Romans were Anatolians

>"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?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who was hiding it? They had a whole foundation myth about being the descendants of the Trojans, and Troy was in Anatolia

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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,"

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        What biases?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >WITH A CAR, I CAN GO ANYWHERE

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't, they claimed descent of Romulus from Aeneas of Troy

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      See

      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,"

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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,"

        But the point is that they did know about it and record it

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait were Latins white

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >post Imperial Rome was native Italians again
            Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared? Modern Rome is populated by hispanics that raped wogs, nothing Italic.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared?
            Alaric revitalised the region with fresh Steppe seed.

            >Modern Rome is populated by hispanics 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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Northern Italy has more light hair

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            >meanwhile in reality the whole history of europe is med bois being crushed like little rats by nordic and slavic men

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            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.

            Nice meltdown, degenerates. Celts were brown spics, cry about it.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Celts were Whiter than Norwegians.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Kek, how would those shitskins just disappeared?
            Genocided by germanics.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          it's referring to cross-empire geneflow, not the founding of rome

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what DNA samples are they comparing it to from the founding of Rome?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Iron Age and Republic era Italic and Etruscan samples.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is the pic from the study? Why are they using neolithic Anatolia? That's general EEF Movement into europe

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which one is supposed to be republic rome in the graph?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Etruscan - red. Latin samples look the same.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            tuscany is north of rome. Both were from central europe, probably.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's in a different study.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Same shit.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            they plot more or less identically with etruscans

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolian heritage?
    They didn't. Guess what place stayed under unbroken roman control for over 1000 years

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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,"

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wow it’s almost like there’s an Anglo bias toward Latins.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Damn the Latins and Italic tribe from the South conquered northerners?! And we have DNA evidence, Linguistic evidence and historical evidence?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wow it’s almost like there’s an Anglo bias toward Latins.

            >meanwhile in reality the whole history of europe is med bois being crushed like little rats by nordic and slavic men

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Not something ancient writers knew at the time"

    What about Aeneas

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >r1b women

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes r1b men who had daughters were marrying Latins from Central Italy.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Women don't have a paternal haplogroup you mong

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            most slaves were celtic and iberian while free men and citizens in rome came from the hellenic east

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Celtic and greek, aemilius Paulus crashed the price of slaves alone from how many Greeks he captured

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Some do you bigot

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe he means trans women

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schizo brown thread.
    Schizo brown thread.

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those all were slaves with some plebians, the patrician type stayed the same as in Republic and was literally Celtic.

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are they plotting further from neolithic Anatolia? Were neolithic anatolians replaced to a large degree by Greco-Roman Roman's then?

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did complain about the MENA filth infesting Italy though

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can you link the studies

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      "Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean"

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, both Etruscans and Latins were dominated by R1b. Etruscans were 80-90% R1b.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Etruscans had like 85% R1b (P312 and U106) and the rest G2a

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Etruscan language could have come from the Alps after Italic was already spoken in Italy

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Etruscans had like 85% R1b (P312 and U106) and the rest G2a

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      No it sounds like you missed the paper
      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I just copy pasted from the paper

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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)

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The etruscans were published afterward.
      See:

      [...]
      Same shit.

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      True cremation was more common for romans

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Roman historians hide their Anatolian heritage?
    Aeneas?

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    In a good world, we'd be all speaking oscan.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *