>"The genetic mix found in Romans 2000 years ago is almost identical to that from Anatolia, suggesting that the people in Imperial Rome were largely descended from Anatolians."
Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolian heritage?
Romans were Anatolians
Who was hiding it? They had a whole foundation myth about being the descendants of the Trojans, and Troy was in Anatolia
Read the page
>With the DNA, we can see things, like the Anatolian influx in Rome, that that text writers might not have known about or chosen to record due to the biases of the time,"
What biases?
>WITH A CAR, I CAN GO ANYWHERE
They didn't, they claimed descent of Romulus from Aeneas of Troy
See
But the point is that they did know about it and record it
None of that matters to the ideological drivel the author wants to push. Already by the diverse line it is possible to tell the author seeks to promote the idea of a brown society oppressed by white supremacists denying their brown genes
Wait were Latins white
>a brown society oppressed by white supremacists denying their brown genes
That is what it was. Romans enslaved a bunch of people.
David Reich has said before Republican Rome was native Italians, Imperial Rome was full shitskins, post Imperial Rome was native Italians again.
It was a diverse city of Whites and their Brown (and also White) slaves.
>post Imperial Rome was native Italians again
Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared? Modern Rome is populated by spics that raped wogs, nothing Italic.
>Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared?
Alaric revitalised the region with fresh Steppe seed.
>Modern Rome is populated by spics that raped wogs, nothing Italic.
Modern Rome is full of recent African migrants, but Italians are as White as they've always been. Ancient Romans were also a mix of Steppe and Farmer, they only had ~10% blonde people just like today.
Northern Italy has more light hair
>revitalised
It was a conquest, not a migration exactly. Germanics became the elite while spic-wog mongrels stayed commoners.
>Ancient Romans
Romans were one of the WSH-richest people of that time while now wops have less WSH than even swarthy frogs. Europe prior to the Migration Era was all populated by just absolutely different (inferior to modern) people.
Vahadou is shit for what you're trying to show. Some of those IA cluster most closely with modern Norwegians. Take a look at a 2D PCA plot it's spread all over the place and includes all modern European peoples.
The local poeple is wholly contained within the ancient samples. The conclusion should be that European ethnicities evolved from a much broader European meta population. Not this meanigless use of averages.
Yeah, there are many southerners and northerners and the average is in the middle. Generally Celts cluster with the French and Belgians. Even the ones from Czechia or Slovakia.
Nice meltdown, degenerates. Celts were brown spics, cry about it.
Celts were Whiter than Norwegians.
>Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared?
Genocided by germanics.
it's referring to cross-empire geneflow, not the founding of rome
So what DNA samples are they comparing it to from the founding of Rome?
Iron Age and Republic era Italic and Etruscan samples.
Is the pic from the study? Why are they using neolithic Anatolia? That's general EEF Movement into europe
No, this is from "The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect"
The shift from Republic->Empire era is, as the PCA suggests, toward a caucasus/near east derived population. Which is what bronze and iron age Anatolia looks like.
Which one is supposed to be republic rome in the graph?
Etruscan - red. Latin samples look the same.
Why would etruscans represent republic Italy? Southern Italy at the time was a lot of Greek colonies. Culturally they were different from Latin as well
tuscany is north of rome. Both were from central europe, probably.
Etruscans aren't from South Italy.
>represent
They don't. They just look the same as Latins from the same time period. Also, most of them are pre-republic.
>Etruscans aren't from South Italy
Not what I said
>They don't. They just look the same as Latins from the same time period.
Based on what there is no republic italy population listed. Republic Italy would also include all of southern Italy
It's in a different study.
Same shit.
They actually form a pretty tight cluster. I ruined it by including Daunians. Daunians were from Apulia. They were more East Med, maybe mixed with Greeks.
they plot more or less identically with etruscans
>Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolian heritage?
They didn't. Guess what place stayed under unbroken roman control for over 1000 years
The Roman always believe they from Troy. One of their myth is litteraly their soldier ancestor who landed on Latium and stoled the women from a neighbor tribe.
The academic dismissed this as "legend" and the Roman autochtones of the Latium, but DNA proved there was a reality behind the myth
>With the DNA, we can see things, like the Anatolian influx in Rome, that that text writers might not have known about or chosen to record due to the biases of the time,"
Wow it’s almost like there’s an Anglo bias toward Latins.
