Where Romans plot

[Token]

https://i.imgur.com/7TlFVVC.png

[Token]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzUoRvuXUAQZlNs.jpg

[Bosniensis]

Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Istanbul, Rome, Southern Italy.

[Ayetooey]

Somewhere around here.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/491704559228551192/580525060545052704/unknown.png

[lonewolfcypriot]

They were Nordic aryans, ask varg

[Damião de Góis]

Am i the only one who can't see the image?

[Token]

Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Istanbul, Rome, Southern Italy.

Southern Italy and Greek islands and nothing more.

[Bigsaul]

They plotted more further south with less steppe and Indo European influence than most Italians today. Romans were largely of Hellenic stock.

[Bosniensis]

Southern Italy and Greek islands and nothing more.

:picard2:

[Token]

They plotted more further south with less steppe and Indo European influence than most Italians today. Romans were largely of Hellenic stock.

Yep, it turns out 'Greco-Roman' isn't only an cultural cluster. The actual Latins might have been similar to North-Central Italians though.

[gıulıoımpa]

it is inportant to say when. a roman in the 472 BC is still a Latin a roman in 350 could be from Britannia or Syria.

[Token]

:picard2:

Can't you look at the fucking plot map?

[Bellbeaking]

myancestor.jpg

Our intellectual, but not genetic ancestors, and that's fine :)

[Ayetooey]

Can't you look at the fucking plot map?

No; nothing shows up.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/491704559228551192/580526614257860621/unknown.png

[Ayetooey]

it is inportant to say when. a roman in the 472 BC is still a Latin a roman in 350 could be from Britannia or Syria.

Yes, someone from the south of Italy isn't going to plot like someone from Pannonia; yet both are Roman.

[Token]

https://i.imgur.com/7TlFVVC.png

Here is where Romans plot, Bosniantard. With Southern Italians.

[Dick]

Here is where Romans plot, Bosniantard. With Southern Italians.


I thought they were mostly Indo-European. Does this mean they have low steppe?

[Ogweed]

edit

[Token]

I thought they were mostly Indo-European. Does this mean they have low steppe?

Yes. It is now confirmed that Romans were mostly of Classical Greek stock.

[gıulıoımpa]

https://i.imgur.com/7TlFVVC.png

Here is where Romans plot, Bosniantard. With Southern Italians.


as i said many times, a good approximation would be modern Campania (between sicily and abruzzo) for many samples.

people dont disappear like clouds. of course there were roman in the whole spectrum of modern Italians from tip to the alps and even Beyond after the citizenship reform by Caracalla.

[Token]

Original post: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14484-Could-Western-Jews-(Ash-and-Seph-)-descend-from-Aegeans-and-Levantine-admixture&p=569003&viewfull=1#post569003

Actual original post: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot/page244&p=568930#post568930

[Pubiczar]

Southern Italy and Greek islands and nothing more.

https://i.postimg.cc/rF1q8VxJ/7TlFVVC.png (https://postimg.cc/gn2CsPMX)fuel stations open near me (https://gasstation-nearme.com/)

Circle 1: Southern Macedonians and Bulgarians, Greek Macedonians and some Albanians.
Circle 2: Central Greece, Peloponnese and some Albanians.

[gıulıoımpa]

I thought they were mostly Indo-European. Does this mean they have low steppe?

it was the Latins that were indoeuropeans they came they conquered, became the elite etc. but as all conquest( hungary, Turkey etc) the people will remain mostly the same.

[Token]

it was the Latins that were indoeuropeans they came they conquered, became the elite etc. but as all conquest( hungary Turkey etc) the people will remain mostly the same.

Italy wasn't Greek-like until Greek settlement. Look at where Etruscans plot, that's where pre-Italic Italians of Bronze Age stock should have clustered.

