Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 81

Thread: SubgroupE-FT186965

  1. #26
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    [QUOTE=Archetype0ne;631136] Hmm...
    The diversity heatmap is unable to distinguish between locations with more than 25% diversity compared to others area (blue shade). E-Y97307 is classified into two clades. Both contain Albanians. The Ukrainian subclade evolved downstream of the Albanian subclade 1350 years ago. It is a Balkan migrant from the early medieval period, possibly as a Vlach.
    I find the notion of "original Daco-Thracians" evolving into Illyrians quite problematic. To begin, nobody has written that Daco-Thracians "became" Illyrians during the Iron Age. Second, in classical times, if a people were called Illyrians, they were just Illyrians. Attempting to make Illyrians into something else appears to be an attempt to reconcile the numerous issues with the concept that E-V13 was present in Thracians and what appears to be a high level of variety in the western Balkans, but not in Bulgaria or Romania.

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    01-10-20
    Posts
    19

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-FT186965
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1

    Ethnic group
    Vlach
    Country: Serbia



    [QUOTE=Excine;631139]
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Hmm...
    The diversity heatmap is unable to distinguish between locations with more than 25% diversity compared to others area (blue shade). E-Y97307 is classified into two clades. Both contain Albanians. The Ukrainian subclade evolved downstream of the Albanian subclade 1350 years ago. It is a Balkan migrant from the early medieval period, possibly as a Vlach.
    I find the notion of "original Daco-Thracians" evolving into Illyrians quite problematic. To begin, nobody has written that Daco-Thracians "became" Illyrians during the Iron Age. Second, in classical times, if a people were called Illyrians, they were just Illyrians. Attempting to make Illyrians into something else appears to be an attempt to reconcile the numerous issues with the concept that E-V13 was present in Thracians and what appears to be a high level of variety in the western Balkans, but not in Bulgaria or Romania.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but no one was called illyrian? It was just the area they called illiricum? It was not one people there but many diffrent tribes on a big area?

  3. #28
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    01-10-20
    Posts
    19

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-FT186965
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1

    Ethnic group
    Vlach
    Country: Serbia



    I looked true all the haplogruop E grups then serbian project,bosniak,bulgarian,greek albanian and romanian and could not finde the unkown that has same subclade as me, only macedonia and croatia charts were closed, so I could not see does, its frustrading when you whant to know but cant do anything about it

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    Hmm...
    The diversity heatmap is unable to distinguish between locations with more than 25% diversity compared to others area (blue shade). E-Y97307 is classified into two clades. Both contain Albanians. The Ukrainian subclade evolved downstream of the Albanian subclade 1350 years ago. It is a Balkan migrant from the early medieval period, possibly as a Vlach.
    I find the notion of "original Daco-Thracians" evolving into Illyrians quite problematic. To begin, nobody has written that Daco-Thracians "became" Illyrians during the Iron Age. Second, in classical times, if a people were called Illyrians, they were just Illyrians. Attempting to make Illyrians into something else appears to be an attempt to reconcile the numerous issues with the concept that E-V13 was present in Thracians and what appears to be a high level of variety in the western Balkans, but not in Bulgaria or Romania.
    Compare it with Germanics assimilating in some regions Celts. We know it from the archaeological record if there was La Tene before, and we see it in the archaeological record, if the La Tene element was assimilated - and we have the historical accounts for these people's existence in many instances. Same here. We have the record of Illyrian groups being pushed East, into a territory which was since the Late Bronze Age inhabited by Eastern Urnfielders of the Gava-related, Channelled Ware people. But they did not replace those, rather forming an adstrate in the case of Dardanians in particular. In the case of the Triballi, it might be Daco-Thracians rather assimilating Illyrians. Fact is, that is visible in the archaeological record, the Central Balkan regions especially what is now Bosnia-Kosovo-Macedonia, had a clearly borderline and transitional character between these two big Iron Age people of the Balkans. They conquered and pushed each other, or fused peacefully at times. That is very evident from archaeological records, historical accounts and now from ancient DNA. So Illyrian J-L283 became Daco-Thracian, Celtic and Greek and Daco-Thracian E-V13 became Illyrian-Pannonian, Celtic and Greek. That was the exchange over millenia. But who brought what originally, in the Late Bronze Age, there can be little doubt left at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gedzo View Post
    I looked true all the haplogruop E grups then serbian project,bosniak,bulgarian,greek albanian and romanian and could not finde the unkown that has same subclade as me, only macedonia and croatia charts were closed, so I could not see does, its frustrading when you whant to know but cant do anything about it
    Yeah, its frustrating. Considering the age of your subclade, he could be from everywhere in and around Europe.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,031

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gedzo View Post

    Correct me if I am wrong, but no one was called illyrian? It was just the area they called illiricum? It was not one people there but many diffrent tribes on a big area?
    During Hellenic Classical Times, Illyrian was an exonym applies to the barbarians living to the north, by the Hellenized peoples. The southern Illyrians according to Strabo (?) were Illyrians propri dicti (Proper Illyrians) as opposed to Nothern Illyrians who were Illyrians by name.
    Later on during Roman times, Northern Illyrian land became a province, meaning it became simply a geographical term. Meanwhile southern Illyrians were placed in the province of Macedonia, which included large parts of Albania.



