Ancient Roman samples coming soon!

[Token]

This post was made by Anthrogenica user Ryukendo.


Presentation by Hannah Moots. No pictures, not allowed. Paper coming out in a couple of months, done with Pinhasi and Pritchard.
134 genomes, spanning 12000s BP to Renaissance and enlightenment. 0.5-3.5X coverage.

Vast majority of sampling sites concentrated in Rome and surrounds, lowlands of Latium around the Tiber River, up to Ostia, almost all restricted to Lazio. Some extend to Abruzzo, South Le Marche, none, or maybe one, in Tuscany, and on the South of Tuscany if that.

Couple of samples from Sardinia.

I'll give a PCA position and a ADMIXTURE description for each time period. Note that the ADMIXTURE only had Iranian, EEF, WHG, EHG and Levant_N, no CHG. Where Iran N appears, it may be a stand-in for CHG. There is something quite puzzling in the list below, mislabeling in the slides? But that doesn't explain it either.

UPPER PALEOLITHIC
All WHG

NEOLITHIC
Mostly EEF, some WHG. Some Iran_N, quite a significant quantity, as much as WHG. PCA position Between Sardinia and Maltese, east of Sardinia, closer to Sardinia than to Maltese. Very homogeneous.

BRONZE AGE (EARLY)
Overlaps modern-day Sardinia, Iran_N percentage declines, WHG and EEF increases
(Note that this represents a Europeanisation of the gene pool!) Very homogeneous.

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

AFTER
Resemble modern central Italians.

[Token]

So the Collegno trio were not just outliying immigrants in the peninsula. We underestimated the Longobard impact in Central Italy.

[renaissance12]

Er legionario magna e la civirtà camina.

Nun ve montate la capoccia, e ricordateve chi sete. Ma quale civiltà, romani? Pe' tirà su 'na casa che nun fosse 'na catapecchia avete dovuto ricorre a li greci (però prima je avete dovuto mena'). I ritratti, le pitture a sguazzo, i pupazzi de marmo e de bronzo, li nonni morti a mezzo busto... quelli ve li sete fatti fa' da li etruschi (a forza di sganassoni). Quanno, poi, s'è trattato de scrive' du righe de storia patria, avete dovuto pija' in ostaggio 'n artro greco, Polibio, perché a Roma quello che sa scrive' mejo, sì e no, sa fa la firma. Dice "C'avemo Plauto che scrive le commedie!"... un par de ciufole. Ma che scrive Plauto? Plauto copia, copia le commedie dei greci e dice che le ha inventate lui. Per cui, 'a giovanotti, io ve sto pe' dà 'na gran brutta notizia: tutta 'sta civiltà, 'sta coltura vostra non è altro che bottino de guerra.

[renaissance12]

Er legionario magna e la civirtà camina.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cJLrMYNH4mk/U_I7AqgsUAI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/UZXekHJaqVQ/s1600/scipione001xy1.jpg

Nun ve montate la capoccia, e ricordateve chi sete. Ma quale civiltà, romani? Pe' tirà su 'na casa che nun fosse 'na catapecchia avete dovuto ricorre a li greci (però prima je avete dovuto mena'). I ritratti, le pitture a sguazzo, i pupazzi de marmo e de bronzo, li nonni morti a mezzo busto... quelli ve li sete fatti fa' da li etruschi (a forza di sganassoni). Quanno, poi, s'è trattato de scrive' du righe de storia patria, avete dovuto pija' in ostaggio 'n artro greco, Polibio, perché a Roma quello che sa scrive' mejo, sì e no, sa fa la firma. Dice "C'avemo Plauto che scrive le commedie!"... un par de ciufole. Ma che scrive Plauto? Plauto copia, copia le commedie dei greci e dice che le ha inventate lui. Per cui, 'a giovanotti, io ve sto pe' dà 'na gran brutta notizia: tutta 'sta civiltà, 'sta coltura vostra non è altro che bottino de guerra.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d4xXvF2ukY

[Vasconcelos]

So the "nordic" Romans were actually rather similar to modern South Italians/Sicilians :lol:

[renaissance12]

So the "nordic" Romans were actually rather similar to modern South Italians/Sicilians :lol:


Nordic "Romans" ????

Er legionario magna e la civirtà camina.

[Token]

So the "nordic" Romans were actually rather similar to modern South Italians/Sicilians :lol:

Interestingly modern people from Rome and surroundings cluster tightly with Tuscans and significantly north of Sicilians. We are certainly seeing the impact of barbarian migrations here.

[Vasconcelos]

Interestingly modern people from Rome and surroundings cluster tightly with Tuscans and significantly north of Sicilians. We are certainly seeing the impact of barbarian migrations here.

Yeah probably. Either that or people from north Italy moved south into Rome since the Roman period, however that would mean the Collegno individuals were outliers, and at the moment that doesn't seem to be the case

[Joso]

At least they didn't looked like Iberians

[Vid Flumina]

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy

= Italic stock upper class

[Voskos]

So this confirms that the shift towards northern levant came as a result of the roman empire expansion and not after arab conquests as some people claim.

[J. Ketch]

= Italic stock upper class
The real Romans.

[Leto]

The real Romans.
And the rest were just Romanians and Romanis xD

[IncelSlayer]

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.



So on average they plotted like this, stormfronters on suicide watch

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/511337979780792327/543040133075828746/unknown.png



LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.


Starting with the end of the Western Roman Empire from the invasion of germanic + different other barbaric types we see the N.Italian cluster was coined and later,during middle ages, as these people moved further south, the c.italian cluster appeared

[IncelSlayer]

= Italic stock upper class

lmfao 60% is majority, by definition not upper class....:lol::lol:



IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.


This means that during early Iron Age some unknown population colonized Italian Peninsula,probably similar to siccilians like that mycenaean_ba sample, which leveled the population back to a s.italian cluster, could those be trojans since their region might've been NW Anatolia?We know greeks didnt reach as far as N.Italy, that's why


By contrast, data from five southern Greek Neolithic individuals (labelled ‘Peloponnese_Neolithic’)—three (plus one that has previously been published26) from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave—are not consistent with descent from the same source population as other European farmers. D statistics (Supplementary Table 2) show that these ‘Peloponnese Neolithic’ individuals, dated to around 4000 BC, are shifted away from WHG, and towards CHG, relative to northwestern-Anatolian Neolithic and Balkan Neolithic individuals. We detect the same pattern in a single Neolithic individual from Krepost in present-day Bulgaria (I0679_d, 5718–5626 BC). An even more marked shift towards CHG has previously been observed in individuals associated with the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures26, suggesting gene flow into the region from populations with CHG-rich ancestry throughout the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Possible sources are from people related to the Neolithic population of the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Çiftlik21, or the Aegean site of Kumtepe11, who are also shifted towards CHG relative to northwestern-Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians10,26

[Smeagol]

Seems foreigners really did have a big impact on Roman genetics in the Imperial period. Matches what we know from history.

[Smaug]

So the "nordic" Romans were actually rather similar to modern South Italians/Sicilians :lol:

Nordic Romans?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

So if not for lot of barbarian sperm in medieval era modern Italians would plot like Sicilians.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Seems foreigners really did have a big impact on Roman genetics in the Imperial period. Matches what we know from history.

Yes, foreigners from northern Europe did have impact. Seems like ancient Greeks and Romans were complete wogs before they got cucked by barbarians. Both were lot more southern shifted than their modern descendants.

[Vasconcelos]

Nordic Romans?

What, you never read ignorant comments coming from nordicists and nordic-wannabes on this forum and others suchlike? I still remember people drooling over March of the Titans and other ridiculous sources

[Marolinepint]

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.


I'M LAUGHING VIGOROUSLY IN PADANIAN LOL. WE WUZ PATRICIANS.

MEDSHITS AND NORTHCUCKS ON SUICIDE WATCH. SUCK MY PATRICIAN PADANIAN C*OCK.

[Peterski]

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

So ancient Romans were initially more northern-shifted than modern Central Italians?

[Marolinepint]

Yes, foreigners from northern Europe did have impact. Seems like ancient Greeks and Romans were complete wogs before they got cucked by barbarians. Both were lot more southern shifted than their modern descendants.

NO SHIT, READ:


Vast majority of sampling sites concentrated in Rome and surrounds, lowlands of Latium around the Tiber River, up to Ostia, almost all restricted to Lazio. Some extend to Abruzzo, South Le Marche, none, or maybe one, in Tuscany, and on the South of Tuscany if that.

and


IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.[/B]

SO WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT 60 FUCKING PERCENT OF THE ROMAN POPULATION LIVING IN ROME AND SURROUNDS (THE PATRICIANS) WERE NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE. I WILL REPEAT. 60 FUCKING PERCENT (THE FUCKING MAJORITY) OF THE ROMAN POPULATION LIVING IN ROME AND SURROUNDS, NOT IN NORTHERN ITALY OR SOUTHERN ITALY, BUT IN FUCKING ROME AND SURROUNDS, WAS NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE. MIND THAT TODAY, THERE ARE NO ROMANS WHO CLUSTER WITHIN THE NORTHERN ITALIAN CLUSTER.

IT FEELS GOOD TO LEARN THAT AUGUSTUS WAS PADANIAN.

https://i.imgur.com/K7HQp0h.jpg

[Peterski]

So the "nordic" Romans were actually rather similar to modern South Italians/Sicilians :lol:

What do you mean? It clearly says: REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC) - 60% of samples overlap with Northern Italy.

And those samples were from Central Italy. So Republican Latium was more northern-shifted than modern Latium.

[Marolinepint]

So ancient Romans were initially more northern-shifted than modern Central Italians?

The Patricians were. The plebs were Southern Italian-like, therefore more southern-shifted than modern Central Italians from Lazio. Modern Central Italians are the result of Northern Italian-like Patricians mixing with Southern Italian-like Plebeians.

[Marolinepint]

Double post.

[Smaug]

What, you never read ignorant comments coming from nordicists and nordic-wannabes on this forum and others suchlike? I still remember people drooling over March of the Titans and other ridiculous sources

Only Nordicists like to claim Romans were Nordic. Stupid people.

[IncelSlayer]

NO SHIT, READ:


No you dumb shit read better, during IMPERIAL PERIOD all romans seemed to be between Greeks and S.Italians/Sicilians.
Augustus was actually the one to start this period and he would've clustered nowhere near C.Italians, let alone N.Italians.Actually he was short and had a monobrow, chances are he clustered with cypriots than to n.italians.


What do you mean? It clearly says: REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC) - 60% of samples overlap with Northern Italy.

And those samples were from Central Italy. So Republican Latium was more northern-shifted than modern Latium.

Romans were a cluster of many populations, the theoretically Bell Beakers italics were natives and were slowly replaced starting with early Iron Age.If anything the plebeians were italics, who were in majority.
Rome as we know it was during the Imperial period.

[Peterski]

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

^^^ They probably sampled mostly cosmopolitan urban population.

There were Middle Eastern people even in Roman Britain (York), but rural population was most certainly not so MENA-admixed as multicultural cities of the Empire. Hell, even in Viking Age Sweden, far northern Europe, towns were multicultural and multi-ethnic with people of immigrant origin (see: samples from Sigtuna).


AFTER
Resemble modern central Italians.

Because MENA-shifted urban poor mixed with more northern-shifted rural surroundings (as people moved from villages to cities or vice versa), simple as that.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

It's much more likely 40% of Sicilian like Romans in Republican period were elite compared to 60% of those similar to North Italians.

Elite is always minority not majority lmao, as IncelSlayer said.

[Vasconcelos]

What do you mean? It clearly says: REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC) - 60% of samples overlap with Northern Italy.

And those samples were from Central Italy. So Republican Latium was more northern-shifted than modern Latium.

From a 700 year period of which there are no more precise dating.

Which was followed by the "Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians" in the Imperial period, which started in 27BC and lasted half the previous period. Besides there's nothing suggesting they were "patricians", considering Etruscans already plotted there (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg). The ancient more north-shifted population of Latium was completely replaced by more mediterranean folk. This talk of patricians being north shifted and plebs being south shifted isn't based on anything other than stereotype

[Peterski]

It's much more likely 40% of Sicilian like Romans in Republican period were elite compared to 60% of those similar to North Italians.

60% were ethnic Romans and 40% were ethnic foreigners assimilated by the Romans, simple as that.

As for who was elite - you don't judge it base on DNA but based on grave goods (context of the burial).

[Peterski]

It's much more likely 40% of Sicilian like Romans in Republican period were elite compared to 60% of those similar to North Italians.

60% were ethnic Romans and 40% were ethnic foreigners* assimilated by the Romans, simple as that.

As for who was elite - you don't judge it base on DNA but based on grave goods (context of the burial).

*Etruscans, Greeks, etc.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

60% were ethnic Romans and 40% were ethnic foreigners assimilated by the Romans, simple as that.

As for who was elite - you don't judge it base on DNA but based on grave goods (context of the burial).

This is just your idea, from what I see there is no mention southern shifted Romans were foreign.

[Peterski]

This is just your idea, from what I see there is no mention southern shifted Romans were foreign.

I mean they could be Etruscans - who were neighbours of Rome. I didn't mean foreign as "immigrants from far away".

[Marolinepint]

No you dumb shit read better, during IMPERIAL PERIOD all romans seemed to be between Greeks and S.Italians/Sicilians.
Augustus was actually the one to start this period and he would've clustered nowhere near C.Italians, let alone N.Italians.Actually he was short and had a monobrow, chances are he clustered with cypriots than to n.italians.



Romans were a cluster of many populations, the theoretically Bell Beakers italics were natives and were slowly replaced starting with early Iron Age.If anything the plebeians were italics, who were in majority.
Rome as we know it was during the Imperial period.