[gıulıoımpa]

Italy wasn't Greek-like until Greek settlement. Look at where Etruscans plot, that's where pre-Italic Italians of Bronze Age stock should have clustered.

thats the key word. a settlement (going on basically for two or more millennia consecutively) is very different from conquest. thats why greeks left a generic imprint on southern italy(not all of italy) conquest rarely changes DNA more than a small amount.

in a less massive way although still important the padanian plain received continuous influx in the space of the first millennium BC from Celtic people ( and even the latins that descended the peninsula were something really close to them at one point in time) ....that left a sign too.


the peninsula has been hosting a moisac of the most disparate populations

[Token]

Yes, someone from the south of Italy isn't going to plot like someone from Pannonia; yet both are Roman.

The difference is that one is an ethnic Roman and the other is an acculturated native Pannonian

[Ogweed]

it was the Latins that were indoeuropeans they came they conquered, became the elite etc. but as all conquest( hungary, Turkey etc) the people will remain mostly the same.

No, romans made war with the italics after conquering the Etruscans,more than likely earliest Rome was a greek colony which later expanded.The Aenid although mostly fiction still has some truth in it, Bronze Age Italy from North to Sicily was mostly N-Italian like judging from the ancient samples, the big hop starts after Bronze Age collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91%E2%80%9388_BC)

[Vid Flumina]

Based on my source Later Romans were even more shifted toward present-day southern Italians .Also there are other samples from different regions of central Italy that cluster with the Romans in this plot.

Which regions of Central Italy?

Pompeii


Here is some extra information:
Picenes, Samnites and Umbri were very close to Etruscans.
This makes things even more complicated. but I think best explanation is that proto-Italic was probably language of Italian bell-beakers.

So Hellenic influenced Pompeii clusters with Romans while nearby Italic Samnites are close to Etruscans. Early Latins too must have been Etruscan-like before expanding south:

http://orig03.deviantart.net/7bbc/f/2011/004/5/9/magna_graecia_by_hillfighter-d3671zh.png

.

[celticdragongod]

Yes. It is now confirmed that Romans were mostly of Classical Greek stock.

But isn't the Latin language closely related to Celtic and Germanic?

[billErobreren]

But isn't the Latin language closely related to Celtic and Germanic?

I'd say more to to Celtic than Germanic. I've known so many Irish speakers that were fascinated upon finding that greetings like "Conas ata tu?" makes sense, almost word for word in Spanish as "Como estas tu?" or French as "Comment allez-vous?" but that's probably the height of it. The words as well as the sentence structure of Irish and Welsh are pretty alien to anyone that speaks anything Germanic which most will say has more in common with Balto-Slavic languages, I've only looked into Latvian and Czech but I can't say I'm able to vouch for their relation yet.

[Peterski]

Yes. It is now confirmed that Romans were mostly of Classical Greek stock.

So why didn't they speak Greek?

[Scipio Africanus]

So why didn't they speak Greek?

becouse they were Italics,not Greek.

[Peterski]

becouse they were Italics,not Greek.

Yes but do you think that Italic languages were closely related to Hellenic languages?

Usually it is said that Italic is most closely related to Celtic and they form Italo-Celtic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic

[Faklon]

Which calculator/study is this?

[XenophobicPrussian]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzUoRvuXUAQZlNs.jpg
Would be a good meme if the statue bust represented actual Southern Italians/Romans than some Frenchman or Austrian.

https://d1bvpoagx8hqbg.cloudfront.net/originals/6-months-south-italy-survival-edition-erasmus-salerno-2016-bb052fad783c31c0d8c93768a71525e1.jpg

Also odd you credited most of Indo-Iranian culture to Corded Ware-like people and acknowledge the Indian elite have more of the admixture as well as pure outliers surviving pretty late among the elite yet here are quick to point out the non-relationship with northern Europeans(not that I disagree), unless that was you just trolling Indians.

Should also point out that the Imperial era Romans were the ones clustering with S. Italians and Greek Islanders, Republican Romans were the more N. Italian clustering ones. Hard to not put the decline of Rome and this together tbh. Also makes it less likely that Imperial Romans were just Greeks, Greeks were likely just Myceneans while Imperial Romans were probably Republican Roman+Greek+Levant+NA, just a coincidence they cluster together and had extremely similar genepools from extra MENA inflow. Anyway, I'm surprised this isn't bigger news. This should be the #1 thread on TA right now.