    @Exine
    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    The diversity heatmap is unable to distinguish between locations with more than 25% diversity compared to others area (blue shade). E-Y97307 is classified into two clades. Both contain Albanians. The Ukrainian subclade evolved downstream of the Albanian subclade 1350 years ago. It is a Balkan migrant from the early medieval period, possibly as a Vlach.
    I find the notion of "original Daco-Thracians" evolving into Illyrians quite problematic. To begin, nobody has written that Daco-Thracians "became" Illyrians during the Iron Age. Second, in classical times, if a people were called Illyrians, they were just Illyrians. Attempting to make Illyrians into something else appears to be an attempt to reconcile the numerous issues with the concept that E-V13 was present in Thracians and what appears to be a high level of variety in the western Balkans, but not in Bulgaria or Romania.

    I understand, thanks for the clarification. So the Ukrainian subbranch is only 1300 yo and downstream the Albanian one. I was limited by SNP tracker, stopping at that SNP, so could not make statements downstream.


    Me personally, I think there is a lot of animosity, maybe with reason, but sometimes probably misplaced when talking Balkan halpos, and especially V13 Thracian/Illyrian subtheories. We Albanians have grown weary of wolves in sheeps clothing being on fora the last decade, we have seen the most disgusting theories pushed around.
    Nonetheless, I do not believe Rivermans Thracian origin for V13 is to undermine any Albanian position. For all that is worth the more debate, as well researched as Riverman provides the better.
    Like L283, NW Balkans. I have not seen on L283 complain, and say nah, we were here since the Pelazgians.

    With more samples everything will be clear, so what we are doing right now is purely entertainment.
    I do believe V13 will be found in Albania at leas since LBA, I just hope cremation was not exclusively used for burials. Hence why I do not buy the IA V13 from Thracians coming to Albania, I believe it was already there at that point.

    Alas, L283 according to 1-2 year old rumor, an Eneolithic sample was found in Moldova. This paper has not come out, and God knows if it will. But I have no reason to believe such a rumor is to subvert the NW Balkan location during EBA-MBA times, since Eneolithic is some 3000 years earlier.

    I guess V13 is more sensitive, because it is more widely shared between populations that diverged in historical path since the middle ages, whereas L283 seems endemic to North Albania for the most part.
    “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

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post
    I do believe V13 will be found in Albania at leas since LBA
    it did reach Greece, also from the Western Carpathian route, so I guess there is almost no way E-V13 wasn't at least close to Albania, say in Kosovo and at least Macedonia, in the LBA.

    I just hope cremation was not exclusively used for burials. Hence why I do not buy the IA V13 from Thracians coming to Albania, I believe it was already there at that point.
    I guess it will be easier to prove the presence of Illyrian J-L283, because the majority of those used inhumation, while the incoming Channelled Ware people which brought E-V13 used originally cremation only. Its only when they came into contact with the Cimmerians and Scythians, some change rather quickly to inhumation, but that's rather in the Eastern groups first. What we can do is primarily looking at the pre- and post situation and that's clear enough if comparing Mokrin with Viminacium, because its largely the same population, but pre- and post LBA-EIA transition, pre- and post Channelled Ware-Basarabi and the difference couldn't be more obvious between the local inhabitants in the EBA and those from the Balkan IA.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    I already explained before that the E-V13 Z5018 will be explained not by Thracians but by other tribes which were already in Central Balkans prior to the transition of LBA/EIA, they probably formed during MBA, like Brnjica/Mediana/Paracin => Trebeniste Culture, new Greek tribes. The Gava-Channeled Ware were mostly E-V13 Z5017 it looks.

    There is some clear influence on Glasinac-Mat as well coming from Middle Danube basin. Though they didn't fully interrupt the culture but influenced.

  8. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I already explained before that the E-V13 Z5018 will be explained not by Thracians but by other tribes which were already in Central Balkans prior to the transition of LBA/EIA, they probably formed during MBA, like Brnjica/Mediana/Paracin => Trebeniste Culture, new Greek tribes. The Gava-Channeled Ware were mostly E-V13 Z5017 it looks.

    There is some clear influence on Glasinac-Mat as well coming from Middle Danube basin. Though they didn't fully interrupt the culture but heavily influenced.
    Actually a lot of the E-Z5018 clades have even a later, Iron Age Basarabi-Hallstatt distribution and TMRCA. And they have no earlier branching events and distribution in the Balkans than the other main branches. The main branching events for E-Z5018 happened all around the transitional period, like expected for a Gava/Belegis II descendent. Even the clearly Southern, early groups, before Hallstatt, have that timing, like:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC33614/

    Note the clean split of an Albanian Central Balkan and a Bulgarian Eastern Balkan clade around 1.100 BC. Imo its a perfect example.

    Next one, perfect split at 1.200 BC with many branches looking like having a Hallstatt dispersal:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-ZS1176/

    Same here, clean split at 3.200 BC:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16661/

    I see no pattern for the majority of E-Z5018 to have been present in the Balkans before the transitional period (pre 1.300 BC) or pre-Gava splits (1.600-1.400 BC).

    The Pannonian paper yielded no E-V13 in the Middle Danubian area, especially not South of the river as far as I know of. Any earlier dispersion should have caused such samples, which are not there.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Actually a lot of the E-Z5018 clades have even a later, Iron Age Basarabi-Hallstatt distribution and TMRCA. And they have no earlier branching events and distribution in the Balkans than the other main branches. The main branching events for E-Z5018 happened all around the transitional period, like expected for a Gava/Belegis II descendent. Even the clearly Southern, early groups, before Hallstatt, have that timing, like:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-FGC33614/

    Note the clean split of an Albanian Central Balkan and a Bulgarian Eastern Balkan clade around 1.100 BC. Imo its a perfect example.