LOL, AND WHERE DID THE REPUBLICAN ERA NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE POPULATION IN ROME GO? IT WAS THE FUCKING 60% OF THE POPULATION. I'LL TELL YOU WHERE. THEY SETTLED EN MASSE IN NORTHERN ITALY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY INHABITED BY CELTS.

[Peterski]

This is just your idea, from what I see there is no mention southern shifted Romans were foreign.

I mean they could be Etruscans, etc. - who were neighbours of Rome. I didn't mean foreign as "immigrants from far away".

Ethnic groups in Italy around 400 BC:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Italy_400bC_en.svg/2000px-Italy_400bC_en.svg.png

[lonewolfcypriot]

According to the Roman origin myths. They were Trojan refugees who migrated to Italy so if this is true than the Romans could possibly be more Eastern shifted, they would probably plot close to Cypriots I would imagine.

[IncelSlayer]

60% were ethnic Romans and 40% were ethnic foreigners assimilated by the Romans, simple as that.

As for who was elite - you don't judge it base on DNA but based on grave goods (context of the burial).

So according to you , starting with Imperial period and until late middle ages, most italians were foreigners
lmfao at this cope

The 60% were remains of bell beakers, they were blacksmiths and sheperds while Rome started as a farming based colony on the Mediterranean.
The elite were the ones who brought the customs/traditions/panthenon, and sure as hell weren't Bell Beakers.
The only reason Rome became Rome and not remained another Bell Beaker shithole like in Iberia is because of those "foreigners" that the native italics assimilated.
Its as simple as that.

[Token]

One year ago Peterski said that the Collegno outliera were Jews refugees. Now his brand new theory: one hundred of Sicilian-like samples living in the hearth of Rome are all MENA immigrants and the real Latins are all hidden in countryside farms. Talk about being in denial :laugh:

[Marolinepint]

No you dumb shit read better, during IMPERIAL PERIOD all romans seemed to be between Greeks and S.Italians/Sicilians.
Augustus was actually the one to start this period and he would've clustered nowhere near C.Italians, let alone N.Italians.Actually he was short and had a monobrow, chances are he clustered with cypriots than to n.italians.



Romans were a cluster of many populations, the theoretically Bell Beakers italics were natives and were slowly replaced starting with early Iron Age.If anything the plebeians were italics, who were in majority.
Rome as we know it was during the Imperial period.

LOL, AND WHERE DID THE REPUBLICAN ERA NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE POPULATION IN ROME GO? IT WAS THE FUCKING 60% OF THE POPULATION. I'LL TELL YOU WHERE. THEY SETTLED EN MASSE IN NORTHERN ITALY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY INHABITED BY CELTS.

[IncelSlayer]

LOL, AND WHERE DID THE REPUBLICAN ERA NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE POPULATION IN ROME GO?

They were slaughtered :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Trojan king Aeneas defeating the king of italics Turnus

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/65/a8/d165a8e5c8f662b7eb7141152e0c0580.jpg

Northern Italy was a galo-celtic shithole throughout its history, until refugees from Constantinople(that n.italians like venezians previously sacked) came.

[Peterski]

One year ago Peterski said that the Collegno outliera were Jews refugees.

Ancient North Italy had large Jewish communities:

http://www.theopavlidis.com/MidEast/part10.htm

By the way:

Early Christians were mostly of Jewish origin and they mostly spread through migration (yes, huge groups of Christians migrated from the Levant to Italy, and only later they started enjoying some success in converting the locals to Christianity as well). That's what I said too - that Collegno outliers could be Christians as well.

They could also be Greeks, or anything similar.

[gıulıoımpa]

what people forget is that the italian peninsula had been a mosaic of different civilazions with different origins from quite a long time before 700 bc, so every hypothesis does not fight each other here.

[Vasconcelos]

LOL, AND WHERE DID THE REPUBLICAN ERA NORTHERN ITALIAN-LIKE POPULATION IN ROME GO? IT WAS THE FUCKING 60% OF THE POPULATION. I'LL TELL YOU WHERE. THEY SETTLED EN MASSE IN NORTHERN ITALY, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY INHABITED BY CELTS.

Are you so young that you need to type in caps in order to get attention?

It's not "60 % of the population", it's "60% of the samples spanning a 700 year period", which by the time it ended was clearly Sicilian-like. Obviously the previous north-shifted population was absorbed by the southern folks, of East Med-extraction, which does explain why the Orientalising period was so important, and why so much of Rome history and culture has similarity with Greeks. It was brought by people, not just adopted due to contact. The "pots not people" mumbo-jumbo is rubbish.

[IncelSlayer]

Ancient North Italy had large Jewish communities:

http://www.theopavlidis.com/MidEast/part10.htm

By the way:

Early Christians were mostly of Jewish origin and they mostly spread through migration (yes, huge groups of Christians migrated from the Levant to Italy, and only later they started enjoying some suceess in converting the locals to Christianity as well). That's what I said too - that Collegno outliers could be Christians as well.

They could also be Greeks, or anything similar.

You're hitting yourself in the foot again.

Iron age era romans were barely 60% N.italian like, rest was Siccilian like but during Imperial time romans were almost entirely siccilian like, so that means that atleast starting with half of Iron Age, romans were in majority siccilian like unless starting with Imperial Era someone snapped his finger and all N.Italian like romans vanished.

Btw Etruscans were Bronze Age natives, because the Villanovan culture came from Urnfield culture, keep coping, they were metalworkers, clearly Bell beaker in origin.

[Peterski]

Which was followed by the "Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians" in the Imperial period, which started in 27BC and lasted half the previous period. Besides there's nothing suggesting they were "patricians", considering Etruscans already plotted there (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg). The ancient more north-shifted population of Latium was completely replaced by more mediterranean folk. This talk of patricians being north shifted and plebs being south shifted isn't based on anything other than stereotype

But it is well known that Rome was experiencing a Migrant Crisis during the Imperial Period.

It just confirms that there was huge MENA immigration, something already this study found:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Obviously the previous north-shifted population was absorbed by the southern folks, of East Med-extraction, which does explain why the Orientalising period was so important, and why so much of Rome history and culture has similarity with Greeks.

This.

[Peterski]

One year ago Peterski said that the Collegno outliera were Jews refugees. Now his brand new theory: one hundred of Sicilian-like samples living in the hearth of Rome are all MENA immigrants and the real Latins are all hidden in countryside farms. Talk about being in denial :laugh:

Just like in France today - Paris is full of "refugees" and the real Frenchmen are all hidden in countryside farms. :)

What is so strange about it? It is well known that Rome experienced a Migrant Crisis similar to the modern one.

[Vasconcelos]

But it is well known that Rome was experiencing a Migrant Crisis during the Imperial Period.

It just confirms that there was huge MENA immigration, something already this study found:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

You should get a medal for the excuses and absolute denial you're in.

[Peterski]

You should get a medal for the excuses and absolute denial you're in.

Just look at the difference between Republican vs. Imperial samples, and you can see that Migrant Crisis which altered Rome's genetics is confirmed.

But I suppose that it did not affect the countryside as much as it affected the biggest cities (from which the samples were collected, apparently).

Later those native peasants mixed back into cities, thus causing the northern shift and the emergence of modeen Central Italian genetic profile.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Just look at the difference between Republic and Imperial samples, and you can see that Migrant Crisis which altered Rome's genetics is confirmed...

What about migrant crisis that altered western Polish gene-pool from full Balto-Slavic to almost half Deutsch like in your case brother ?

[Vasconcelos]

Just look at the difference between Republic and Imperial samples, and you can see that Migrant Crisis which altered Rome's genetics is confirmed...

But I suppose that it did not affect the countryside as much as it affected the biggest cities (from which the samples were collected, apparently).

If you're in denial, yes it does.

By the way, Ryukendo added:


There were very few samples from the Iron Age to republican period, at most 8 or smth like that, so the N Italy overlap group had few samples too.

The vast majority were imperial and late antiquity samples, 40% of the total sampling.

There were many more sites than Isola Sacra.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Looks like I hit a nerve. :cry2

[Leto]

What about migrant crisis that altered western Polish gene-pool from full Balto-Slavic to almost half Deutsch like in your case brother ?
Poles are not half German, that's an exagerration. The Germanic influence is not that large.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Poles are not half German, that's an exagerration. The Germanic influence is not that large.

Ofcourse they aren't. I am talking about Peterski. He is and he hates that about himself. Probably a reason for his huge Germanophobia

[IncelSlayer]

If you're in denial, yes it does.

By the way, Ryukendo added:


There were very few samples from the Iron Age to republican period, at most 8 or smth like that, so the N Italy overlap group had few samples too.

The vast majority were imperial and late antiquity samples, 40% of the total sampling.

There were many more sites than Isola Sacra.

HAHAHA so we dont even know if the 60-40 figure during Early Iron Age-Republican is true

[Peterski]

Only 8 samples? Okay so let's wait for more samples from the Iron Age to Republican period with definite conclusions.

This is the most important period but they collected only 8 samples from this period? What dumbos made this study? :)

[Smeagol]

Yes, foreigners from northern Europe did have impact. Seems like ancient Greeks and Romans were complete wogs before they got cucked by barbarians. Both were lot more southern shifted than their modern descendants.

The Imperial period Romans were more southern shifted than the Republican era ones (a majority of whom clustered with North Italians) There seems to have been significant MENA and Greek migration in the earlier Empire which was counterbalanced to some extent by the Barbarian invasions in late Antiquity.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

The Imperial period Romans were more southern shifted than the Republican era ones (a majority of whom clustered with North Italians) There seems to have been significant MENA and Greek migration in the earlier Empire which was counterbalanced to some extent by the Barbarian invasions in late Antiquity.

Majority of 8 samples ? It's 5 samples man. Imperial era has much more samples.

[Leto]

Ofcourse they aren't. I am talking about Peterski. He is and he hates that about himself. Probably a reason for his huge Germanophobia
Yes, he is obsessed with deconstructing the Germans which is lame of him. If you want my personal opinion, all this intra-European infighting is very detrimental because these days Europeans have much bigger problems and challenges.

[Smeagol]

Majority of 8 samples ? It's 5 samples man. Imperial era has much more samples.

Well when we get more Republican era samples we'll see if what I wrote is accurate.

[JQP4545]

This post was made by Anthrogenica user Ryukendo.


Presentation by Hannah Moots. No pictures, not allowed. Paper coming out in a couple of months, done with Pinhasi and Pritchard.
134 genomes, spanning 12000s BP to Renaissance and enlightenment. 0.5-3.5X coverage.

Vast majority of sampling sites concentrated in Rome and surrounds, lowlands of Latium around the Tiber River, up to Ostia, almost all restricted to Lazio. Some extend to Abruzzo, South Le Marche, none, or maybe one, in Tuscany, and on the South of Tuscany if that.

Couple of samples from Sardinia.

I'll give a PCA position and a ADMIXTURE description for each time period. Note that the ADMIXTURE only had Iranian, EEF, WHG, EHG and Levant_N, no CHG. Where Iran N appears, it may be a stand-in for CHG. There is something quite puzzling in the list below, mislabeling in the slides? But that doesn't explain it either.

UPPER PALEOLITHIC
All WHG

NEOLITHIC
Mostly EEF, some WHG. Some Iran_N, quite a significant quantity, as much as WHG. PCA position Between Sardinia and Maltese, east of Sardinia, closer to Sardinia than to Maltese. Very homogeneous.

BRONZE AGE (EARLY)
Overlaps modern-day Sardinia, Iran_N percentage declines, WHG and EEF increases
(Note that this represents a Europeanisation of the gene pool!) Very homogeneous.

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

AFTER
Resemble modern central Italians.

Where have you found samples from the Republican and Imperial period if the paper has not come out yet?

[Peterski]

Where have you found samples from the Republican and Imperial period if the paper has not come out yet?

Good question. Have the genomes been published already?

[Vasconcelos]

HAHAHA so we dont even know if the 60-40 figure during Early Iron Age-Republican is true

It was probably a gradual change from North-Italian-like to Sicilian like over time, as the settlement grew from the woodhuts of the Latial culture on a hilltop into a city.


Where have you found samples from the Republican and Imperial period if the paper has not come out yet?

It was from a presentation in California, Ryukendo was present and made a summary on anthrogenica. The paper will be published in a few months

[J. Ketch]

I remember reading an estimate that at one time the population of Imperial Rome was 10% Jewish. I don't see why anything Peterski has said is a stretch. Rome was always known as a city of foreigners. The idea of a huge Germanic input in Rome from early Medieval invasions however, creating modern Central Italians, seems far more of a stretch.

Do Central Italians even show any Germanic genetic signature?

[Vasconcelos]

I remember reading an estimate that at one time the population of Imperial Rome was 10% Jewish. I don't see why anything Peterski has said is a stretch. Rome was always known as a city of foreigners. The idea of a huge Germanic input in Rome from early Medieval invasions however, creating modern Central Italians, seems far more of a stretch.

Do Central Italians even show any Germanic genetic signature?

Excuses, excuses. The study wasn't just form Rome alone, and what's the source of that figure?

[IncelSlayer]

I remember reading an estimate that at one time the population of Imperial Rome was 10% Jewish. I don't see why anything Peterski has said is a stretch. Rome was always known as a city of foreigners. The idea of a huge Germanic input in Rome from early Medieval invasions however, creating modern Central Italians, seems far more of a stretch.

Do Central Italians even show any Germanic genetic signature?

You got autism?Almost entire Rome during Imperial time was made of jews?

[Peterski]

You got autism?Almost entire Rome during Imperial time was made of jews?