[Peterski]

(...)

^^^
I think they are only Imperial Era Romans. From Anthrogenica:

"EDIT: On a second look at the leaked news brought to us by kolgeh and the Moot's talk, considering they are all Imperial-era samples that have considerable Hellenic admixture, I believe in this more plausible scenario, rather than Magna Graecia reaching all the way to Rome: maybe the Hellenic admixture in Republican-era Romans was initially limited, but after their victory in the Pyrrhic War in 275 BC - still the Republican Era - and Roman annexation of Magna Graecia, Rome was flooded with Magna Graecian Greeks migrating and settling up in Rome itself - perhaps they were even encouraged to do so by the Romans themselves, to contribute with their culture and considerable advanced civilization to the other Italic tribes at that point of time. This is why 3 centuries later, when we look at samples of the Imperial era, they are extremely Hellenic-mixed to the point they plot as modern South Italians."

BTW this is also interesting, about Samnites (an Italic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italic_peoples) ethnicity):

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

"Samnites plot far to the north of Romans, right near and even among Basques.

These Iron Age Italic groups are homogeneous, which isn't surprising.

Romans are very mixed, which again isn't surprising, because much of Rome was located outside the Italian Peninsula."

[Tigranes]

Romans were Armenoid.

[Hulu]

Southern Italy and Greek islands and nothing more.

Albanians?

[Bosniensis]

Albanians?

Albanians count under the Greeks, you are hillbilly greeks nothing else.

[Hulu]

Albanians count under the Greeks, you are hillbilly greeks nothing else.

Lol. We are elite greeks. If we wanted to be greeks we would be greeks ;)

[Faklon]

Should also point out that the Imperial era Romans were the ones clustering with S. Italians and Greek Islanders, Republican Romans were the more N. Italian clustering ones. Hard to not put the decline of Rome and this together tbh. Also makes it less likely that Imperial Romans were just Greeks, Greeks were likely just Myceneans while Imperial Romans were probably Republican Roman+Greek+Levant+NA, just a coincidence they cluster together and had extremely similar genepools from extra MENA inflow. Anyway, I'm surprised this isn't bigger news. This should be the #1 thread on TA right now.

Wishful thinking, Nerva–Antonine dynasty rules your arse.


"EDIT: On a second look at the leaked news brought to us by kolgeh and the Moot's talk, considering they are all Imperial-era samples that have considerable Hellenic admixture, I believe in this more plausible scenario, rather than Magna Graecia reaching all the way to Rome: maybe the Hellenic admixture in Republican-era Romans was initially limited, but after their victory in the Pyrrhic War in 275 BC - still the Republican Era - and Roman annexation of Magna Graecia, Rome was flooded with Magna Graecian Greeks migrating and settling up in Rome itself - perhaps they were even encouraged to do so by the Romans themselves, to contribute with their culture and considerable advanced civilization to the other Italic tribes at that point of time. This is why 3 centuries later, when we look at samples of the Imperial era, they are extremely Hellenic-mixed to the point they plot as modern South Italians."


If that's true, Magna Graecians have been part of Rome since its rise as a Republic and all of its great deeds. The influences Imperial Rome should have gotten would rather be Gaulish and the age would be 5 BC/5 AD and not 275 BC.

[savvas]

Leaked PCA (Republican Romans):

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

[XenophobicPrussian]

Leaked PCA (Republican Romans):

https://i.imgur.com/HrrrQGP.png
lol this is photoshopped right? I haven't seen the Anthrogeneca thread.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Wishful thinking, Nerva–Antonine dynasty rules your arse.



If that's true, Magna Graecians have been part of Rome since its rise as a Republic and all of its great deeds. The influences Imperial Rome should have gotten would rather be Gaulish and the age would be 5 BC/5 AD and not 275 BC.
There's a lot of points there so I'm not sure exactly which you think is wishful thinking. The Roman Empire started declining around 200 AD, so your Nerva-Antonnine dynasty is technically true but you still have no idea what they would've been like genetically. We don't know if most samples are post or pre 200 AD, and besides, it was obviously a gradual process, not something that happened overnight. Rome was unarguably at her peak around 0 AD. The emperors may've still been closer to Republican Romans than commoners as well. Also for the record, the Romans ruled over the Celt, other S. European and MENA asses, not mine.