    Next one, perfect split at 1.200 BC with many branches looking like having a Hallstatt dispersal:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-ZS1176/

    Same here, clean split at 3.200 BC:
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z16661/

    I see no pattern for the majority of E-Z5018 to have been present in the Balkans before the transitional period (pre 1.300 BC) or pre-Gava splits (1.600-1.400 BC).

    The Pannonian paper yielded no E-V13 in the Middle Danubian area, especially not South of the river as far as I know of. Any earlier dispersion should have caused such samples, which are not there.
    But, FGC33621 diversity is far more in Central-Western Europe than in Balkans or Eastern Balkans. That contradicts Daco-Thracian. Don't get me wrong, i agree on most cases. But the mosaique is not complete.

    Among Albanians it's only two families carrying that subclade, and it's a recent bottleneck which was sneakily represented by Dienekes (though i respect him for his knowledge) as the majority of Albanian E-V13. As for the Bulgarian, it's only one Bulgarian from Plovdiv, some Macedonian Greeks, one Cretan Greek.

  10. #35
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-08-20
    Posts
    136


    Country: Albania



    @Riverman, what makes you think E-V13 was Daco-Thracian exclusively and J2b2 was Illyrian instead of Italic for instance, or another unrecorded non-Indo-European like Raetians or Etruscans?

    Why so confident that it was J2b2 that spread specifically the Illyrian language?

    What about the role of R1b? What language did it spread then?

    Ironically enough in North Albania, J2b2 is dominant in the East while E-V13 is on the west.

    On the other hand, were not even sure that Dacian and Thracian were dialects of the same language.

    The fact that they seem so differentiated from each other as well as the similarities between Dacian and Illyrian and Dacian and Albanian, could make plausible even an Illyro-Daco-Thracian migration, replacing in Illyria previous Venetic, non-IE, Brygian/Phrygian, etc.

  11. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    But, FGC33621 diversity is far more in Central-Western Europe than in Balkans or Eastern Balkans. That contradicts Daco-Thracian. Don't get me wrong, i agree on most cases. But the mosaique is not complete.

    Among Albanians it's only two families carrying that subclade, and it's a recent bottleneck which was sneakily represented by Dienekes (though i respect him for his knowledge) as the majority of Albanian E-V13. As for the Bulgarian, it's only one Bulgarian from Plovdiv, some Macedonian Greeks, one Cretan Greek.
    So far we have in the ancient DNA mainly E-Z5017 from Serbia. No E-Z5018 yet before the common era, isn't it right?

    I also think that the Central-Western European diversity is no issue, because these were early lineages which dispersed, whereas those in the Balkan were going through numerous bottlenecks. I looked through the Psenichevo-Basarabi cultural developments, and it seems to me we're dealing with internal replacements, after the Channelled Ware people settled down. Pretty similar to what the Bohemian paper has shown us for Corded Ware: They were more diverse initially, but then the internal struggles resulted in patrilinear replacements. Basarabi for example looks itself, to me, like a major expansion from within the Channelled Ware people with Cimmerian-Scythian elements involved.

    We simply need to wait for more ancient DNA, but so far I have no proof for E-Z5018 being more Balkan positioned, even on the contrary.

    Also I resently saw that my initial idea of a systematic colonisation by splitting up clan members was right, because I found ethnological and historical parallels for it. There are ethnic groups which send to new colonies members of every major clan, so they being all connected and represented. Like a major tribe as lineage A, B, C, D, E, F. When they decide to send a party of warriors or settlers, usually every clan sends members of his group to join the enterprise.
    This is indeed what the Channelled Ware people did, and which causes so much confusion for many observers. The splits are not regional before 1.300 BC, because this is when they sent their warbands and colonisers out! Most of the seemingly older splits or regionally absent lineages can be explained by some lineages not making it, they died out in the meantime.
    But whereever a greater number of E-V13 formed a stable population since the Iron Age, you find members of all major clades from the starting point of the expansion event at the LBA-EIA transition. I am now very confident that this was the original mode of dispersal. But later indivduals and small groups moved beyond the tribal territorities, obviously, and in many core areas happened new founder and replacement events, with some of the local variation disappearing.
    Its most likely futile to even try to connect the pre-1.300 BC clades to any regional distribution. I don't know where exactly the homeland was, since they might have just joined the Gava-/Channelled Ware expansion at some early point, to profit from it still, but surely not South of the Danube. Therefore at best you may find single individuals here and there South of the Danube before 1.400-1.300, but most of the modern clades, especially such major ones like E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 were all sitting together at or North of the Danube.

  12. #37
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dushman View Post
    @Riverman, what makes you think E-V13 was Daco-Thracian exclusively and J2b2 was Illyrian instead of Italic for instance, or another unrecorded non-Indo-European like Raetians or Etruscans?

    Why so confident that it was J2b2 that spread specifically the Illyrian language?

    What about the role of R1b? What language did it spread then?

    Ironically enough in North Albania, J2b2 is dominant in the East while E-V13 is on the west.

    On the other hand, were not even sure that Dacian and Thracian were dialects of the same language.

    The fact that they seem so differentiated from each other as well as the similarities between Dacian and Illyrian and Dacian and Albanian, could make plausible even an Illyro-Daco-Thracian migration, replacing in Illyria previous Venetic, non-IE, Brygian/Phrygian, etc.
    Actually J-L283 is unlikely to have spread Illyrian at first, and could have participated in other people like Etruscans too, yes. But they mainly expanded, especially in the Balkans, with Illyrians, with Tumulus culture. They might have just jumped on the wagon while it was moving already, but they did profit form it and spread with it, became the dominant group in various Illyrian tribes along the Adriatic. One of the main distinctions especially in the Albanian zone is people with inhumation burials vs. people cremating their dead. The first comes in the region with Tumulus culture, which spread Illyrian, the second with Channelled Ware = Daco-Thracians primarily and only secondarily with Pannonian Middle Danube Urnfielders. Which by the way caused the domino effect, which pushed Illyrian people to the East, where they moved into Channelled Ware territory. This is how the mixed zone especially in Macedonia came up.