Jews in Ancient Rome:

https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/diaspora/jewish-rome/

"It is possible to estimate the number of Roman Jews during the reign of Augustus. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions a lawsuit in which 8,000 Jews from Rome sided with one of the parties. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 2.80.] They must have been adult men, because women and children were not permitted to take part in a lawsuit. Since a nuclear family consisted of at least four or five members, there must have been some 40,000 Jews. It is likely that this number rose after the mass deportation of prisoners of war after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This is mirrored by the enormous size of the Monteverde catacomb."

Jewish catacombs in Rome (is this where they collected their Imperial era DNA samples from? :p):

http://www.catacombsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The_Monteverde_Jewish_Catacombs_on_the_v.pdf

http://www.catacombsociety.org/jewish-catacombs-of-rome/

Many of the Early Christians were also of immigrant background (from the Levant / Near East):

http://www.catacombsociety.org/wp-content/gallery/randanini-guided-tour/Randanini-slideshow-1.jpg

[Token]

Peterski summed up:

https://fs.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Confirmation-Bias.png

[Vasconcelos]

I hope you realise that the fact that ancient Romans being Sicilian-like just further reinforces the suspicion that Jews are at least of partial Roman extraction, not the other way around. Anthrogenica has a good thread about that subject

[Peterski]

(...)

You should finally see the Jews!: :)

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

[IncelSlayer]

J

Bullshit, Rome had hundreds of thousands of citizens.What were the chances almost all of the samples were of non-romans?1 in a few hundred millions.The only foreigners were the jewish&syrian&cypriot like samples.
Even if we trust the 60-40 figure from Early Iron Age we can see that romans were already becoming siccilian,greek,s.italian like even before that, before any christian or jew.

It is clear that the N.italian like "romans"(actually metalworkers and sheperds without any identity) were in majority starting with Bronze Age, and they were soon replaced by romans.This is also what history tells us.

[Token]

What we clearly see here is:

1. North Italian-like Italic tribes migrating south and being gradually absorbed by locals by the Iron Age.
2. Formation of a 'basal' Sicilian-like Roman genetic profile by the Imperial period that lasted until the beginning of the Middle Ages.
3. Northern European introgression after the barbarian migrations during early Medieval times, pulling Central Italians towards Northwestern Europe and ultimately forming the modern Central Italian genetic profile.

[Peterski]

Bullshit, Rome had hundreds of thousands of citizens.

It had over 40,000 Jews already under Augustus - this number later increased after 70 CE with new Jewish refugees coming.

Around 10% of Rome were Jews, easily. And what about all other types of foreign communities and Diasporas living there?

[SardiniaAtlantis]

It seems the theory of some Sardinian historians that the founders were very close to Sardinians is true!

[IncelSlayer]

It had over 40,000 Jews already under Augustus - this number later increased after 70 CE with new Jewish refugees coming.

Around 10% of Rome were Jews, easily. And what about all other types of foreign communities and Diasporas living there?

Then according to you this study proves that during Imperial Time no roman lived in Rome and outskirt, they were all hiding.You're still hitting yourself in the foot since that would mean that the "original" romans who presumbly dissapeared suddently were inferior, they got replaced.You can't win this.

[Token]

Do Central Italians even show any Germanic genetic signature?

You can model Central Italians as mostly Sicilian with ~25% Medieval Germanic admixture without any problem.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

I love that we always told the Nordicist retards that the ancient Romans were much more like us than them, and they never listened choosing instead to believe in fantasies.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

It seems the theory of some Sardinian historians that the founders were very close to Sardinians is true!

From my understanding Romans were closer to modern Sicilians rather than North Italians and Tuscans, not Sardinians. Sardinians plot miles away from Sicilians, they are not even close.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

From my understanding Romans were closer to modern Sicilians rather than North Italians and Tuscans, not Sardinians. Sardinians plot miles away from Sicilians, they are not even close.

Look at the founding populations.

[Peterski]

You can model Central Italians as mostly Sicilian with ~25% Medieval Germanic admixture without any problem.

And no Italic? No Celtic? Come on! Those were Indo-European peoples, so they were northern-shifted genetically compared to Sicilians.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Look at the founding populations.

Most of Europe was "Sardinian" like at a certain period of time, so that's not something new. I thought you were talking about the Romans.

[IncelSlayer]

We already have samples from BA Italy, they were for sure almost entirely R1b with occasional G2a.Now if what Petersky says is true and proto-romans were N.Italy then how come Rome didn't develop earlier, starting with Bronze Age?The reality is that these plebeians italic R1b's remnants of Bell Beakers were assimilated by an alpha ba_mycenaean like population starting with Early Iron Age, the real proto-romans, who brought the customs,traditions&religion.

Reminds me of the time aryans who invaded India were proven as more savage and less advanced than local negrito dravidians, another hit for indo-european copists :lol::lol::lol:

[J. Ketch]

You can model Central Italians as mostly Sicilian with ~25% Medieval Germanic admixture without any problem.
I don't buy it, considering how low the potential Germanic haplogroups are for Latium.

https://i.postimg.cc/c1g3Bm0g/gOUM8Bf.png

[Peterski]

I don't buy it, considering how low the potential Germanic haplogroups are for Latium.

https://i.postimg.cc/c1g3Bm0g/gOUM8Bf.png

^^^
Maybe the invading Germanic Longobards were all women?: :p

https://c.wallhere.com/photos/30/9f/Katheryn_Winnick_Vikings_Vikings_TV_series_blonde_ actress_shield_warrior_women-157706.jpg!d

[Peterski]

This thread summarized:

"I'm so desperate to claim at least 10% Longobard admix that I will declare ancient Romans as genetically Sicilian and ignore Cisalpine Gaulish DNA just to prove it".

:picard1:

And of course massive denial about MENA immigration to Italy in Imperial Roman times (which was probably only limited to large cities, though):

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555 - this study proved it

[IncelSlayer]

This thread summarized:

"Ancient romans were wiped out after Bronze age by the same asteroid that wiped dinosaurs and the only ones that survived were the romans from villages who have dug advanced underground tunnels and only after middle ages they left their tunnels and started repopulating the italian peninsula"

[Peterski]

This thread summarized:

"Ancient romans were wiped out after Bronze age by the same asteroid that wiped dinosaurs and the only ones that survived were the romans from villages who have dug advanced underground tunnels and only after middle ages they left their tunnels and started repopulating the italian peninsula"

No, this thread was started by Token - the guy who claims that Iberians are basically double-digits Germanic while denying Viking admixture in Ireland... :picard1:

And Ruderico (here: Vasconcelos) is another well-known Germanic Wannabe from Anthrogenica.

I'm sure it is comfortable for them to claim that genetically Sicilian-like people created the Supreme Roman Civilization, but modern Italians are Germanic.

It is like combining Nordic Supremacism with Mediterranean Supremacism in one comfortable "mixed Nordic-Med supremacism".

[Token]

This thread summarized:

"I'm so desperate to claim at least 10% Longobard admix that I will declare ancient Romans as genetically Sicilian and ignore Cisalpine Gaulish DNA just to prove it".

:picard1:

And of course massive denial about MENA immigration to Italy in Imperial Roman times (which was probably only limited to large cities, though):

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555 - this study proved it

I have no North Italian ancestry so i don't have any motives to be emotionally invested in this thread. It doesn't seems to be your case as you keep twisting the facts in order to sustain your weird agenda.

Now stop derailing my thread with your autistic posts and lets go back to the track, or i will be forced to eliminate you.

[Peterski]

I have no North Italiam ancestry so i don't have any motives to be emotionally invested in this thread.

Yes you have Germanic ancestry, but you are also a Brazilian patriot, and that's why you keep trying to connect Iberians/Italians (Brazil's European ancestors) with Germanic people. For example in one thread you claimed that modern Iberians have a lot of Germanic ancestry, more than they have of Celtic ancestry.

At the same time you also claim that Irish people have close to 0% Germanic connections, unlike your "Super Germanic" Italians and Iberians.

Come on...

[Vasconcelos]

And Ruderico (here: Vasconcelos) is another well-known Germanic Wannabe from Anthrogenica.

"well-known Germanic wannabe"? Will you kindly fuck off? As far as Iberians are concearned I'm as ungermanic as we can be, and I couldn't care more or less. I never gave two shits about the topic, so stop spreading lies.

[Peterski]

"well-known Germanic wannabe"? Will you kindly fuck off? As far as Iberians are concearned I'm as ungermanic as we can be, and I couldn't care more or less. I never gave two shits about the topic, so stop spreading lies.

Okay, sorry for "accusations", but I was just going by your Anthrogenica posts where you wrote something along these lines:

"Oh I wonder why these Migration Period Germanics score so much Iberian on K36, maybe because their descendants contributed so much ancestry to modern Iberians" - no man, this Iberian mostly indicates Neolithic Farmer ancestry in those ancient Germanic people (obviously they had some!). :picard1:

[CommonSense]

Seems like Sikeliot can now finally rejoice knowing that the phenotypes he posts represented the standard Roman look during the Empire! :lmao

[JMack]

The alt-righters and nordicists trying to divert from the fact that Ancient Romans who they think were great and all that shit were closer to Tunisian Jews than to modern Northern and Central Europeans is quite ridiculous.
Imperial Romans were uniformly East-Med according to the data gathered by the OP, so it's likely that Cesar, Octavian (Augustus) et all were mighty Cypriots (lol) walking around and conquering blonde barbarians.

[Peterski]

The alt-righters and nordicists trying to divert Ancient Romans who they think were great and all that shit were closer to Tunisian Jews than to modern Northern and Central Europeans is quite ridiculous.
Imperial Romans were uniformly East-Med according to the date gathered by the OP, so it's likely Cesar, Octavian (Augustus) et all were mighty Cypriots (lol) walking around and conquering blonde barbarians.

The data indicates that most of Republican Romans were like modern North Italians.

This means that both Nordic supremacists will be disappointed (because North Italians are not Nordic), but also Longobard-Wannabes will be disappointed (because it means that modern Italians don't have any significant Germanic ancestry). Imperial Romans were largely immigrants from MENA regions, but they were not necessarily ancestral to modern Italians - because they were mostly urban plebeians, and cities had higher death rates than birth rates in ancient times (especially non-elites).

Cities also suffered the greatest degree of depopulation during the Collapse of thee Empire.

Modern Italians are descended from rural folks who survived upheavals of the Migration Period.

Cities mostly died out - Rome for example lost something like 90% of its population in the 400s.

[Vasconcelos]

Okay, sorry for "accusations", but I was just going by your Anthrogenica posts where you wrote something along these lines:

"Oh I wonder why these Migration Period Germanics score so much Iberian on K36, maybe because their descendants contributed so much ancestry to modern Iberians" - no man, this Iberian mostly indicates Neolithic Farmer ancestry in those ancient Germanic people (obviously they had some!). :picard1:

It was an hypothesis, how you got from that to "germanic-wannabe" is beyond me. Maybe you really are autistic as Token says

[Lucas]

There seems to have been significant MENA and Greek migration in the earlier Empire which was counterbalanced to some extent by the Barbarian invasions in late Antiquity.

I'm not sure about this theory so popular in this thread. What about similar high frequency of Germanic Y-DNA subclades in Central Italy? Considering fact Barbarians migrations were mostly driven by men.

[Peterski]

Population of the city of Rome throughout history. "Genetic Sicilians" living in Imperial Rome mostly got extinct, while peasants survived:

http://davidgalbraith.org/trivia/graph-of-the-population-of-rome-through-history/2189/

https://i.imgur.com/PoXIhe8.png

^^^ They should sample Imperial Roman farmers from villages around the city, they were the ancestors of modern Italians from Latium.

[JMack]

The data indicates that most of Republican Romans were like modern North Italians.

This means that both Nordic supremacists will be disappointed (because North Italians are not Nordic), but also Longobard-Wannabes will be disappointed (because it means that modern Italians don't have any significant Germanic ancestry). Imperial Romans were largely immigrants from MENA regions, but they were not necessarily ancestral to modern Italians - because they were mostly urban plebeians, and cities had higher death rates than birth rates in ancient times (especially non-elites).

Cities also suffered the greatest degree of depopulation during the Collapse of thee Empire.

Modern Italians are descended from rural folks who survived upheavals of the Migration Period.

Cities mostly died out - Rome for example lost something like 90% of its population in the 400s.

So Ancient Romans from the Empire basically disappeared? HAHAHA

Keep in mind that even in the Republican period 40% of them were like Sicilians according to the data. It's more likely that Cesar and the patricians were the 40% of Sicilians instead of the 60% of plebeians. Elites are always minority. But we can't speculate based on few Republican samples. Maybe it's also possible that Sicilian and North Italian types of individuals could be found among patricians and plebeians.

On the other hand:

Imperial Era Romans were homogeneously Eastern Mediterraneans, so it's likely that this type of genetic profile (which could also be found in the Republican period) is more or less native to the area. And, yeah, cities died out in PARTS of Italy, but their inhabitants didn't disappeared.

[Peterski]

So Ancient Romans from the Empire basically disappeared? HAHAHA

Urban folks basically disappeared, yes. They either died out (plagues, starvation) or were massacred by barbarians.

Look what happened to the population of the city of Rome during the 400s, Rome became a small town after that:

http://davidgalbraith.org/trivia/graph-of-the-population-of-rome-through-history/2189/

https://i.imgur.com/PoXIhe8.png

^^^ Modern population is descended overwhelmingly from rural population of Late Imperial times, who survived.

[J. Ketch]

The alt-righters and nordicists trying to divert from the fact that Ancient Romans who they think were great and all that shit were closer to Tunisian Jews than to modern Northern and Central Europeans is quite ridiculous.
Imperial Romans were uniformly East-Med according to the data gathered by the OP, so it's likely that Cesar, Octavian (Augustus) et all were mighty Cypriots (lol) walking around and conquering blonde barbarians.
https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

^^Real Romans.