I don't deny even Republican Rome had Greek influence(there were already some more exotic S. Italian types but they were the minority), but the Imperial and Antiquity eras you really see a rise in this type of admixture(again, not necessarily only from Greece but from the Middle-East as well), it's very unlikely to be a coincidence than Rome declined during and after this.

[MinervaItalica]

becouse they were Italics,not Greek.

I don't know where people get the idea that Romans were of Hellenic stocks... :picard1:

I mean Romans it's a pretty generic term. Latins (the elite) weren't of Hellenic stock... "Romans" included many non Italic natives.

[Vid Flumina]

Republican Rome = Iron Age "California"

Cato the Elder apparently wanted to build the wall:

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


In due course, my son Marcus, I shall explain what I found out in Athens about these Greeks, and demonstrate what advantage there may be in looking into their writings (while not taking them too seriously). They are a worthless and unruly tribe. Take this as a prophecy: when those folk give us their writings they will corrupt everything. All the more if they send their doctors here. They have sworn to kill all barbarians with medicine—and they charge a fee for doing it, in order to be trusted and to work more easily. They call us barbarians, too, of course, and Opici, a dirtier name than the rest. I have forbidden you to deal with doctors.

— Quoted by Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia 29.13–14.


Also:


Cato was and remains famous as an author as well. He was a historian, the first Latin prose writer of any importance, and the first author of a history of Italy in Latin. Some have argued that if it were not for the impact of Cato's writing, Latin might have been supplanted by Greek as the literary language of Rome. He was also one of the very few early Latin authors who could claim Latin as a native language.

[Scipio Africanus]

I don't know where people get the idea that Romans were of Hellenic stocks... :picard1:

I mean Romans it's a pretty generic term. Latins (the elite) weren't of Hellenic stock... "Romans" included many non Italic natives.

The Greeks inhabited the cities they founded (or refounded) on the coasts of southern Italy and even in these cities, once started, a large part of the inhabitants were Hellenizate native. In the other coastal areas and especially in the hinterland the population was native, with different degrees of hellenization.
The genetic similarities exist because the populations of these areas were often similar long before the birth of the Hellenic civilization.
Latin were of Italic stock,the elite anf the others.

[MinervaItalica]

The Greeks inhabited the cities they founded (or refounded) on the coasts of southern Italy and even in these cities, once started, a large part of the inhabitants were Hellenizate native. In the other coastal areas and especially in the hinterland the population was native, with different degrees of hellenization.
The genetic similarities exist because the populations of these areas were often similar long before the birth of the Hellenic civilization.
Latin were of Italic stock,elite or not doent metter.

I agree but saying that Romans are of Hellenic stock has little to no sense at all. The original Romans (Latins) weren't Hellenic. "Romans" are citizens of Rome and this includes many non italics (pretty obvious considering the size of the Republic/Empire).
The Romans (Latins) adopted part of the Hellenic culture and added it to their native one because they were admirers of Greek myths and culture, nothing more.

Perhaps, Latins are more related to Etruscans about origins.

[War Chef]

Why do they make these plots so hard to read? All Europeans are brown squares. :picard1:

[Scipio Africanus]

I agree but saying that Romans are of Hellenic stock has little to no sense at all. The original Romans (Latins) weren't Hellenic. "Romans" are citizens of Rome and this includes many non italics (pretty obvious considering the size of the Republic/Empire).
The Romans (Latins) adopted part of the Hellenic culture and added it to their native one because they were admirers of Greek myths and culture, nothing more.

Perhaps, Latins are more related to Etruscans about origins.

Yes ofc they were Italic. The original Romans were a union of Latin, Sabine and other Italics (i.e. or not) from that area of Lazio.
Agree the Etruscan can be considered the "father" of the Romans.

[Lucas]

First Italics were similar to modern Northern Italians genetically...

But later Romans were mixed with "South", nothing surprising.