  13. #38
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Archetype0ne View Post

    Excine



    I understand, thanks for the clarification. So the Ukrainian subbranch is only 1300 yo and downstream the Albanian one. I was limited by SNP tracker, stopping at that SNP, so could not make statements downstream.


    Me personally, I think there is a lot of animosity, maybe with reason, but sometimes probably misplaced when talking Balkan halpos, and especially V13 Thracian/Illyrian subtheories. We Albanians have grown weary of wolves in sheeps clothing being on fora the last decade, we have seen the most disgusting theories pushed around.
    Nonetheless, I do not believe Rivermans Thracian origin for V13 is to undermine any Albanian position. For all that is worth the more debate, as well researched as Riverman provides the better.
    Like L283, NW Balkans. I have not seen on L283 complain, and say nah, we were here since the Pelazgians.

    With more samples everything will be clear, so what we are doing right now is purely entertainment.
    I do believe V13 will be found in Albania at leas since LBA, I just hope cremation was not exclusively used for burials. Hence why I do not buy the IA V13 from Thracians coming to Albania, I believe it was already there at that point.

    Alas, L283 according to 1-2 year old rumor, an Eneolithic sample was found in Moldova. This paper has not come out, and God knows if it will. But I have no reason to believe such a rumor is to subvert the NW Balkan location during EBA-MBA times, since Eneolithic is some 3000 years earlier.

    I guess V13 is more sensitive, because it is more widely shared between populations that diverged in historical path since the middle ages, whereas L283 seems endemic to North Albania for the most part.
    Illyrii proprie dicti is a term used for those Illyrians who lived in the region the Illyrian Kingdom. It's not that other Illyrians weren't "real Illyrians". There are several closely linked Illyrian regions

    "Ancient Roman writers Pliny the Elder and Pomponius Mela used the term Illyrii proprie dicti ('properly called Illyrians') to designate a people that was located in the coast of modern Albania and Montenegro.[27] Many modern scholars view the 'properly called Illyrians' as a trace of the Illyrian kingdom known in the sources from the 4th century BC until 167 BC, which was ruled in Roman times by the Ardiaei and Labeatae when it was centered in the Bay of Kotor and Lake Skadar. According to other modern scholars, the term Illyrii may have originally referred only to a small ethnos in the area between Epidaurum and Lissus, and Pliny and Mela may have followed a literary tradition that dates back as early as Hecataeus of Miletus.[8][27] Placed in central Albania, the Illyrii proprie dicti also might have been Rome's first contact with lllyrian peoples. In that case, it did not indicate an original area from which the Illyrians expanded.[28] The area of the Illyrii proprie dicti is largely included in the southern Illyrian onomastic province in modern linguistics.[29]"

    "Modern studies about Illyrian onomastics, the main field via which the Illyrians have been linguistically investigated as no written records have been found, began in the 1920s and sought to more accurately define Illyrian tribes, the commonalities, relations and differences between each other as they were conditioned by specific local cultural, ecological and economic factors, which further subdivided them into different groupings.[30][114] This approach has led in contemporary research in the definition of three main onomastic provinces in which Illyrian personal names appear near exclusively in the archaeological material of each province. The southern Illyrian or south-eastern Dalmatian province was the area of the proper Illyrians (the core of which was the territory of Illyrii proprie dicti of the classical authors, located in modern Albania) and includes most of Albania, Montenegro and their hinterlands. This area extended along the Adriatic coast from the Aous valley[29] in the south, up to and beyond the Neretva valley in the north.[29][115]"

    "The second onomastic province, the central Illyrian or middle Dalmatian-Pannonian province began to its north and covered a larger area than the southern province. It extended along the Adriatic coast between the Krka and Cetina rivers, covered much of Bosnia (except for its northern regions), central Dalmatia (Lika) and its hinterland in the central Balkans included western Serbia and Sandžak. The third onomastic province further to the north defined as North Adriatic area includes Liburnia and the region of modern Ljubljana in Slovenia. It is part of a larger linguistic area different from Illyrian that also comprises Venetic and its Istrian variety. These areas are not strictly defined geographically as there was some overlap between them.[116][117][115] The region of the Dardani (modern Kosovo, parts of northern North Macedonia, parts of eastern Serbia) saw the overlap of the southern Illyrian and Dalmatian onomastic provinces. Local Illyrian anthroponymy is also found in the area.[118]"

    All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.

  14. #39
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.
    Slovenia, which was also Illyrian in burial custom, with the Unterkrainer group of Hallstatt, has one of the lowest E-V13 numbers in the region. If you say the Central Balkan, I might agree. But the Central Balkan was only secondary Illyrian territory, with the exception of Albania itself, and not even that fully so. People moved around a lot, they weren't sitting where they are now necessarily.
    It might be proven that people like the Ligurians and the Norics had more E-V13 than Illyrians proper in the Iron Age. Eastern Hallstatt had different provinces, heavily influenced by Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian burials are especially coming from the Frg group:
    https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinu..._0035-0064.pdf

    And compare with the map:


    If they could ever sample a larger group from Frg, which is almost impossible, since the largely cremated, they surely would find at least some E-V13.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    So far we have in the ancient DNA mainly E-Z5017 from Serbia. No E-Z5018 yet before the common era, isn't it right?