[JMack]

Urban folks basically disappeared, yes. They either died out (plagues, starvation) or were massacred by barbarians.

Look what happened to the population of the city of Rome during the 400s, Rome became a small town after that:

http://davidgalbraith.org/trivia/graph-of-the-population-of-rome-through-history/2189/

https://i.imgur.com/PoXIhe8.png

^^^ Modern population is descended overwhelmingly from rural population of Late Imperial times, who survived.

We don't know exactly from where the population of modern Latium came from after the fall of the Roman and we couldn't know without testing the region's peasants. So everything is just specualtion until the study is available.

What we can know is that Sicilian-like individuals were present in a good proportion Central Italy in 600 b.CE what automatically discards Davidski ridiculous theory that Collegno samples were certainly Greeks.

[Peterski]

Imagine that some terrorists nuke London or Paris - how will it change the genetic profile of future generations of English / French people?

Well, London and Paris today are just as multicultural as Imperial Rome (the city itself) was.

[Token]

Yes you have Germanic ancestry, but you are also a Brazilian patriot, and that's why you keep trying to connect Iberians/Italians (Brazil's European ancestors) with Germanic people. For example in one thread you claimed that modern Iberians have a lot of Germanic ancestry, more than they have of Celtic ancestry.

At the same time you also claim that Irish people have close to 0% Germanic connections, unlike your "Super Germanic" Italians and Iberians.

Come on...

Hahahaha, nope. Everything i write is based on concrete genetic data, and i don't need to twist data like you do to sustain my propositions. Perphaps you are too egotistical to admit you were wrong all this time. The data shows that Iberians and Italians got Germanic admixture, which is kinda expectable when both spent centuries under Germanic rule (unlike the Irish), and there is nothing you can do to change it.

Sorry Peterski but you are the outlier now. Basically everyone here and on Anthrogenica acknowledges the impact of barbarian invasions in the formation of modern-day Italians, and that Romans were pretty much identical to Sicilians and South Italians, something that i was saying about a year ago. Even the author of the study believes that these changes were caused by migrations from outside the borders of Italy.

[JMack]

https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

^^Real Romans.

We would need to check the Latin text of all these authors to be sure if this data is really the truth. It's no secret that there was strong nordicist bias in classical scholarship from the 19th century and early 20th century. It has been corrected by modern classicists in most cases. The only two sources which talk about pigmentation in your link are from two dubious outdated German authors who were known nordicists (Günther and Sieglin). Big LOL.

So, no, citing outdated sources will not make your claim more truthful. Try again.
Also, modern Sicilians can be blonde or redheaded as well. Even Lebanese and Syrians have blondes among them, it means nothing.

[Peterski]

and that Romans were pretty much identical to Sicilians and South Italians, something that i was saying about a year ago

That's not what the data says - you said that 60% of Republican Roman samples from Latium are like modern Northern Italians.

Those were the original Romans.

Sampling Imperial Rome is like sampling modern London A.D. 2019 in order to see what the average Anglo-Saxon genetics was!

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

can somebody ban this autist ?

[Leto]

https://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm

^^Real Romans.
http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Commodus-featured.jpg

[IncelSlayer]

That's not what the data says - you said that 60% of Republican Roman samples from Latium are like modern Northern Italians.
Those were the original Romans.


Wheres the proof?N.italian like people were the majority ever since BA, why didn't they create a civilization like that of the Roman Empire starting with the Bronze Age?Why did those "romans" had to wait for siccilian like "MENAs" in order to create Rome?How come that Rome glory started exactly after the collapse of Bronze Age, during Iron Age when those siccilian-like people appeared?
Quit your bullshit, Bell beakers were largely metal workers, Roman's were a sea people.

There were 2 types of southern euros, iberians and greco-romans.What made Italy not a irrelvant shithole like Iberia were those "MENA" siccilian like people.

[Peterski]

N.italian like people were the majority ever since BA.

We don't have any Bronze Age samples from Latium. You are talking about Bronze Age samples from actual North Italy, not from Central Italy!

Here we have "genetically North Italian" samples in Central Italy during Republican Roman times, that's a big difference of time & space.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

We already have samples from BA Italy, they were for sure almost entirely R1b with occasional G2a.Now if what Petersky says is true and proto-romans were N.Italy then how come Rome didn't develop earlier, starting with Bronze Age?The reality is that these plebeians italic R1b's remnants of Bell Beakers were assimilated by an alpha ba_mycenaean like population starting with Early Iron Age, the real proto-romans, who brought the customs,traditions&religion.

Reminds me of the time aryans who invaded India were proven as more savage and less advanced than local negrito dravidians, another hit for indo-european copists :lol::lol::lol:

Italic languages came with R1b people. They were Indo-Europeans after all but seems they got diluted with east med admixture right from the start.

[Peterski]

but seems they got diluted with east med admixture right from the start.

Yeah sure... "right from the start" would be from 753 BC - while, on the contrary, some of these northern-plotting samples are from as late as 20 BC.

So nope, you are wrong.

[IncelSlayer]

We don't have any Bronze Age samples from Latium. You are talking about Bronze Age samples from actual North Italy, not from Central Italy!


Those genetically North italian people obviously descended from the same population as the BA N.italians, same Bell beakers.Looks like we gotta wait until the paper comes out, until then quit your meaningless spam.

[Peterski]

Those genetically North italian people obviously descended from the same population as the BA N.italians, same Bell beakers.

Not necessarily from exactly the same Bell Beakers, they could also be descended from some other group of Bell Beakers.

Nobody is denying that Proto-Celto-Italic language - and then Proto-Italic too - originated from Bell Beaker descendants.

[Levant15]

From the Romans, to the ancient Greeks, ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians/Canaanites...
Science is finally reversing centuries of white washing.... Imagine if hitler was alive lol

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[IncelSlayer]

Not necessarily from exactly the same Bell Beakers, they could also be descended from some other group of Bell Beakers.

Nobody is denying that Proto-Celto-Italic language - and then Proto-Italic too - originated from Bell Beaker descendants.

Just wait for the paper you aspie.Gonna laugh my ass off when the Bell beaker italic plebeian natives will be replaced by a sicilian -bronze age greek- like elite population.

[JMack]

Were they? The IEs changed the world, not the Dravidians.

Actually the Indo-Europeans were just a bunch of savage tribesmen who were great warriors but not big civilization builders. In all great cultures of antiquity with Indo-European language the least Indo-European ones were the greatest.

Examples:

Ancient India: upper-caste Indians from ancient times were predominantly Iranian NE + small bits of Steppe and Australoid, and we know for sure that Dravidian civilization was far more advanced than Aryan civilization. After Indus Valley India only had cities again around 500 b.c.e; significant time in which Aryans absorbed Dravidian culture. Btw, Dravidians were not pure Veddoids, they were Iranian Neolithic + Veddoid and proto-Dravidians were certainly Iranian NE dark Caucasoids.

Iran: Persian, Parthian, Sassanid empires were fruit of Aryans being absorbed by neolithic MENA cultures. That's certain because ancient Persians are known to be similar to modern Iranians from a genetic POV.

All Near Eastern civilizations: Mostly Semitic and neolithic types of Southwest Asia and Northern Middle East.

Anatolia: Mostly neolithic.

Greeks & Romans: As we have seen in recent papers Greeks and Romans had only minor Aryan ancestry like upper-caste Hindus.

It's safe to conclude that the Aryan myth is ridiculous. Aryans were great warriors, yeah, but not great civilizational builders and their advantages in war were mostly derived from being backward nomads in the same vein as Turks and Mongols, other great nomads of steppes which only achieved anything due to absorbing older cultures.

[Leto]

From the Romans, to the ancient Greeks, ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians/Canaanites...
Science is finally reversing centuries of white washing....

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk
How about simply finding the truth? Instead of brown-washing and anti-white propaganda? I agree that claiming everyone was Nordic is lame and retarded but the opposite is no better. The difference is that now the mainstream is not Nordicist but anti-white (all those black Romans, Greeks, Vikings, etc.). And by the way, the Romans and Greeks were European people.

[Peterski]

We don't know exactly from where the population of modern Latium came from after the fall of the Roman and we couldn't know without testing the region's peasants. So everything is just specualtion until the study is available.

What we can know is that Sicilian-like individuals were present in a good proportion Central Italy in 600 b.CE what automatically discards Davidski ridiculous theory that Collegno samples were certainly Greeks.

They could be Etruscans (Non-Indo-European speakers, so they had less of Steppe admixture than Latins).

If Rome's elite turns out genetically Sicilian-like, then it probably means that they were Etruscan-descended.

Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings for some time: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-early-kings-of-rome-119374

[Peterski]

This is no rocket science, we already had some Etruscan samples tested (but for some reason they were never officially published):

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg

[Ajeje Brazorf]

"Sicilian-like" could even include people like the Mycenaeans but not closely related to modern Sicilians. Taking samples from Imperial Rome is like taking samples from New York however. The individuals dated from 700 BC to 20 BC are 8 at most according to the user who went to the conference so saying 60% doesn't really make any sense. And this period is too long as it goes basically from the foundation of Rome up to the period when it comprised the entirety of the Mediterranean.

[IncelSlayer]

This is no rocket science, we already had some Etruscan samples tested (but for some reason they were never officially published):

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/05/2500-year-old-etruscans.html

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1rfyRUeQKSE/VUp1FtC48DI/AAAAAAAAKE0/aprJv89-94k/s1600/etruscans.jpg


They could be Etruscans (Non-Indo-European speakers, so they had less of Steppe admixture than Latins).

If Rome's elite turns out genetically Sicilian-like, then it probably means that they were Etruscan-descended.

Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings for some time: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-early-kings-of-rome-119374

That study proves Villanovan culture origin of etruscan and that they had no affinity for Anatolia or Near east.Exactly what I previously said.Etrusacns were central europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture


"Sicilian-like" could even include people like the Mycenaeans but not closely related to modern Sicilians. Taking samples from Imperial Rome is like taking samples from New York however. The individuals dated from 700 BC to 20 BC are 8 at most according to the user who went to the conference so saying 60% doesn't really make any sense. And this period is too long as it goes basically from the foundation of Rome up to the period when it comprised the entirety of the Mediterranean.

Yeah I agree, said it before, seems like except Iberia, most of Medditeranean populations were like that bronze age mycenaean sample, greco-roman populations were autosomally like that.

[Levant15]

How about simply finding the truth? Instead of brown-washing and anti-white propaganda? I agree that claiming everyone was Nordic is lame and retarded but the opposite is no better. The difference is that now the mainstream is not Nordicist but anti-white (all those black Romans, Greeks, Vikings, etc.). And by the way, the Romans and Greeks were European people.Define European. Yes they were from Europe but they're still genetically closer to the Levant than other Europeans... And they're not even considered white to modern day white supremacists.

I'm not claiming them.... I'm just stating the obvious.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[JMack]

How about simply finding the truth? Instead of brown-washing and anti-white propaganda? I agree that claiming everyone was Nordic is lame and retarded but the opposite is no better. The difference is that now the mainstream is not Nordicist but anti-white (all those black Romans, Greeks, Vikings, etc.). And by the way, the Romans and Greeks were European people.

European is a broad term, it can mean a lot of things. What we know for sure is that before Islam the Mediterranean was not seen as a barrier and ancient Greeks and Romans were racially closer to other mediterranean peoples than to Russians or Germans.

The picture we have from Greeks and Romans has been constructed by European scholarship of the 19th century (Brits and Germans mostly) which was heavily nordicist. Science is revealing the truth now.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

And they're not even considered white to modern day white supremacists.

False


European is a broad term, it can mean a lot of things.

No

[Peterski]

"Sicilian-like" could even include people like the Mycenaeans but not closely related to modern Sicilians. Taking samples from Imperial Rome is like taking samples from New York however. The individuals dated from 700 BC to 20 BC are 8 at most according to the user who went to the conference so saying 60% doesn't really make any sense. And this period is too long as it goes basically from the foundation of Rome up to the period when it comprised the entirety of the Mediterranean.

^^^
This is what I'm saying and they are attacking me for saying this. Thanks for another sane opinion in this thread! :thumb001: :coffee:

[Levant15]

FalseLet's be honest.... Those who try to claim them as white only try to claim their achievements.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Let's be honest.... Those who try to claim them as white only try to claim their achievements.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Are you retarded or something ? Ofcourse they were whites. You don't need to claim something that's established fact. Why are means so obsessed with southern Europeans ?
they're not your cousins

[JMack]

Let's be honest.... Those who try to claim them as white only try to claim their achievements.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

''White'' is another broad term. It also means nothing. But if Southern Europeans are ''White'' I see no reason to say non-SSA admixed West Asians are Whites as well. Ofc I'm not saying Southern Euros and West Asians are the same, I'm just stating that restricting ''white'' to only Europeans makes no sense.

[Peterski]

Actually the Indo-Europeans were just a bunch of savage tribesmen who were great warriors but not big civilization builders.

But they had some technological advancements which allowed them to achieve superior military strength and mobility:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236838-Proto-Indo-European-technology

[Leto]

Are you retarded or something ? Ofcourse they were whites. You don't need to claim something that's established fact. Why are means so obsessed with southern Europeans ?
they're not your cousins
He's an Orthodox Christian, I thought he was pro-European but now he sounds like a Muzzrat. Well, good luck being Christian in the Arab world. Second-class minority at best, genocided at worst.

