, and brought by refugees to north romania and/or middle danube and/or lower danube. I think there is also an epi corded ware off shoot in the region (Nitra?) so it could been transmitted by them or the MBA pannonian "thracian" was instead linked to the Illyric group via Vucedol (see above)
    Last edited by Straboo; 01-25-2023 at 10:30 AM.

Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dacian/Getae dna from any period?
    By SecretExplorer in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-16-2021, 01:31 PM
  2. Looking at Iron age Nordic and Iron age England
    By firemonkey in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2020, 09:55 PM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-27-2018, 11:18 AM
  4. Cheaper bulk Full y DNA testing
    By Pallama in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 11:50 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2015, 04:34 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
  •