    I also think that the Central-Western European diversity is no issue, because these were early lineages which dispersed, whereas those in the Balkan were going through numerous bottlenecks. I looked through the Psenichevo-Basarabi cultural developments, and it seems to me we're dealing with internal replacements, after the Channelled Ware people settled down. Pretty similar to what the Bohemian paper has shown us for Corded Ware: They were more diverse initially, but then the internal struggles resulted in patrilinear replacements. Basarabi for example looks itself, to me, like a major expansion from within the Channelled Ware people with Cimmerian-Scythian elements involved.

    We simply need to wait for more ancient DNA, but so far I have no proof for E-Z5018 being more Balkan positioned, even on the contrary.

    Also I resently saw that my initial idea of a systematic colonisation by splitting up clan members was right, because I found ethnological and historical parallels for it. There are ethnic groups which send to new colonies members of every major clan, so they being all connected and represented. Like a major tribe as lineage A, B, C, D, E, F. When they decide to send a party of warriors or settlers, usually every clan sends members of his group to join the enterprise.
    This is indeed what the Channelled Ware people did, and which causes so much confusion for many observers. The splits are not regional before 1.300 BC, because this is when they sent their warbands and colonisers out! Most of the seemingly older splits or regionally absent lineages can be explained by some lineages not making it, they died out in the meantime.
    But whereever a greater number of E-V13 formed a stable population since the Iron Age, you find members of all major clades from the starting point of the expansion event at the LBA-EIA transition. I am now very confident that this was the original mode of dispersal. But later indivduals and small groups moved beyond the tribal territorities, obviously, and in many core areas happened new founder and replacement events, with some of the local variation disappearing.
    Its most likely futile to even try to connect the pre-1.300 BC clades to any regional distribution. I don't know where exactly the homeland was, since they might have just joined the Gava-/Channelled Ware expansion at some early point, to profit from it still, but surely not South of the Danube. Therefore at best you may find single individuals here and there South of the Danube before 1.400-1.300, but most of the modern clades, especially such major ones like E-Z5017 and E-Z5018 were all sitting together at or North of the Danube.
    The Gava-Belegi II looks like a clear and consistent candidate for E-V13 spread to me. That's right. But i also think Vatin Culture/related had E-V13 as well. Let's wait for further aDNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Slovenia, which was also Illyrian in burial custom, with the Unterkrainer group of Hallstatt, has one of the lowest E-V13 numbers in the region. If you say the Central Balkan, I might agree. But the Central Balkan was only secondary Illyrian territory, with the exception of Albania itself, and not even that fully so. People moved around a lot, they weren't sitting where they are now necessarily.
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    It might be proven that people like the Ligurians and the Norics had more E-V13 than Illyrians proper in the Iron Age. Eastern Hallstatt had different provinces, heavily influenced by Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian burials are especially coming from the Fr�g group:
    https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinu..._0035-0064.pdf

    And compare with the map:


    If they could ever sample a larger group from Fr�g, which is almost impossible, since the largely cremated, they surely would find at least some E-V13.


    That's a double standard though, J2b2-L283 is not common as well, but that was not the case in ancient times. I think this region was severely depopulated because of the War of the Batos, Illyrian revolt of 6-9 A.D where most of the male population was enslaved and put to work in Italian mines.

  16. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    That's a double standard though, J2b2-L283 is not common as well, but that was not the case in ancient times. I think this region was severely depopulated because of the War of the Batos, Illyrian revolt of 6-9 A.D where most of the male population was enslaved and put to work in Italian mines.
    You are right that its probably a recent founder effect, but its still remarkable that just across the border to the next cultural formations, the increase is so steep. Yet it might be anachronistic and simply being lost due to Western Celtic groups, Romans, Germanics and Slavs in particular, with recent founder effects.
    Vatin is possible as a carrier, but honestly, even if they had it, I think we're talking about something similar like with Sintashta and Yamnaya. They might have been one group once, but more recent founder effects caused the spread. I mean its possible that Vatin-related groups or what people considered as such did contribute to the formation of Pre-Gava, but still the vast majority of E-V13 will come from Channelled Ware. So if such Danubian groups contributed to E-V13, its early, by having an impact on Pre-Gava. And we have not found anything South of the Danube indicated that E1b1b persisted there, especially not in larger numbers.

    How Pre-Gava came up is yet another debate, because it seems to have been rather local in the Northern Carpathian zone. Otomani needs to be considered, but also smaller groups I came across about which little is known and researched, sometimes even their mere existence being disputed. But they all lived there, in the same region between Silesia and Western Ukraine, Southern Poland and Northern Hungary-Romania.

    Why exactly E-Z5018 should be an earlier branch, being earlier in the Balkans is something I don't understand. There are some other E-V13 branches, especially some of the smaller ones, which could have split earlier. I don't believe they did, but they could have or its more likely for them than for E-Z5018.