[Ajeje Brazorf]

^^^
This is what I'm saying and they are attacking me for saying this. Thanks for another sane opinion in this thread! :thumb001: :coffee:

A decent study on ancient Romans should include samples from the period before Rome started expanding, in Anthrogenica they even disagreed with this basic concept. And Etruscans weren't souther-shifted just because they spoke no-IE language, they actually developed out of the Villanovian culture.

[Leto]

Ofc I'm not saying Southern Euros and West Asians are the same, I'm just stating that restricting ''white'' to only Europeans makes no sense.
It does. Cultures that are not part of European Christendom are not white by definition. Even if they have a lot of light-skinned people.

[JMack]

But they had some technological advancements which allowed them to achieve superior military strength and mobility:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236838-Proto-Indo-European-technology

Sure. As I said Indo-Europeans were more comparable to other Steppe populations like Mongols and Turks than to people from sedentary cultures. The great sedentary Indo-European cultures of antiquity like India, Persia, Greece and Rome were mostly native, not Indo-European.

It's the same of modern Indians, they are mostly IE speakers, but they are not mostly IE racially.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

He's an Orthodox Christian, I thought he was pro-European but now he sounds like a Muzzrat. Well, good luck being Christian in the Arab world. Second-class minority at best, genocided at worst.

Levantines have their own great civilisation like Phoenicians. They should stick with that.

[Levant15]

Are you retarded or something ? Ofcourse they were whites. You don't need to claim something that's established fact. Why are means so obsessed with southern Europeans ?
they're not your cousinsYou missed my point. I consider them white... I'm pointing at white supremacists. They wouldn't claim South Europeans if it wasn't for their achievements.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Leto]

Levantines have their own great civilisation like Phoenicians. They should stick with that.
Yes, absolutely. Islam wrecked the Levant, I hate the camel jockeys but the Levant is a great place, the holy land.

[JMack]

It does. Cultures that are not part of European Christendom are not white by definition. Even if they have a lot of light-skinned people.

White should be a biological concept, otherwise it makes no sense. It was used in this way before modernity, when Portuguese and other Europeans reached Asia they described peoples there as being ''white'' or ''black'' in the same vein as Europeans and Africans.

I was reading Roger Crowley book on Portuguese conquests in the Indian ocean (East Africa + Red Sea + Southern Arabia/Iran and India) and they (the Portuguese) used the term ''white'' to refer to Persians, Turks and even some Northern Indians. At the same time they called some South Indians as ''little black men''.

White = European is a modern construction.

[Leto]

You missed my point. I consider them white... I'm pointing at white supremacists. They wouldn't claim South Europeans if it wasn't for their achievements.
Define white supremacy. Loving your culture and saying European-majority countries should remain that way is not supremacist. Supremacy means wanting to rule over the entire world.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Yes, absolutely. Islam wrecked the Levant, I hate the camel jockeys but the Levant is a great place, the holy land.

Than you should watch this film (Director's cut only) if you already didn't, it's excellent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGfcF1QJTpU

[Dorian]

"But but these wuzn't the proper romanz,thatz a lie we should testz the real onez!"

[Leto]

White should be a biological concept, otherwise it makes no sense. It was used in this way before modernity, when Portuguese and other Europeans reached Asia they described peoples there as being ''white'' or ''black'' in the same vein as Europeans and Africans.

I was reading Roger Crowley book on Portuguese conquests in the Indian ocean (East Africa + Red Sea + Southern Arabia/Iran and India) and they (the Portuguese) used the term ''white'' to refer to Persians, Turks and even some Northern Indians. At the same time they called some South Indians as ''little black men''.

White = European is a modern construction.
So what? These days Turks and Persians do not consider themselves white and Europeans/European-Americans (both leftists and conservatives) don't either. It's an autistic debate. Look at a group of Kurds or Moroccans, can you honestly tell me that's a group of white people? Again, I am not denying there may be a few light-skinned individuals among them but as a group they won't be seen as white.

[Levant15]

Define white supremacy. Loving your culture and saying European-majority countries should remain that way is not supremacist. Supremacy means wanting to rule over the entire world.Define white supramacy: Really?!
I'm not the against what you described. I actually support you on that. I feel the same way about Levantine Christians. We should observe our culture and history.

Nvm I just started a shit show.

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[JMack]

So what? These days Turks and Persians do not consider themselves white and Europeans/European-Americans (both leftists and conservatives) don't either. It's an autistic debate. Look at a group of Kurds or Moroccans, can you honestly tell me that's a group of white people? Again, I am not denying there may be a few light-skinned individuals among them but as a group they won't be seen as white.

What people consider themselves should be irrelevant to a discussion about biology. I mean, certainly ''white'' is used nowadays as identitary mark for Europeans and descendants around the world, but it also cause ridiculous distortions. Things change and these terms are always changing as well. I would struggle to say Zinedine Zidane is not White and some South Euros are White, it's quite ridiculous.

Moroccans are mixed race to begin with, but most of the ones who don't show Negroid can perfectly pass as Europeans.

[Leto]

Define white supramacy: Really?!
What you probably mean is pretty much irrelevant and fringe IRL but extremely hyped-up by the leftist and globalist media. White nationalism is not the same as white supremacy. For example Jared Taylor doesn't hate anyone and he certainly has no intention to enslave Africans or Asians or anything like that. In fact he was born in Japan and speaks Japanese. He simply doesn't want the US, a historically white-majority country with a European-derived culture to become like South Africa or South America. Also, pointing out that some groups have a lower average IQ is not supremacist, it's pointing out a fact.

[JMack]

South America. .

Some parts of South America are ''whiter'' than many parts of US. And it's not just a fringe part, but a substantial part. Southern US is less ''white'' than most of Argentina, Uruguay and Southern half of Brazil.

White supremacists, who disguise themselves in a more polite way these days, are just uninformed people like you most of the time.

[Leto]

What people consider themselves should be irrelevant to a discussion about biology. I mean, certainly ''white'' is used nowadays as identitary mark for Europeans and descendants around the world, but it also cause ridiculous distortions. Things change and these terms are always changing as well. I would struggle to say Zinedine Zidane is not White and some South Euros are White, it's quite ridiculous.

Moroccans are mixed race to begin with, but most of the ones who don't show Negroid can perfectly pass as Europeans.
Well, again - even if they have plenty of light-skinned individuals doesn't mean those nations are white in the conventional sense. You can deconstruct it as much as you want (for some reason you don't do the same with blacks) but the definition I gave you is the most common. By the way, most Europeans are not Southern. Germany, Britain, Ireland, France, Scandinavia, Central Europe, etc.

[JMack]

Well, again - even if they have plenty of light-skinned individuals doesn't mean those nations are white in the conventional sense. You can deconstruct it as much as you want (for some reason you don't do the same with blacks) but the definition I gave you is the most common. By the way, most Europeans are not Southern. Germany, Britain, Ireland, France, Scandinavia, Central Europe, etc.

Well, I consider dark-skinned South Indians, Aboriginals, SSAs, Papuans, Onge etc all Black people. I'm no leftist or race mixer or anything like that. I'm not ''deconstructing'' anything, I'm just being the most objective I can.

[Leto]

Well, I consider dark-skinned South Indians, Aboriginals, SSAs, Papuans, Onge etc all Black people. I'm no leftist or race mixer or anything like that. I'm not ''deconstructing'' anything, I'm just being the most objective I can.
Lol. Africans don't consider them black, maybe some Afrocentrists do but they are a fringe group. Black means African both in Europe and in America.

[JMack]

Lol. Africans don't consider them black, maybe some Afrocentrists do but they are a fringe group. Black means African both in Europe and in America.

Not really, in India some South Indians are called black by Northern Indians and lots of Aboriginals were called Blacks by Anglos in Australia. These modern notions of whiteness and blackness derive mostly from North American identitarianism, they are not universal concepts valid for any time. What American niggas or euro mutts think shouldn't be the rule to all the world.

I've seen MENAs in real life self-identifying as ''white'', not in the sense of being European, but just objectively describing their skin tones.

[Peterski]

I'm not sure about this theory so popular in this thread. What about similar high frequency of Germanic Y-DNA subclades in Central Italy? Considering fact Barbarians migrations were mostly driven by men.

Map of Germanic Y-DNA in Italy, based on the frequency of R1b-U106, I1-M253, I2a2a-M223 (by user Passa):

https://i.imgur.com/ROzdhPu.jpg

Sicily:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n1/fig_tab/ejhg2008120t1.html

https://i.snag.gy/vNHeRA.jpg
https://i.snag.gy/EHiGFa.jpg

[Leto]

Not really, in India some South Indians are called black by Northern Indians and lots of Aboriginals were called Blacks by Anglos in Australia. These modern notions of whiteness and blackness derive mostly from North American identitarianism, they are not universal concepts valid for any time. What American niggas or euro mutts think shouldn't be the rule to all the world.

I've seen MENAs in real life self-identifying as ''white'', not in the sense of being European, but just objectively describing their skin tones.
In Russia minorities and migrants from the Caucasus and Central Asia are called 'black, black-assed' but no one seriously thinks they are black-skinned. That's just an ethnic slur meaning swarthy, brown, wog, etc. Those groups are simply darker on average than Slavic Russians.

[Dick]

Here is an old ftdna of a North Italian. Mind you, the Asia minor is probably gone since this is an older version but his Scandinavian seems very high.



http://i57.tinypic.com/35i8u4o.jpg

[JMack]

In Russia minorities and migrants from the Caucasus and Central Asia are called 'black, black-assed' but no one seriously thinks they are black-skinned. That's just an ethnic slur meaning swarthy, brown, wog, etc. Those groups are simply darker on average than Slavic Russians.

Of course. But certain groups of South Indians (not sure if minority or majority) and all Abbos/Papuans/Onge are black-skinned. There's no point to describe their skin tones as non-black when they are as dark as coal and darker than many SSAs.

[IncelSlayer]

This polack autist is now spewing the same shit on anthrogenica

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=545316&viewfull=1#post545316


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/252132842266558464/543168702351278081/1514444130239.gif

Face it, your native plebian R1b Bell Beakers were domesticated by proto-romans who were similar to greeks genetically

[Peterski]

Face it, your native plebian R1b Bell Beakers were domesticated by proto-romans

Okay, okay... We all know that the Nordicists were wrong. Ancient Romans were VERY Southern. They probably looked like your avatar: :D

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/image.php?u=16060&dateline=1544717744

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

R1b conquered your J2 ass dude and now you speak our language. Otherwise you're right about Polak guy.

[Leto]

R1b conquered your J2 ass dude and now you speak our language. Otherwise you're right about Polak guy.
InselSlayer is a self-hating half East Slav. He is more Northern than the Romanian average on GED. Don't know why he is so pro wog.

[Morena]

This actually makes me very happy. It validates what I wrote last week in a thread, where I posted that Romans were southern European and Italian, but northern shifted. ^_^

[IncelSlayer]

R1b conquered your J2 ass dude and now you speak our language. Otherwise you're right about Polak guy.

No not really, languages are mostly matrilineal, thats why they call them mother tongue


InselSlayer is a self-hating half East Slav.

Nice joke brah


Don't know why he is so pro wog.

I'm not, couldn't give a shit how romans looked, in fact I didn't even talk about their looks

[JMack]

InselSlayer is a self-hating half East Slav. He is more Northern than the Romanian average on GED. Don't know why he is so pro wog.

Maybe because these discussions aren't merely identitary but also about facts?

It's clear some ''nordicist'' oriented people are coping, because it seems these guys hadn't even read the OP. They are repeating this bullshit of ''sampling ancient Rome is like sampling New York'' when the OP clearly states that the samples are from all Lazio region.

It means they sampled people from all parts of Lazio and other small parts of Central Italy. There's no way they sampled only foreigners, it's basically impossible. The Republican sample, on the other hand, could have included some foreigners and the Northern Italian-like individuals could very well be Celtic slaves from up north.

[Levant15]

Why are means so obsessed with southern Europeans ?
they're not your cousins

Why are you so obsessed with them too? Craots are not Italians cousins either lol. At a least all four my parents yDNA and mtDNA are found in strictly in Italy, Greece and Levant. So I have every interest in knowing who the Romans were.
Based on G25, I'm coming up to 20% Mycenean based on components but since seeing this study, it could be Roman instead...

Edit: replacing Myceneans with Sicilian east on G25 actually improves the distance.
Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Leto]

I'm not, couldn't give a shit how romans looked, in fact I didn't even talk about their looks
Well, you did talk about their genetic affinity.

[Leto]

Maybe because these discussions aren't merely identitary but also about facts?

It's clear some ''nordicist'' oriented people are coping, because it seems these guys hadn't even read the OP. They are repeating this bullshit of ''sampling ancient Rome is like sampling New York'' when the OP clearly states that the samples are from all Lazio region.

It means they sampled people from all parts of Lazio and other small parts of Central Italy. There's no way they sampled only foreigners, it's basically impossible. The Republican sample, on the other hand, could have included some foreigners and the Northern Italian-like individuals could very well be Celtic slaves from up north.
I'm not one of those people who claim everyone looked Swedish in ancient times. But we haven't even seen the study itself yet, why so much fuss about it? Let's wait and then discuss what's in the actual paper.

[IncelSlayer]

Well, you did talk about their genetic affinity.

You forget that the first who started coping were n.italians and a pollack, i just merely repeated what OP said

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Why are you so obsessed with them too? Craots are not Italians cousins either lol.

I'm not obsessed dumbass and I stated many times Italians cluster far as fuck from us lmao. I'm white European though, you aren't.
nothing against your interest but you trying to sand-niggerize ancient Romans won't work here.

[Peterski]

No not really, languages are mostly matrilineal, thats why they call them mother tongue

In Polish language: język ojczysty (= father tongue). :)

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

No not really, languages are mostly matrilineal, thats why they call them mother tongue

PIE languages spread with R1b Yamnanya. Keep coping mate.