Damn the Latins and Italic tribe from the South conquered northerners?! And we have DNA evidence, Linguistic evidence and historical evidence?
>meanwhile in reality the whole history of europe is med bois being crushed like little rats by nordic and slavic men
"Not something ancient writers knew at the time"
What about Aeneas
>r1b women
Yes r1b men who had daughters were marrying Latins from Central Italy.
Women don't have a paternal haplogroup you mong
I never said they did. R1b men who had daughters would cluster with northerners. Central Latin men assimilated by marrying the women from the north. We can see the same thing happening in the United States with Italians marrying Irish or German women. These men spread j2 and the Latin language in Italy.
>I never said they did.
You did when you called them r1b women.
If you even look at your own map j2 isn't even that wide spread in turkey compared to parts of Greece, Italy, crete
that is a map of slaves, most romans slaves were anatolian ""greek" farming equipment imported by latins as house cleaners and farming equipment as well, they were used and idscarded like cattle and those that survived became a farming slave caste in the succeding germanic kingdoms after the conquest of rome, far from romans, roman latins were proven to be R1b and genetically a different species from the frming equipment similar to goblinito southern italians, basically as different as modern subsaharan africans and mongolians.
the whole existence of "eastern mediterraneans" is as mere slaves sued to pick cotton by latins crawling out of their reservation farms/concentration camps and then repopulating cities after the black death
most slaves were celtic and iberian while free men and citizens in rome came from the hellenic east
Celtic and greek, aemilius Paulus crashed the price of slaves alone from how many Greeks he captured
Some do you bigot
Maybe he means trans women
Schizo brown thread.
Schizo brown thread.
Those all were slaves with some plebians, the patrician type stayed the same as in Republic and was literally Celtic.
Why are they plotting further from neolithic Anatolia? Were neolithic anatolians replaced to a large degree by Greco-Roman Roman's then?
They did complain about the MENA filth infesting Italy though
Can you link the studies
"Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean"
You do understand that Reich is explicitly saying the Republican era looked more Steppe right?
>Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolians?
They didn't, they were quite proud of the slaves they captured from conquered peoples.
They didn't. They were more farmer, but not East Med.
There are two different Anatolian ancestries. The original one and post-Copper Age one.
Yes, but they were majority R1b Indo-European speakers just modern Italians at the founding of Rome. The Etruscans actually had more G2a farmer samples than Romans, but also had R1b IE influx at this point.
Shitskin understand of Reich's paper is hilariously backwards.
No, both Etruscans and Latins were dominated by R1b. Etruscans were 80-90% R1b.
Apologies you are right, but as I understand it Etruscans were natives who's language predates Indo-European expansion that introduced Latin to the region. I could have misread/misinterpreted this.
Etruscan language could have come from the Alps after Italic was already spoken in Italy
Etruscans had like 85% R1b (P312 and U106) and the rest G2a
Was there really only 3 samples for etruscan? And one was half neolithoc Moroccan haha
>Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals) and Latin (n = 6) groups.
No it sounds like you missed the paper
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673
I just copy pasted from the paper
>An Etruscan individual (R475) carries significant African ancestry identified by f-statistics (|Z-score|>3; fig. S23) and can be modeled with ~53% ancestry from Late Neolithic Moroccan (table S19). Together these results suggest substantial genetic heterogeneity within the Etruscan (n = 3 individuals)
The etruscans were published afterward.
See:
ROMAN DIDN'T BURY THEIR DEAD THEY CREMATED THEM
>ROMAN DIDN'T BURY THEIR DEAD THEY CREMATED THEM
ROMAN DIDN'T BURY THEIR DEAD THEY CREMATED THEM
>ROMAN DIDN'T BURY THEIR DEAD THEY CREMATED THEM
True cremation was more common for romans
Can't even plural.
But you are right, and it's unfortunate because we won't ever know the real genetic makeup of Romans.
Which is why I posit they were in actuality twa pygmies.
>Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolian heritage?
Aeneas?
I swear to God the spergs who post muh g25 and dna shit don't even know how to read it or critically think about it
G25 was a mistake. Most people who use it couldn't even pass high school statistics, they don't even know what G25 actually is. That's why they trust it so much.
In a good world, we'd be all speaking oscan.