    One thing is interesting by the way, Scaledinnovation puts most of the main lineages in the same general place for E-V13: http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

    I think that's because of the earlier mentioned, fairly even spread of the lineages. They are so evenly spread, that even though the region pointed out by the tool is not correct, they all land in the same place. You can do it for all major branches up- and downstream. Doesn't matter. It doesn't tell you where they originated, but rather how evenly spread out they are!
    If not, its rather because of later shifts, founding and extinction events. The Western European and Southern European groups pull West and the North Eastern is too weakly sampled, and from areas which being so heavily affected by the migration period, that E-V13 was going down there. But with some fantasy, you can easily put it straight, by balancing that issues out. And that puts you rather North of the Danube and possibly in the Eastern sphere. While a local pick up is possibly, the most likely scenario is E-V13 was already strong in pre-Gava. And looking at where this culture came up, you land definitely North and East of the Middle Danube.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-11-19
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    735

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-V13

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    You are right that its probably a recent founder effect, but its still remarkable that just across the border to the next cultural formations, the increase is so steep. Yet it might be anachronistic and simply being lost due to Western Celtic groups, Romans, Germanics and Slavs in particular, with recent founder effects.
    Vatin is possible as a carrier, but honestly, even if they had it, I think we're talking about something similar like with Sintashta and Yamnaya. They might have been one group once, but more recent founder effects caused the spread. I mean its possible that Vatin-related groups or what people considered as such did contribute to the formation of Pre-Gava, but still the vast majority of E-V13 will come from Channelled Ware. So if such Danubian groups contributed to E-V13, its early, by having an impact on Pre-Gava. And we have not found anything South of the Danube indicated that E1b1b persisted there, especially not in larger numbers.

    How Pre-Gava came up is yet another debate, because it seems to have been rather local in the Northern Carpathian zone. Otomani needs to be considered, but also smaller groups I came across about which little is known and researched, sometimes even their mere existence being disputed. But they all lived there, in the same region between Silesia and Western Ukraine, Southern Poland and Northern Hungary-Romania.

    Why exactly E-Z5018 should be an earlier branch, being earlier in the Balkans is something I don't understand. There are some other E-V13 branches, especially some of the smaller ones, which could have split earlier. I don't believe they did, but they could have or its more likely for them than for E-Z5018.

    One thing is interesting by the way, Scaledinnovation puts most of the main lineages in the same general place for E-V13: http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html

    I think that's because of the earlier mentioned, fairly even spread of the lineages. They are so evenly spread, that even though the region pointed out by the tool is not correct, they all land in the same place. You can do it for all major branches up- and downstream. Doesn't matter. It doesn't tell you where they originated, but rather how evenly spread out they are!
    If not, its rather because of later shifts, founding and extinction events. The Western European and Southern European groups pull West and the North Eastern is too weakly sampled, and from areas which being so heavily affected by the migration period, that E-V13 was going down there. But with some fantasy, you can easily put it straight, by balancing that issues out. And that puts you rather North of the Danube and possibly in the Eastern sphere. While a local pick up is possibly, the most likely scenario is E-V13 was already strong in pre-Gava. And looking at where this culture came up, you land definitely North and East of the Middle Danube.
    Not particularly hitting at E-V13 Z5018 though, it might be some non Z5017/Z5018. Why not some earlier offshots before Gava was created, heading south, not at the scale of latter Gava-Belegis II.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    1,031

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283/FT29003

    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Thanls exine, very informative.

    PS: Does anyone know where z2103 falls in this?
    L283 and z2103 were found together with a roughly 50% Yamnaya/Steppe component in Maros. While z2103 and V13 were found somewhere else together cant recall where (Scythian (MD?) where inhumation was practiced as opposed to incineration). So the one constant so far between L283 and V13 is that z2103 was accompanying both at various points/locations. Also high Yamnaya component.

    Now I do believe both Illyrians and Thracians, even Panonians were on the same autosomal continuum for the most part, as well as heterogeneous. Meaning I do believe by the time we hear about Illyrians around 700BC (Hellenistic Classical Times) they were already quite mixed, and likely their ethnogenesis was a symbiosis of various predecessor cultures mingling. Meaning I do not believe any haplogroup/snp can be attributed purely to Illyrians, Thracians or Pannonians. Yet I think without some sort of R1b, likely z2103 but even others there is no way we can define Illyrians.
    So yeah, I understand why some members feel there is double standards when it comes to L283 and Illyrians in oposition to V13. But I do not think it is an agenda on L283 members part, rather just a side effect of L283 using tumuli/inhumation, and being more represented in research papers/corresponding cultures, while V13 likely practiced cremation. So I do understand the frustration in such cases, where all these cultures seem so elusive lacking ancient DNA to better connect the dots.
    Hopefully upcoming papers, from Italy, Albania and Bulgaria as well as the wider Balkans can provide some more V13 samples, and the discussion turns into more analytical rather than theoretical.

  19. #44
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,381

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Slovenia, which was also Illyrian in burial custom, with the Unterkrainer group of Hallstatt, has one of the lowest E-V13 numbers in the region. If you say the Central Balkan, I might agree. But the Central Balkan was only secondary Illyrian territory, with the exception of Albania itself, and not even that fully so. People moved around a lot, they weren't sitting where they are now necessarily.
    It might be proven that people like the Ligurians and the Norics had more E-V13 than Illyrians proper in the Iron Age. Eastern Hallstatt had different provinces, heavily influenced by Basarabi/Thraco-Cimmerian burials are especially coming from the Fr�g group:
    https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Rudolfinu..._0035-0064.pdf

    And compare with the map:


    If they could ever sample a larger group from Fr�g, which is almost impossible, since the largely cremated, they surely would find at least some E-V13.

    basarabia and thraco-cimmerian are all on the north side of the black sea
    Fathers mtdna ...... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ...... K1a4p
    Mothers line ..... R1b-S8172
    Grandmother paternal side ... I1-CTS6397
    Wife paternal line ..... R1a-Z282