[Levant15]

I'm not obsessed dumbass and I stated many times Italians cluster far as fuck from us lmao. I'm white European though, you aren't.
nothing against your interest but you trying to sand-niggerize ancient Romans won't work here.

Hmmm white or not.... at the end of the day they were closer to me than you.

DEAL WITH IT

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[JMack]

I'm not obsessed dumbass and I stated many times Italians cluster far as fuck from us lmao. I'm white European though, you aren't.
nothing against your interest but you trying to sand-niggerize ancient Romans won't work here.

But let's be honest: Levantines aren't ''sandniggers'' and many of them don't look that different from Europeans anyway. If was not for Islam they would probably be seen as closer to Europeans nowadays. The same for Anatolians and Mesopotamians. At a certain point in time these regions were the most creative and important in the Greco-Roman world.

They have far more in common with Greco-Roman culture than pretty much any Northern or Central European. Most of early Church Fathers, last pagan philosophers, Greek and Latin writers from Late Antiquity were actually Levantines or North Africans.

They have all the rights to claim this culture. Ah, I have 0% Levantine in me, I'm just stating facts. Don't know why the fuck a Swedish or a Russian and even a Portuguese or Spaniard would have more rights on ancient mediterranean culture than Levantines.

[Aren]

This is what the author, Hannah Moots told the member Ryukendo

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)
Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.
Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.
EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

IMPERIAL PERIOD
Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.
Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

LATE ANTIQUITY
Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

To me this points to a Northern origin of Romans in a North Italian-like population that mixed with southern shifted people(native Central Italians probably; mainly EEF and some Steppe and Iran_N too) and from the beginning of the Imperial period also with Middle Easterners and Greeks which eventually created a Sicilian-like population once reaching the Late Antiquity and the mixing had stabilized.
Central Italy was Sicilian-like for some time and then internal movements within the Italian penninsula, mainly from the north to Rome shifted them genetically further north and away from Sicilians.

However this is all speculation. We don't know exactly what she means when she says "North Italian-like" or "Sicilian-like". It could very well be that all of these prehistoric samples might not have plotted that close as we might be given to think to modern Italians but closest to them in comparison to other Europeans.

[Leto]

But let's be honest: Levantines aren't ''sandniggers'' and many of them don't look that different from Europeans anyway. If was not for Islam they would probably be seen as closer to Europeans nowadays. The same for Anatolians and Mesopotamians. At a certain point in time these regions were the most creative and important in the Greco-Roman world.

They have far more in common with Greco-Roman culture than pretty much any Northern or Central European. Most of early Church Fathers, last pagan philosophers, Greek and Latin writers from Late Antiquity were actually Levantines or North Africans.

They have all the rights to claim this culture. Ah, I have 0% Levantine in me, I'm just stating facts. Don't know why the fuck a Swedish or a Russian and even a Portuguese or Spaniard would have more rights on ancient mediterranean culture than Levantines.
Only the non-Islamic ones, the Islamics are not related to the Greco-Roman culural sphere.

[IncelSlayer]

Hmmm white or not.... at the end of the day they were closer to me than you.

DEAL WITH IT

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Nah, you're a sandnigger, you have nothing to do with Europe


This is what the author, Hannah Moots told the member Ryukendo


To me this points to a Northern origin of Romans in a North Italian-like population that mixed with southern shifted people(native Central Italians probably; mainly EEF and some Steppe and Iran_N too) and from the beginning of the Imperial period also with Middle Easterners and Greeks which eventually created a Sicilian-like population once reaching the Late Antiquity and the mixing had stabilized.
Central Italy was Sicilian-like for some time and then internal movements within the Italian penninsula, mainly from the north to Rome shifted them genetically further north and away from Sicilians.

However this is all speculation. We don't know exactly what she means when she says "North Italian-like" or "Sicilian-like". It could very well be that all of these prehistoric samples might not have plotted that close as we might be given to think to modern Italians but closest to them in comparison to other Europeans.

You didn't even read the OP, these N.Italian like people were the natives and were the main element in Italian Peninsula before Early Iron Age.

[Leto]

I'm not obsessed dumbass and I stated many times Italians cluster far as fuck from us lmao. I'm white European though, you aren't.
nothing against your interest but you trying to sand-niggerize ancient Romans won't work here.
SiCiLiAnS aRe HaLf LeBaNeSe (c)

[Peterski]

Central Italy was Sicilian-like for some time and then internal movements within the Italian penninsula, mainly from the north to Rome shifted them genetically further north and away from Sicilians.

Yeah this is what I think as well. You don't need Longobards to explain such changes. Just internal migrations between regions.

The political border with the Kingdom of Naples, which existed for ca. 700 years, surely was a barrier to gene flow / migrations.

Modern genetic border between Central Italian and Southern Italian clusters follows the old border of the Kingdom of Naples...

[Insuperable]

https://media.giphy.com/media/2x0SQJ4AyBPWxyzadk/giphy.gif

[Leto]

Nah, you're a sandnigger, you have nothing to do with Europe

Non-Muzzrat Near Easterners are fine, they can be accepted, would assimilate among whites quicky.

[IncelSlayer]

Non-Muzzrat Near Easterners are fine, they can be accepted, would assimilate among white quicky.

I wouldn't want them in the euro gene poll for sure

[Leto]

I wouldn't want them in the euro gene poll for sure
Even the ones without nibber blood like Druze, Christian Lebs, Syrians? Mix them with French and Lombardians and you'll get an Ashkenazi-like mixture.

[Aren]

Yeah this is what I think as well. You don't need Longobards to explain such changes. Just internal migrations between regions.

The political border with the Kingdom of Naples, which existed for ca. 700 years, surely was a barrier to gene flow / migrations.

Modern genetic border between Central Italian and Southern Italian clusters follows the old border of the Kingdom of Naples...

People always underestimate internal migrations and how they have shaped the modern European genetics. But will always overplay barbarians, slaves and other more "flashy" ways.

[IncelSlayer]

Even the ones without nibber blood like Druze, Christian Lebs, Syrians? Mix them with French and Lombardians and you'll get an Ashkenazi-like mixture.

No,they got their own country, should stay there or if they come in Europe they should mix between each other.

[Leto]

Christian Lebs are considered white in Latin America and usually upper-middle class and educated.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Hmmm white or not.... at the end of the day they were closer to me than you.

DEAL WITH IT

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Don't want to be related with such decadent wogs anyway.

[Levant15]

Nah, you're a sandnigger, you have nothing to do with Europe


Says the guy who's ydna & mtDNA J1 and J2

You make me laugh.

Anyway why am I chasing losers. Go back and flip burgers...maybe you'll get a raise if you protest some more


Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

No,they got their own country, should stay there or if they come in Europe they should mix between each other.

Fully agree.

[IncelSlayer]

Says the guy who's ydna & mtDNA J1 and J2

You make me laugh.

Anyway why am I chasing losers. Go back and flip burgers...maybe you'll get a raise if you protest some more


Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Youre to stupid to understand how genetics work, back to drinking camel piss or whatever you people do, you will never be european, you can only worship us.

[Levant15]

Youre to stupid to understand how genetics work, back to drinking camel piss or whatever you people do, you will never be european, you can only worship us.Say that to the 1.5 Billion Europeans who worship one of us

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Leto]

No,they got their own country, should stay there or if they come in Europe they should mix between each other.
In my view Islam fucking sucks, is alien to white countries and should be banned but the Near Easterners as a 'race' are still Caucasoid and not completely unrelated to Europe. Islam is an ideology, not a race. I mean come on, Greeks, Italians, Albanians, etc. get a lot of East Med, like 20-30%.

[IncelSlayer]

Say that to the 1.5 Billion Europeans who worship one of us

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

Jesus wasn't a sandnigger arab tho

[Leto]

Youre to stupid to understand how genetics work, back to drinking camel piss or whatever you people do, you will never be european, you can only worship us.
I think you confuse the real sand nibbers (the Persian Gulf) with the Levant which has a very rich history and civilization. That guy may be a dick but he has nothing to do with Usama bin Laden and all the Ayrab savages.

[IncelSlayer]

In my view Islam fucking sucks, is alien to white countries and should be banned but the Near Easterners as a 'race' are still Caucasoid and not completely unrelated to Europe. Islam is an ideology, not a race. I mean come on, Greeks, Italians, Albanians, etc. get a lot of East Med, like 20-30%.

Their attractive women can come, they can be easily bleached in a few generations.

[Levant15]

Jesus wasn't a sandnigger arab thoYeah well I'm not Arab.
Christian from Bethlehem..... Most likely descendants of the first Christians on the planet. Jesus most likely resembled me. Sorry if that disappoints you

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Yeah well I'm not Arab.
Christian from Bethlehem..... Most likely descendants of the first Christians on the planet. Jesus most likely resembled me. Sorry if that disappoints you

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

That's awesome legacy dude. Don't be a dick though. Romans were not Levantines but southern Euros. It's not exactly the same.

[Leto]

Their attractive women can come, they can be easily bleached in a few generations.
This former Miss Canada who is Persian is married to a white Canadian politican. Their kids look white
http://www.womenfitness.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/8.jpg

[IncelSlayer]

This former Miss Canada who is Persian is married to a white Canadian politican. Their kids look white
http://www.womenfitness.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/8.jpg

If the individual looks white he is white, but most lebanese are just brown hook nosed dwarfs

[Leto]

That's awesome legacy dude. Don't be a dick though. Romans were not Levantines but southern Euros. It's not exactly the same.
IMO, only the Southernmost Italians and Greeks approach the Lebanese. The rest are very different. Even Tuscans and Central Greeks are nothing like them.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

IMO, only the Southernmost Italians and Greeks approach the Lebanese. The rest are very different. Even Tuscans and Central Greeks are nothing like them.

If you look at this there's still a large gap even with Southern Italians.

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/K15V4.png

[Ayetooey]

This former Miss Canada who is Persian is married to a white Canadian politican. Their kids look white
http://www.womenfitness.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/8.jpg

Persian White mixes often look very European. Both these individuals have Iranian fathers, white mothers.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GICHv26wc3Y/maxresdefault.jpg


https://redice.tv/a/c/r/16/RIR-160527.ab94b306.jpg

[Token]

Yeah this is what I think as well. You don't need Longobards to explain such changes. Just internal migrations between regions.

The political border with the Kingdom of Naples, which existed for ca. 700 years, surely was a barrier to gene flow / migrations.

Modern genetic border between Central Italian and Southern Italian clusters follows the old border of the Kingdom of Naples...

To get from Sicilian-like to Tuscan-like you'd need a unrealistically high population replacement from Northern Italy, which is not supported by the very small IBD sharing between different Italian regions suggesting very little internal migration. A more northern source outside of the borders of Italy is more plausible.

[Haider]

If the individual looks white he is white, but most lebanese are just brown hook nosed dwarfs

Average height

Lebanon: 176cm
Romania: 172cm

http://www.averageheight.co/average-...ght-by-country
Eurogenes

[Leto]

https://redice.tv/a/c/r/16/RIR-160527.ab94b306.jpg
This guy claims Persia was racially white before the Arabs and Mongols. He's a joke. But yeah, they look white. Adrian Pasdar and Nadja Björlin do too.

[Leto]

If you look at this there's still a large gap even with Southern Italians.

Half English, half Syrian Alawite
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?264614-1-2-English-(Wolverhampton)-amp-1-2-Alawite-(Syria)/page2
Plots between Abruzzo and Tuscany. Also not far from Thessaly.

[Insuperable]

Seems foreigners really did have a big impact on Roman genetics in the Imperial period. Matches what we know from history.

It says that from 700 to 20 BC 60% were North Italian like and 40% South Italian like. Next period, the Imperial period is characterized by a dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, basically a long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Interestingly the next period is characterized by tight cluster in south Italy.

If these 40% South Italian like samples were there before 200BC then it is hard to say did foreigners (if by foreigners you are having non-European foreigners on mind) had an impact on Roman genetics. If they are from a later period, closer to 20BC then they possibly did. And even if they do come before 200BC doesn't explain what happened to North Italian like population if you get my point. Perhaps with more samples of the Republican period ratio would be different, maybe not. But the first thing to be sure is to know how old are Republican period south Italian like samples.

[Aren]

To get from Sicilian-like to Tuscan-like you'd need a unrealistically high population replacement from Northern Italy, which is not supported by the very small IBD sharing between different Italian regions suggesting very little internal migration. A more northern source outside of the borders of Italy is more plausible.

Lazio isn't Tuscan-like, but significantly more southern shifted. An outside-Italian admixture creates even more problems when we look at the uniparental markers of modern Central Italians. Germanic Y-DNA in Italy is at lowest in Central Italy and peaks in Sicily and parts of the North.

[Dna8]

So Ancient Romans were Faelids?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

So Ancient Romans were Faelids?

Gracile meds.

[Kouros]

If I smash a mena chick, I'm wearing a condom. No reason why my children should bear the pain and suffering of scoring 50% East_Med/Caucasus/SSA in a GEDmatch calculator, they will be bullied for the rest of their life.

[Leto]

Gracile meds.
They looked like the member Impaler who is 11% Italian on 23andme :lol:

[Dna8]

Gracile meds.

Of course

I was being a silly swarthy

[Leto]

If I smash a mena chick, I'm wearing a condom. No reason why my children should bear the pain and suffering of scoring 50% East_Med/Caucasus/SSA in a GEDmatch calculator, they will be bullied for the rest of their life.
And if you smash a Haitian Canadian chick?

[Token]

Lazio isn't Tuscan-like, but significantly more southern shifted. An outside-Italian admixture creates even more problems when we look at the uniparental markers of modern Central Italians. Germanic Y-DNA in Italy is at lowest in Central Italy and peaks in Sicily and parts of the North.

