Why do people assume the Romans had any genetic impact on Iberia and France?

[Daos777]

Myheritage says that this is how many Romanians score a particular region on their tests:


Balkan
89.4%
Greek and South Italian
47%
East European
41.9%
North and West European
20.1%
Italian
16.2%
West Asian
15.1%
Baltic
14.3%
Scandinavian
11.5%
Ashkenazi Jewish
10.3%
Iberian
10.2%
North African
6%
Finnish
4.4%
Irish, Scottish, and Welsh
3.7%
English
3.5%
Middle Eastern
3.4%
South Asian
2.7%
Central Asian
1.3%

Almost half of all Romanians score Greek and South Italian. 0.1% more score Ashkenazi Jewish rather than Iberian. Only 1% more (16 vs 15%) score Italian rather than West Asian. Based on whatever Italian is for MyHeritage, pretty much just as many Romanians have an Anatolian component as they have an Italian one.

I score 16.5% Iberian with 2.8% Italian and 3% Scottish. My gf scores 5.2% Greek, 3.9% Iberian and 2.4% Italian. I've seen results with around 20% Greek with no known Greek ancestors. At almost 50% of the pop it's ridiculous to claim that 1 in 2 Romanians have a distant Greek ancestor, the immigration was just not there from Greece. Overall, as you said, Romanians retain a much more Paleo-Balkan component.

Based on all the Balkan results I've seen here, it seems that Romanians score more East Med on K13, while Serbs and other West Balkanites have varying amounts but never really over 17%, with higher Baltic and sometimes higher Atlantic. The numbers are based on memory.

If it's true that Dacians or Thracians clustered much closely to North Italy then we can safely assume that the Slavic admixture after the Dacian wars had a much bigger impact than any Latinophile in his nightmares.

Who said that Dacians and Thracians cluster with North Italy?

Is there any Dacian or Thracian genomes available? Because I heard a Thracian had E-V13 but I can’t find his genome anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Dude, you're projecting your own beliefs on history, then complain that others do it.

On average Romanians score 20% Italian/Greek - they don't only when Southern European is indistinguishable from general Balkan. Where the fuck do you think so much Greek and Roman blood is coming from, in Romania? Italy and Greece are countries with no border to Romania. It's obvious these are remnants of colonization. It is estimated that the population of Roman Dacia was 70,000 colonists (2 permanent Roman legions, army supporting personnel, and administration) and about 400,000 Dacians. The Romanization of Dacia was deep and fast, and we can see that in the names inscripted on graves (graves dating from 3rd to 6th century AD period), of which only 2% still had Dacian names (the great majority had Roman names and about 15% had Greek names).

Cumans definitely had an impact in Romania, perhaps on 10% of the population (far more visible in Southeastern Romania than in other places), but less than the impact Romans had.

So in order of importance, these are the major ancestors of Romanians: Dacians (about 45%), Slavs (about 25-30%), Southern Europeans (Romans and Greeks - about 15-20%), Cuman and Jassic people (about 10% in total), other populations (Hungarians, Germans etc 5%).

See my last post. 50% show Greek and South Italian in varying amounts based on MyHeritage. We can't necessarily take them seriously but there's something there. I am complaining because we score more Balkan than Med and there is conflicting information. More info should be found relating to the genetics of Thracians and Dacians as I've heard around here that they might have clustered with N. Italians. Some mixed Scythians surely show that. An input of even more Romans should have kept us closer to N. Italians.

Inscriptions might have a low % of Dacian names because the Romans were more interested in doing it. I am not contesting them being in Dacia and mixing. I'm just claiming it's overrated based on how we cluster compared to our neighbours and how we score.

[Roy]

Thanks for necroing the thread. It's a good question since the Romans imposed Latin on Iberians and gauls.

I see nothing wrong in necro bumps.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

Edit for both: I probably fucked up there and read something wrong, or I just can't find a post stating whether Vlachs or Thracians scoring closer to Central or N. Italians. All I can find is that Thracian input might just pull more southern which would be typical. Apologies.

[ixulescu]

See my last post. 50% show Greek and South Italian in varying amounts based on MyHeritage. We can't necessarily take them seriously but there's something there. I am complaining because we score more Balkan than Med and there is conflicting information. More info should be found relating to the genetics of Thracians and Dacians as I've heard around here that they might have clustered with N. Italians. Some mixed Scythians surely show that. An input of even more Romans should have kept us closer to N. Italians.

Inscriptions might have a low % of Dacian names because the Romans were more interested in doing it. I am not contesting them being in Dacia and mixing. I'm just claiming it's overrated based on how we cluster compared to our neighbours and how we score.

We cluster with our neighbors because they also have Greek and Roman heritage - all native pre-Slavic populations of the Balkans did, and so do their present day descendants.

I don't get why people get so triggered with the Daco-Roman heritage of Romanians. Romanians do have Dacian and Roman heritage. True, the Slavic heritage is more important than the Roman one, but

1. Daco-Slavo-Roman doesn't have the same ring to it
2. Daco-Roman label was put when Tsarist Russia and later Soviet Union were looking for reasons to get larger and larger territories out of Romania. An admission of Slavic ancestry for an important percentage of Romanians looked like casus belli at that time.

[grecoroman]

We have more in common with italians than Irish.

[WeirdLookingFellow]

We cluster with our neighbors because they also have Greek and Roman heritage - all native pre-Slavic populations of the Balkans did, and so do their present day descendants.

I don't get why people get so triggered with the Daco-Roman heritage of Romanians. Romanians do have Dacian and Roman heritage. True, the Slavic heritage is more important than the Roman one, but

1. Daco-Slavo-Roman doesn't have the same ring to it
2. Daco-Roman label was put when Tsarist Russia and later Soviet Union were looking for reasons to get larger and larger territories out of Romania. An admission of Slavic ancestry for an important percentage of Romanians looked like casus belli at that time.

Few really debate the Dacian part, a lot more are concerned about the Roman impact. Also agreed with the second point.

[RenaRyuguu]

Few really debate the Dacian part, a lot more are concerned about the Roman impact. Also agreed with the second point.