  20. #45
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,381

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Illyrii proprie dicti is a term used for those Illyrians who lived in the region the Illyrian Kingdom. It's not that other Illyrians weren't "real Illyrians". There are several closely linked Illyrian regions
    "Ancient Roman writers Pliny the Elder and Pomponius Mela used the term Illyrii proprie dicti ('properly called Illyrians') to designate a people that was located in the coast of modern Albania and Montenegro.[27] Many modern scholars view the 'properly called Illyrians' as a trace of the Illyrian kingdom known in the sources from the 4th century BC until 167 BC, which was ruled in Roman times by the Ardiaei and Labeatae when it was centered in the Bay of Kotor and Lake Skadar. According to other modern scholars, the term Illyrii may have originally referred only to a small ethnos in the area between Epidaurum and Lissus, and Pliny and Mela may have followed a literary tradition that dates back as early as Hecataeus of Miletus.[8][27] Placed in central Albania, the Illyrii proprie dicti also might have been Rome's first contact with lllyrian peoples. In that case, it did not indicate an original area from which the Illyrians expanded.[28] The area of the Illyrii proprie dicti is largely included in the southern Illyrian onomastic province in modern linguistics.[29]"
    "Modern studies about Illyrian onomastics, the main field via which the Illyrians have been linguistically investigated as no written records have been found, began in the 1920s and sought to more accurately define Illyrian tribes, the commonalities, relations and differences between each other as they were conditioned by specific local cultural, ecological and economic factors, which further subdivided them into different groupings.[30][114] This approach has led in contemporary research in the definition of three main onomastic provinces in which Illyrian personal names appear near exclusively in the archaeological material of each province. The southern Illyrian or south-eastern Dalmatian province was the area of the proper Illyrians (the core of which was the territory of Illyrii proprie dicti of the classical authors, located in modern Albania) and includes most of Albania, Montenegro and their hinterlands. This area extended along the Adriatic coast from the Aous valley[29] in the south, up to and beyond the Neretva valley in the north.[29][115]"
    "The second onomastic province, the central Illyrian or middle Dalmatian-Pannonian province began to its north and covered a larger area than the southern province. It extended along the Adriatic coast between the Krka and Cetina rivers, covered much of Bosnia (except for its northern regions), central Dalmatia (Lika) and its hinterland in the central Balkans included western Serbia and Sandžak. The third onomastic province further to the north defined as North Adriatic area includes Liburnia and the region of modern Ljubljana in Slovenia. It is part of a larger linguistic area different from Illyrian that also comprises Venetic and its Istrian variety. These areas are not strictly defined geographically as there was some overlap between them.[116][117][115] The region of the Dardani (modern Kosovo, parts of northern North Macedonia, parts of eastern Serbia) saw the overlap of the southern Illyrian and Dalmatian onomastic provinces. Local Illyrian anthroponymy is also found in the area.[118]"
    All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.
    while I agree with half of what you presented ......you failed to present the roman province of praevalitana which covers modern Montengro and north albania ...........its capital was Doclea , and it was stated as the most southern town of the illyrians ............the city around 45AD became the capital of what you state Illyrii Proprie , the date fits Pliny first comment of Illyrii Proprie
    3 km north from present-day Podgorica, Montenegro's capital. The Illyrian Docleatae, which were later Romanized, inhabiting the area derived their name from the city.[3] Doclea was the largest settlement of the Docleatae,

    These Illyrians ( under Narona zone ) where not part of the great Illyrian revolt as per Pliny



  21. #46
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    30-04-10
    Posts
    346


    Country: Serbia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    All of them were Illyrians. The western Balkans have both high diversity and the highest frequency of E-V13. What follows is that groups with high E-V13 were Illyrians and not anything else.

    If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.

  22. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Not particularly hitting at E-V13 Z5018 though, it might be some non Z5017/Z5018. Why not some earlier offshots before Gava was created, heading south, not at the scale of latter Gava-Belegis II.
    That's of course always possible, but we have no proof for it and the main clades all branch around the same time and seem to have marched like described, with members from every major clan adding especially males to the warbands and settler groups sent out in a specific direction. That way they wanted to keep up the social cohesion, which might have worked for some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    basarabia and thraco-cimmerian are all on the north side of the black sea
    The area of Viminacium was a settlement zone for Basarabia and the Thraco-Cimmerian horizon came even down to Italy and up the Alps...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.
    Indeed, we're talking about the ancient distribution. As far as I can tell, E-V13 was surely much, much higher in areas like Vojvodina in the Late Bronze Age, than anywhere South of it. That changed over time, however, because the Channelled Ware people expanded South, also mixed with Illyrians and Greeks, and the Danubian area was regularly devastated and much harder hit by steppe people like the Avars and Magyars, and more densely settled by Slavs. The area around Viminacium most likely had even in Roman times a higher percentage of E-V13 than any modern people or regions of greater size. Including Kosovo, Macedonia, Northern Greece etc. Significantly above 50 percent. In the Early Iron Age, after the Belegis II-Gava expansion and in Basarabi, they might even have had more than 70, up to 100 percent in some Northern areas.
    Just like Yamnaya made some regions nearly 100 % R-Z2103 - for a time.

  23. #48
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shetop View Post
    If we follow your logic then I-Y3120 is far better candidate for being Illyrian.
    Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

    I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

    E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.


    https : //i.imgur. com/ PxszWVa .png

    https :// i.imgur. com /uxS3AeP . png

    https :// i.imgur. com/ J6zoHMD . png

  24. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    715


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Excine View Post
    Viminacium's inhabitants are not local; they come from all over the Balkans. They should be compared to inhabitants of other Balkan countries to ascertain their backgrounds.