Lazio is very similar to Tuscany, except for the Neapolitan speaking parts of it. According to the recent Raveane et al paper, 85% of Lazians join the Tuscan cluster. The uniparentals frequencies doesn't excludes the possibility of direct ~20% Norwegian-like contribution needed for Central Italians, and GLOBETROTTER runs from the very same paper dates a admixture event with Northwestern Europeans to ~400AD, exactly when barbarians started slipping into Italy. Suggestive, isn't it?

[Insuperable]

If I smash a mena chick, I'm wearing a condom. No reason why my children should bear the pain and suffering of scoring 50% East_Med/Caucasus/SSA in a GEDmatch calculator, they will be bullied for the rest of their life.

Why do you have to use such vulgar language when referring to women? They are not some objects which you can smash. That is not a way to talk about bitches.

[Kouros]

And if you smash a Haitian Canadian chick?

Imagine your son coming home from school, crying because his classmate called him a nigger. I wouldn't know what to say. I think I would have failed my job as a father as soon as he was born by not deciding to abort it.

[Dna8]

I want to mate with a Bantu woman.. live quietly on some little Yam farm.. raise fine Dinaridesque sons..

[Kouros]

Do you think genetically cloned Roman females with the anatomy of Venus de Milo is a possibility in the near future? We are basically one step closer to that with this study.

[JMack]

I want to mate with a Bantu woman.. live quietly on some little Yam farm.. raise fine Dinaridesque sons..

You would create Somalids. Balkanid + Bantuid.

[Dna8]

In the summer evenings I would tenderly braid her hair..

And as the stars glitter prettily, in the high African sky, she would lovingly shave my back..

[Lucas]

she would lovingly shave my back..

Disgusting:)

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Lazio is very similar to Tuscany, except for the Neapolitan speaking parts of it. According to the recent Raveane et al paper, 85% of Lazians join the Tuscan cluster. The uniparentals frequencies doesn't excludes the possibility of direct ~20% Norwegian-like contribution needed for Central Italians, and GLOBETROTTER runs from the very same paper dates a admixture event with Northwestern Europeans to ~400AD, exactly when barbarians started slipping into Italy. Suggestive, isn't it?

People from Lazio have more EEF admixture than both South Italians and North Europeans, don't know how those Sicilians-like were genetically but we need the data for more accurate opinions.

[Dna8]

Disgusting:)

I know, imagine if I were being serious..

[Aren]

Lazio is very similar to Tuscany, except for the Neapolitan speaking parts of it. According to the recent Raveane et al paper, 85% of Lazians join the Tuscan cluster.
Lazio is inbetween Sicily and Tuscany. So if Lazio is very similar to Tuscany then it's very similar to Sicily too.

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


The uniparentals frequencies doesn't excludes the possibility of direct ~20% Norwegian-like contribution needed for Central Italians, and GLOBETROTTER runs from the very same paper dates a event of admixture with Northwestern Europeans to ~400AD, exactly when barbarians started slipping into Italy. Suggestive, isn't it?
Ofc it doesn't, but i'ts quite indicative of it when Germanic Y-DNA is at highest in some parts of Sicily which probably has minimal actual Germanic admix and lowest in Central Italy. The GLOBETROTTER runs in that paper were a hot mess, I can't say that I trust them at all tbh.
The Germanic migrants entered Rome after spending several centuries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. How Norwegian-like were they when they arrived in Rome? If the Germanic admixture is around 20% in Central Italy, then how high must it be in other parts of Europe were the Vandals, Goths etc spent more time in? And how could they have had the population numbers to impact modern Europeans this much?
This theory is flawed in many ways.

[Token]

Lazio is inbetween Sicily and Tuscany. So if Lazio is very similar to Tuscany then it's very similar to Sicily too.

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

Ofc it doesn't, but i'ts quite indicative of it when Germanic Y-DNA is at highest in some parts of Sicily which probably has minimal actual Germanic admix and lowest in Central Italy. The GLOBETROTTER runs in that paper were a hot mess, I can't say that I trust them at all tbh.
The Germanic migrants entered Rome after spending several centuries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. How Norwegian-like were they when they arrived in Rome? If the Germanic admixture is around 20% in Central Italy, then how high must it be in other parts of Europe were the Vandals, Goths etc spent more time in? And how could they have had the population numbers to impact modern Europeans this much?
This theory is flawed in many ways.

The difference is that Goths never culturally assimilated into the societies of Southeastern Europe and, in fact, marriages with locals were forbidden in the Gothic society before their willful thorough romanization and consequent adoption of Roman law, implying that they might have been pretty Germanic when they first entered the peninsula. The GLOBETROTTER runs looks fine to me and the dating perfectly matches Norman, Levantine and North African introgressions into Italy.

I don't trust in these K36(?) averages, how many samples were used and from which regions of Lazio? Neapolitan speaking Lazians plot significantly south of western, Romanesco-speaking lowlanders.

[Aren]

The difference is that Goths never culturally assimilated into the societies of Southeastern Europe and, in fact, marriages with locals were forbidden in the Gothic society before their willful thorough romanization and consequent adoption of Roman law, implying that they might have been pretty Germanic when they first entered the peninsula. The GLOBETROTTER runs looks fine to me and the dating perfectly matches Norman, Levantine and North African introgression into Italy.
I don't think anyone denies some Germanic admixture in Italy, it's certainly existent as indicated by uniparental markers. It doesn't tell us how much though.
Btw didn't the same GLOBBETROTTER run show Caucasus interference at the same period aswell in most of Italy?


I don't trust in these K36(?) averages, how many samples were used and from which regions of Lazio? Neapolitan speaking Lazians plot significantly south of western, Romanesco-speaking lowlanders.
These are averages collected by Lukasz. Many of them are academical samples or Gedmatch kits with Wikitrees and/or Gedcoms. It's unlikely that he's using only Neapolitan speaking Lazians.

[Aren]

The difference is that Goths never culturally assimilated into the societies of Southeastern Europe and, in fact, marriages with locals were forbidden in the Gothic society before their willful thorough romanization and consequent adoption of Roman law, implying that they might have been pretty Germanic when they first entered the peninsula.

Well so far we've had samples from various Germanic tribes who took part in the great migration period, such as the Langobards, Baiuvari, Anglo-Saxons and Alemanni all of which included several outliers and their mixed offsprings.
And I I'm not misstaken there's a paper on the way analyzing Gothic samples from modern day Poland including atleast one Polish-like outlier, according to one guy on Anthrogenica.

[Sikeliot]

Apparently, they were closer to Sicilians and Aegean islanders, rather than to modern central Italians.

[Peterski]

there's a paper on the way analyzing Gothic samples from modern day Poland including at least one Polish-like outlier, according to one guy on Anthrogenica.

Haven't heard about it yet, who is the guy in question?

[Sikeliot]

this also means the levantine input is not just in Sicily/Calabria but also made it up to central Italy.

It also means Jews could be much more Roman and less Judaean with some of their Levantine input acquired in Italy (and more likely to be Punic).

[Lucas]

Still I don't believe in large scale Germanic input in early medieval Italy. Goths and Longobards were ruling elite, very small comparing to whole Italian society.
It wasn't the time of Yamna expansion, so they didn't rape most women in central Italy too... Only in such case their tiny number could be multiplied to have significant impact.

[Peterski]

Still I don't believe in large scale Germanic input in early medieval Italy. Goths and Longobards were ruling elite, very small comparing to whole Italian society.
It wasn't the time of Yamna expansion, so they didn't rape most women in central Italy too... Only in such case their tiny number could be multiplied to have significant impact.

I agree. What do you think about the "autosomally Polish" sample found among the Goths (probably there would be more if we could extract DNA from urns)?:


Well so far we've had samples from various Germanic tribes who took part in the great migration period, such as the Langobards, Baiuvari, Anglo-Saxons and Alemanni all of which included several outliers and their mixed offsprings.
And I I'm not misstaken there's a paper on the way analyzing Gothic samples from modern day Poland including at least one Polish-like outlier, according to one guy on Anthrogenica.

Kostrzewski never said that Slavs were 100% of inhabitants and he never denied that Goths marched through Poland on their way from Scandinavia to Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Kostrzewski

"Józef Kostrzewski (February 25, 1885 – October 19, 1969) was a Polish archaeologist. (...) [He tried] to prove a Slavonic autochthonism in Poland from at least the Bronze Age (Lusatian culture*) onwards."

*He considered the Lusatian culture as Proto-Slavic.

[Sikeliot]

This also means if Central Italy was like Sicily is TODAY, Sicily back then must have been even more Levantine than now.

[Peterski]

This also means if Central Italy was like Sicily is TODAY, Sicily back then must have been even more Levantine than now.

And this also means that Ancient Mycenaeans were most likely more northern-shifted than ancient Sicilians, who were even more Levantine at that time.

[Sikeliot]

And this also means that Ancient Mycenaeans were most likely more northern-shifted than ancient Sicilians, who were even more Levantine at that time.

Yes, exactly.

It also implies Phoenicians likely had a large impact on Sicilian DNA, even if from founder effect.

[Peterski]

This also means if Central Italy was like Sicily is TODAY, Sicily back then must have been even more Levantine than now.
Yes, exactly. It also implies Phoenicians likely had a large impact on Sicilian DNA, even if from founder effect.

This is I4930 Beaker Sicily (the highest quality of all Sicilian Beakers, but still very low quality), my upload to Genesis:

Eurogenes K15. Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Med 35.55
2 East_Med 23.23
3 Atlantic 15.92
4 West_Asian 9.6
5 North_Sea 9.19
6 Red_Sea 3.64
7 Eastern_Euro 2.78
8 Baltic 0.1

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian 15.88
2 Tuscan 16.44
3 West_Sicilian 17.18
4 South_Italian 18.13
5 North_Italian 18.16
6 East_Sicilian 18.58
7 Central_Greek 18.91
8 Italian_Abruzzo 19.03
9 Italian_Jewish 19.51
10 Algerian_Jewish 19.51
11 Greek 20.01
12 Greek_Thessaly 20.2
13 Ashkenazi 21.18
14 Sephardic_Jewish 21.27
15 Spanish_Andalucia 21.96
16 Spanish_Extremadura 22.84
17 Portuguese 23.25
18 Spanish_Murcia 23.58
19 Spanish_Galicia 24.02
20 Spanish_Valencia 24.12

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 71.2% Sardinian + 28.8% Armenian @ 5.04
2 71.6% Sardinian + 28.4% Georgian_Jewish @ 5.08
3 70.9% Sardinian + 29.1% Assyrian @ 5.11
4 53.7% Sardinian + 46.3% South_Italian @ 5.35
5 54.8% Sardinian + 45.2% Central_Greek @ 5.43
6 71.2% Sardinian + 28.8% Azeri @ 5.43
7 68.3% Sardinian + 31.7% Turkish @ 5.47
8 71.6% Sardinian + 28.4% Kurdish_Jewish @ 5.48
9 72.8% Sardinian + 27.2% Kurdish @ 5.53
10 55.7% Sardinian + 44.3% Italian_Jewish @ 5.56
11 54.4% Sardinian + 45.6% East_Sicilian @ 5.61
12 68% Sardinian + 32% Lebanese_Muslim @ 5.74
13 73.5% Sardinian + 26.5% Iranian @ 5.75
14 72.1% Sardinian + 27.9% Iranian_Jewish @ 5.84
15 55.1% Sardinian + 44.9% Italian_Abruzzo @ 5.84
16 58% Sardinian + 42% Ashkenazi @ 5.94
17 63.9% Sardinian + 36.1% Cyprian @ 6.05
18 58.1% Sardinian + 41.9% Sephardic_Jewish @ 6.06
19 68.5% Sardinian + 31.5% Syrian @ 6.25
20 71.5% Sardinian + 28.5% Lebanese_Druze @ 6.46

Eurogenes K36:

Old upload: Z251090

Armenian 4.40
Basque 7.39
Central_Euro 1.22
East_Balkan 0.49
East_Med 1.59
Italian 41.32
Near_Eastern 2.94
North_African 8.60
North_Caucasian 5.65
Siberian 0.94
West_Caucasian 3.26
West_Med 22.21

New upload: TZ9503361

Amerindian 0.33
Armenian 8.65
Basque 9.37
Central_Euro 1.93
East_Balkan 0.10
East_Med 3.69
Italian 40.72
Near_Eastern 3.67
North_African 7.98
North_Caucasian 1.49
Siberian 0.86
West_Med 21.23

Similarity map (new upload):

https://i.imgur.com/EMKpU4q.png

Versus

Similarity map (old upload):

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

[Smeagol]

This also means if Central Italy was like Sicily is TODAY, Sicily back then must have been even more Levantine than now.

Like Greek Cypriots maybe?

[Sikeliot]

Like Greek Cypriots maybe?

That's my guess, yes.

[Vasconcelos]

I don't trust in these K36(?) averages, how many samples were used and from which regions of Lazio? Neapolitan speaking Lazians plot significantly south of western, Romanesco-speaking lowlanders.

Personally I think the K36 PCA itself is more to blame than the number of samples themselves

[Token]

These are averages collected by Lukasz. Many of them are academical samples or Gedmatch kits with Wikitrees and/or Gedcoms. It's unlikely that he's using only Neapolitan speaking Lazians.
Yes, it is unlikely, but even a minority of samples from the Neapolitan speaking southern Lazio (which are genetically closer to Sicilians overall based on the kits i've seen) would put the average to the south. There is a sharp divide between these and Central Italian-speaking Lazians, who are quite similar to Tuscans.