    I-Y3120 is significantly younger than E-V13 and so cannot be compared to it. Its parent clade I-L621 is comparable to E-V13 in terms of diversity, with very high diversity around southern Poland. Nobody can argue that I-Y3120 originated and spread in the Balkans. On the evidence of diversity, one might argue that it expanded in the Balkans and that a significant portion of its massive growth throughout the Middle Ages happened there. I reduced the intensity of all graphics to highlight the diversity variations.

    E-V13 clearly represents a lineage from the western Balkans. From western to eastern Balkans, there is a noticeable gap in diversity. Moving upstream to E-L618 reveals an even greater divide in diversity between west and east. Only Albanians and Sardinians exhibit diversity in two-thirds of their major "clades" E-BY6578, E-Y182141, and E-V13 among Europeans.
    E-L618 might have been very widespread along the Rhine and the Danube thanks to Lengyel, secondarily the Michelsberger - and in Bohemia and Bavaria because of the Lengyel colonists from Jordanow/Jordansmhler and Mnchshfener culture. It means little for the main expansion of E-V13 which happened in the LBA-EIA transition and the Hallstatt Iron Age period.

    You claim that the Viminacium samples are not local, the paper says otherwise and the local archaeological team speaks of continuity in the region as well. There might have been people from other Balkan groups too, but you won't be able to prove they were coming exclusively from Illyrian territory, that would be a ridiculous claim.

    I-Y3120 and E-V13 might have experienced a very, very similar expansive period, probably even starting from nearby source regions, the main difference is: E-V13 came first, I-Y3120 second. Since E-V13 lineages, while present, were much weaker in Slavs than in pre-Slavic Iron and Roman Age Carpatho-Balkan people, the frequencies and diversity was reduced from North to South, with Roman era inhabitants being pushed into the mountains, to the South and on the islands. We have archaeological records for that pattern, from Austria, Dalmatia, Romania. A large fraction of the inhabitants moved into less accessible terrain, similar to the story about the foundation of Venice.
    That's why you can impossibly say where many modern lineages lived, exactly, in the Balkans, before Slavs, let alone the Romans - and Celts and Scythians. In the Early Iron Age, things might have been quite different. And its not like we have no samples, we have Psenichevo and the Viminacium samples are as good as having Basarabi samples itself, because like the local archaeological teams said, there is large scale continuity in the whole region, not just the town itself, from the Iron Age/Basarabi. It was a central hub for Basarabi people, with their settlements along the river.

  25. #50
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    22-11-20
    Posts
    32


    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    E-L618 might have been very widespread along the Rhine and the Danube thanks to Lengyel, secondarily the Michelsberger - and in Bohemia and Bavaria because of the Lengyel colonists from Jordanow/Jordansm�hler and M�nchsh�fener culture. It means little for the main expansion of E-V13 which happened in the LBA-EIA transition and the Hallstatt Iron Age period.

    You claim that the Viminacium samples are not local, the paper says otherwise and the local archaeological team speaks of continuity in the region as well. There might have been people from other Balkan groups too, but you won't be able to prove they were coming exclusively from Illyrian territory, that would be a ridiculous claim.

    I-Y3120 and E-V13 might have experienced a very, very similar expansive period, probably even starting from nearby source regions, the main difference is: E-V13 came first, I-Y3120 second. Since E-V13 lineages, while present, were much weaker in Slavs than in pre-Slavic Iron and Roman Age Carpatho-Balkan people, the frequencies and diversity was reduced from North to South, with Roman era inhabitants being pushed into the mountains, to the South and on the islands. We have archaeological records for that pattern, from Austria, Dalmatia, Romania. A large fraction of the inhabitants moved into less accessible terrain, similar to the story about the foundation of Venice.
    That's why you can impossibly say where many modern lineages lived, exactly, in the Balkans, before Slavs, let alone the Romans - and Celts and Scythians. In the Early Iron Age, things might have been quite different. And its not like we have no samples, we have Psenichevo and the Viminacium samples are as good as having Basarabi samples itself, because like the local archaeological teams said, there is large scale continuity in the whole region, not just the town itself, from the Iron Age/Basarabi. It was a central hub for Basarabi people, with their settlements along the river.

    Viminacium was an imperial colony. Nobody there was a local in the sense that someone whose ancestors were in that area. Certain individuals were locals in the sense that they were Balkan locals. Others have shown you several times on the other forum where the inhabitants of Viminacium came from.

    The Carpathians and central Europe do not have high E-L618 diversity. The diversity of E-V13 is not Carpatho-Balkan. It is situated in the western Balkans. You cannot argue with something that is self-evident.

    The diversity of E-V13 is not concentrated to historical Dacian or Thracian regions. You reiterate that E-V13 is Daco-Thracian, but it lacks the diversity found in Illyria in either Dacia or Thracia. Likewise, beyond the Danube, E-V13 diversity is very low. Your theories are in contradiction with data.

    h ttps: // epigraphy.packhum.org/ text/174440?hs=1006-1012%2C1048-1054%2C1267-1273%2C1516-1522%2C1760-1766%2C2020-2026%2C2108-2114%2C2151-2157%2C2194-2200%2C2237-2243%2C2551-2557%2C2594-2600%2C2653-2659%2C2765-2771%2C2810-2816%2C2901-2907%2C3416-3422%2C4191-4197%2C4462-4468%2C5200-5206%2C5450-5456%2C5492-5498%2C6253-6259%2C7480-7486%2C7720-7726%2C7864-7870%2C8120-8126%2C8160-8166%2C8639-8645%2C8850-8856%2C9289-9295

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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