Neapolitan-speaking Lazian:

1 East_Med 32.7
2 Atlantic 17.34
3 West_Med 17.23
4 West_Asian 13.41
5 North_Sea 10.72
6 Red_Sea 4
7 Baltic 2.87
8 Siberian 0.79
9 Northeast_African 0.39
10 Eastern_Euro 0.35
11 Oceanian 0.21

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 5.55
2 West_Sicilian 6.74
3 Italian_Jewish 6.75
4 East_Sicilian 7.67
5 Italian_Abruzzo 7.67
6 Sephardic_Jewish 7.98
7 Central_Greek 8.02
8 Algerian_Jewish 8.58
9 Ashkenazi 10.52
10 Tunisian_Jewish 11.77
11 Tuscan 12.05
12 Greek 12.62
13 Greek_Thessaly 13.69
14 Libyan_Jewish 14.15
15 Cyprian 14.8
16 North_Italian 18.15
17 Lebanese_Muslim 18.44
18 Syrian 19.91
19 Bulgarian 20.26
20 Turkish 20.59

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 52.1% Lebanese_Druze + 47.9% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.95
2 55.9% Lebanese_Druze + 44.1% Spanish_Aragon @ 4.19
3 53.5% Lebanese_Druze + 46.5% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.29
4 54.4% Lebanese_Druze + 45.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 4.36
5 56.7% Lebanese_Druze + 43.3% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4.5
6 55.7% North_Italian + 44.3% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.5
7 66.5% Tuscan + 33.5% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.62
8 82% West_Sicilian + 18% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.69
9 62.9% Lebanese_Druze + 37.1% French_Basque @ 4.71
10 63.1% Cyprian + 36.9% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.72
11 53.9% Lebanese_Christian + 46.1% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.72
12 57.6% Lebanese_Druze + 42.4% Southwest_French @ 4.79
13 52.2% Lebanese_Druze + 47.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.79
14 55.9% Italian_Jewish + 44.1% Italian_Abruzzo @ 4.84
15 64.4% Cyprian + 35.6% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.93
16 64.9% Cyprian + 35.1% Spanish_Cataluna @ 4.93
17 52.5% Lebanese_Christian + 47.5% Spanish_Andalucia @ 5
18 54% Lebanese_Druze + 46% Spanish_Cataluna @ 5
19 56.3% Lebanese_Christian + 43.7% Spanish_Aragon @ 5.02
20 82.8% West_Sicilian + 17.2% Lebanese_Christian @ 5.03

Typical Lazian:

1 East_Med 27.13
2 West_Med 24.79
3 North_Atlantic 24.67
4 Baltic 12.05
5 West_Asian 8.32
6 Red_Sea 2.06
7 East_Asian 0.49
8 Siberian 0.27
9 Amerindian 0.15
10 Northeast_African 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tuscan 4.34
2 West_Sicilian 6.79
3 Greek_Thessaly 8.25
4 Italian_Abruzzo 8.42
5 North_Italian 9.03
6 Central_Greek 10.32
7 East_Sicilian 10.71
8 South_Italian 11.81
9 Ashkenazi 12.73
10 Bulgarian 14.28
11 Romanian 15.41
12 Italian_Jewish 16.28
13 Algerian_Jewish 16.84
14 Sephardic_Jewish 17.14
15 Spanish_Extremadura 17.46
16 Portuguese 17.49
17 Spanish_Andalucia 17.99
18 Spanish_Murcia 18.28
19 Spanish_Valencia 18.45
20 Serbian 18.72

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 59.3% North_Italian + 40.7% Ashkenazi @ 3.15
2 75.3% Tuscan + 24.7% Greek_Thessaly @ 3.59
3 65.4% Ashkenazi + 34.6% Southwest_French @ 3.69
4 84.2% Tuscan + 15.8% Ashkenazi @ 3.69
5 82.8% Tuscan + 17.2% Central_Greek @ 3.86
6 75.5% North_Italian + 24.5% Cyprian @ 3.92
7 66.9% North_Italian + 33.1% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.97
8 90.3% Tuscan + 9.7% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.97
9 85% Tuscan + 15% East_Sicilian @ 3.97
10 86.7% Tuscan + 13.3% South_Italian @ 3.99
11 59.8% Ashkenazi + 40.2% Spanish_Valencia @ 3.99
12 59.6% West_Sicilian + 40.4% North_Italian @ 3.99
13 93.8% Tuscan + 6.2% Cyprian @ 4.01
14 66.1% North_Italian + 33.9% Italian_Jewish @ 4.01
15 76.8% Tuscan + 23.2% West_Sicilian @ 4.01
16 54% North_Italian + 46% Central_Greek @ 4.03
17 57.9% North_Italian + 42.1% South_Italian @ 4.03
18 90.8% Tuscan + 9.2% Italian_Jewish @ 4.04
19 55.1% North_Italian + 44.9% East_Sicilian @ 4.05
20 89.8% Tuscan + 10.2% Bulgarian @ 4.06

[Sikeliot]

Yes, it is unlikely, but even a minority of samples from the Neapolitan speaking southern Lazio (which are genetically closer to Sicilians overall based on the kits i've seen) would put the average to the south. There is a sharp divide between these and Central Italian-speaking Lazians, who are quite similar to Tuscans.

Neapolitan-speaking Lazian:

1 East_Med 32.7
2 Atlantic 17.34
3 West_Med 17.23
4 West_Asian 13.41
5 North_Sea 10.72
6 Red_Sea 4
7 Baltic 2.87
8 Siberian 0.79
9 Northeast_African 0.39
10 Eastern_Euro 0.35
11 Oceanian 0.21

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 5.55
2 West_Sicilian 6.74
3 Italian_Jewish 6.75
4 East_Sicilian 7.67
5 Italian_Abruzzo 7.67
6 Sephardic_Jewish 7.98
7 Central_Greek 8.02
8 Algerian_Jewish 8.58
9 Ashkenazi 10.52
10 Tunisian_Jewish 11.77
11 Tuscan 12.05
12 Greek 12.62
13 Greek_Thessaly 13.69
14 Libyan_Jewish 14.15
15 Cyprian 14.8
16 North_Italian 18.15
17 Lebanese_Muslim 18.44
18 Syrian 19.91
19 Bulgarian 20.26
20 Turkish 20.59

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 52.1% Lebanese_Druze + 47.9% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.95
2 55.9% Lebanese_Druze + 44.1% Spanish_Aragon @ 4.19
3 53.5% Lebanese_Druze + 46.5% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.29
4 54.4% Lebanese_Druze + 45.6% Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha @ 4.36
5 56.7% Lebanese_Druze + 43.3% Spanish_Cantabria @ 4.5
6 55.7% North_Italian + 44.3% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.5
7 66.5% Tuscan + 33.5% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.62
8 82% West_Sicilian + 18% Lebanese_Druze @ 4.69
9 62.9% Lebanese_Druze + 37.1% French_Basque @ 4.71
10 63.1% Cyprian + 36.9% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.72
11 53.9% Lebanese_Christian + 46.1% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.72
12 57.6% Lebanese_Druze + 42.4% Southwest_French @ 4.79
13 52.2% Lebanese_Druze + 47.8% Spanish_Murcia @ 4.79
14 55.9% Italian_Jewish + 44.1% Italian_Abruzzo @ 4.84
15 64.4% Cyprian + 35.6% Spanish_Valencia @ 4.93
16 64.9% Cyprian + 35.1% Spanish_Cataluna @ 4.93
17 52.5% Lebanese_Christian + 47.5% Spanish_Andalucia @ 5
18 54% Lebanese_Druze + 46% Spanish_Cataluna @ 5
19 56.3% Lebanese_Christian + 43.7% Spanish_Aragon @ 5.02
20 82.8% West_Sicilian + 17.2% Lebanese_Christian @ 5.03

Typical Lazian:

1 East_Med 27.13
2 West_Med 24.79
3 North_Atlantic 24.67
4 Baltic 12.05
5 West_Asian 8.32
6 Red_Sea 2.06
7 East_Asian 0.49
8 Siberian 0.27
9 Amerindian 0.15
10 Northeast_African 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tuscan 4.34
2 West_Sicilian 6.79
3 Greek_Thessaly 8.25
4 Italian_Abruzzo 8.42
5 North_Italian 9.03
6 Central_Greek 10.32
7 East_Sicilian 10.71
8 South_Italian 11.81
9 Ashkenazi 12.73
10 Bulgarian 14.28
11 Romanian 15.41
12 Italian_Jewish 16.28
13 Algerian_Jewish 16.84
14 Sephardic_Jewish 17.14
15 Spanish_Extremadura 17.46
16 Portuguese 17.49
17 Spanish_Andalucia 17.99
18 Spanish_Murcia 18.28
19 Spanish_Valencia 18.45
20 Serbian 18.72

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 59.3% North_Italian + 40.7% Ashkenazi @ 3.15
2 75.3% Tuscan + 24.7% Greek_Thessaly @ 3.59
3 65.4% Ashkenazi + 34.6% Southwest_French @ 3.69
4 84.2% Tuscan + 15.8% Ashkenazi @ 3.69
5 82.8% Tuscan + 17.2% Central_Greek @ 3.86
6 75.5% North_Italian + 24.5% Cyprian @ 3.92
7 66.9% North_Italian + 33.1% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.97
8 90.3% Tuscan + 9.7% Algerian_Jewish @ 3.97
9 85% Tuscan + 15% East_Sicilian @ 3.97
10 86.7% Tuscan + 13.3% South_Italian @ 3.99
11 59.8% Ashkenazi + 40.2% Spanish_Valencia @ 3.99
12 59.6% West_Sicilian + 40.4% North_Italian @ 3.99
13 93.8% Tuscan + 6.2% Cyprian @ 4.01
14 66.1% North_Italian + 33.9% Italian_Jewish @ 4.01
15 76.8% Tuscan + 23.2% West_Sicilian @ 4.01
16 54% North_Italian + 46% Central_Greek @ 4.03
17 57.9% North_Italian + 42.1% South_Italian @ 4.03
18 90.8% Tuscan + 9.2% Italian_Jewish @ 4.04
19 55.1% North_Italian + 44.9% East_Sicilian @ 4.05
20 89.8% Tuscan + 10.2% Bulgarian @ 4.06



The Neapolitan speaking one has a Levant shift like Sicilians or Cretans. The regular person from Lazio does not.

[Carpatz]

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1490709644927.jpg

[Lucas]

Well so far we've had samples from various Germanic tribes who took part in the great migration period, such as the Langobards, Baiuvari, Anglo-Saxons and Alemanni all of which included several outliers and their mixed offsprings.
And I I'm not misstaken there's a paper on the way analyzing Gothic samples from modern day Poland including atleast one Polish-like outlier, according to one guy on Anthrogenica.

Post link to this post. Or it is not true. I think you talk about Waldemar post about Chernakhov samples.

[IncelSlayer]

Ancient romans according to Petersky


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRTh3qqZLkQ

[Token]

Well so far we've had samples from various Germanic tribes who took part in the great migration period, such as the Langobards, Baiuvari, Anglo-Saxons and Alemanni all of which included several outliers and their mixed offsprings.
And I I'm not misstaken there's a paper on the way analyzing Gothic samples from modern day Poland including atleast one Polish-like outlier, according to one guy on Anthrogenica.
Goths most certainly weren't significantly mixed. If this Polish-like outlier you are referring to was sampled in Chernyakhov, keep in mind that it is a heavily multicultural horizon. They found samples clustering from Orcadians to Serbs and Belarussians in this culture, but the Eastern European-like ones don't show any trace of Germanic admixture.

Good luck trying to find another people that can get you from Sicilian-like Imperial Romans to Tuscan-like modern Lazians. With North Italian admixture, you'd need a replacement rate of 60% from people of the north, which is much farther from reality than ~20% Germanic admixture that can actually be detected with dating methods.

[happycow]

Nice. I need my gedmatch fix.

[Aren]

Post link to this post. Or it is not true. I think you talk about Waldemar post about Chernakhov samples.

Not sure if it was Waldemar, but it's buried deep in the Polish thread on anthrogenica. Impossible to find.

[Sikeliot]

I really want to see Sicilians of that era. They must have been even more exotic than the modern ones.

[Aren]

Goths most certainly weren't significantly mixed. If this Polish-like outlier you are referring to was sampled in Chernyakhov, keep in mind that it is a heavily multicultural horizon. They found samples clustering from Orcadians to Serbs and Belarussians in this culture, but the Eastern European-like ones don't show any trace of Germanic admixture.

Good luck trying to find another people that can get you from Sicilian-like Imperial Romans to Tuscan-like modern Lazians. With North Italian admixture, you'd need a replacement rate of 60% from people of the north, which is much farther from reality than ~20% Germanic admixture that can actually be detected with dating methods.

So only Italians have significant Germanic admixture then? Cause there's obviously no way you'll find anyone supporting that Goths made this big of an impact everywhere they set foot. They did not have the population numbers to pull it off.
And again you keep saying Lazians are Tuscan-like without anything to back it up other than a Gedmatch sample you showed. I'd rather trust Lukasz's Lazio average, which is nowhere near Tuscan-like unless you show me more convincing evidence.

You also didn't answer my other quesiton. When and who brought the Caucasian admixture to Italy, detected in Raveane et al paper during the same period as the Germanic admixture?
They also found African admixture events for mainland southern Italians but not for Sicilians which I don't trust at all.

[Peterski]

Ancient romans according to Petersky


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRTh3qqZLkQ

^^^ https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?277375-Elite-Romans-Colourised

[Joso]

Ancient romans according to Petersky


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRTh3qqZLkQ

Ancient Romans surely looked more Polish than Iberian though

[Leto]

I really want to see Sicilians of that era. They must have been even more exotic than the modern ones.
They were straight up Arabians, yes.