Is there any proof that the *real* Romans were like those Iron Age tribals? Why would they be. Most of those samples are from before the Republican era even. Rome was a tiny mudhut village back then. They're literally tribal mudhutters. You'd expect the actual founders of Rome to have some East Med admixture like the Imperials as well (like the two East Med mixed Latins that Nordicists conveniently ignore just because they're marked as "oulier"). We need some elite samples from Italy to be really sure. Augustus most certainly had East Med ancestry since he had ancestors from Calabria. Right now the discourse centers around these people being 'replaced' as a scare tactic of what's going to happen to North Europe now.

+300 guaranteed replies thread award

>>17790826
This place is a ghost town ever since the site was hacked. I don't think classic bait even works anymore. It's all the same 5-7 haploautists now

>>17790925
that's because haploaitism is dead, let genealogically-traceable reign undisturbed yet again

>>17790805 (OP)
>Right now the discourse centers around these people being 'replaced' as a scare tactic of what's going to happen to North Europe now.
Nothing wrong with that. You certainly aren't going to change political discourse with haploautism about ancient Rome. Are you autistic?

>>17790935
>Nothing wrong with that
There is because those people are already confirmed to be the local elite in the Balkans and the Eastern half lasted much longer than the WRE. It was snownigger mass immigration that caused the fall of the WRE.

>>17790970

>>17790970
I think you're missing the point because of autism. It doesn't matter who invaded who. It doesn't matter if Europeans invaded Europeans. It doesn't matter if no invasion happened at all. I simply don't care who ran Rome.

In politics historical anecdotes are just rhetoric. There's nothing wrong about telling a story about mass immigration in order to make people reflect on mass immigration today. Even closely related people's invading each other is a problem that the invaded shouldn't accept lying down.

>>17790805 (OP)
Those "outliers" had Trojan noble blood and we're probably elites. Julius Caesar claimed descent through the Claudian dynasty to the Trojan patrician founding stock

No, just an assumption that it would have been similar to IA Italics. I don't see any reason why that would be the case, especially in an urban environment which is going to be more cosmopolitan.

We have the outliers you mentioned, but what's interesting is that R471 has Western European haplos despite the East Mediterranean admixture. This implies multiple generations of admixture. Also he was from Prenestini mountains, not an urban are. A Latin outside of Rome in a rural area having this kind of genetic profile that could only be obtained by multi-generational mixing casts suspicion on the idea that Italics all over the peninsula just remained like Etruscans until migration from the Imperial Era. Now also have this preprint that shows the new Republic era sample BSP71.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.10.07.617003v1.full

We also have other papers on pre-Roman Italics in Southern Italy including ones coming up and they all show some degree of mixing with Eastern Mediterraneans.

>>17792254
sorry R437

>>17792254
>>17790805 (OP)
We have plenty of iron age italics from lazio now, they were ia italic
A lot of other ia italics are releasing like 2 studies about the samnites and 1 study about the Lucanis, their abstracts mention similarity to ia etruscans, with east med outliers only later, east med ancestry wasn't local, it can't be any other way, at best you can hope that latins from lazio mixed heavily earlier than the rest of Italy but that still wouldn't change the fact that east med was an intrusive admixture in an iron age Italian context

>>17792290
>>17792254
They mixed only in roman times
And the east ancestry was mediated by greeks and Anatolias.
Btw, another new interesting thing? Steppe? Matriarchal?

>>17790805 (OP)
Bait thread, but I'll post some good info - somebody could benefit from it.

The Romans were just Spaniards with less northern Euro admixture.

Here's a PCA chart that compares the Romans, Spaniards and Italians.
The reason why Italians are further is because they received both more northern Euro admixture, and some Near Eastern admixture.

Northern Italians are the descendants of Germans who migrated into Italy in medieval times. Southern Italians are more genetically similar to Greeks than they are to Northern Italians.

It is the difference of two different ethnic groups

>>17790805 (OP)
Brownization of ANF in "Southern Europe" is a mystery (I blame WHG and CHG). Some Araps (especially Turks, Iraqis, Lebanese) can be really White, at least Whiter than Medjeets and Will Poulter.

>>17790805 (OP)
Tribal mud hutters from a swamp.

Aka they were Albions all along.

>>17790805 (OP)
>We need some elite samples from Italy to be really sure
Literally the same cope as nordicist.
>Augustus most certainly had East Med ancestry
Yeah nobody denies that retard, by his era Rome was largely orientalized.

>>17792965
>Literally the same cope as nordicist.
It's not. We really need more samples. Both the Latins and the Republican period are under-studied. The Romans themselves said they were Trojan-mixes and there are actual Latins (2/6) with Trojan (Anatolian) ancestry. You think that's just coincidence?

>>17790970
>uninvitingly invade other territories
>don't allow the locals to be citizens
>they get angry and revolt
>pikachu face

>>17790805 (OP)
I think both those guys look great. Its hard for me to judge mens attractiveness so they're basically model tier for me to notice.

What were you talking about?

>>17792290
Intrusive? All ancestry can be considered intrusive. This is clearly very political for you. The fact of the matter is there are barely any samples of early Latins but an astonishing percentage is comprised of these outliers and the admixture is being dated to the Republican era now. This warrants further investigation. You cannot just handwave them all being like Etruscans. My best guess is a lot of pure Italic individuals but a large minority of those with East Mediterranean admixture like R437. This kind of heterogeneity is typical for an ongoing ethnogenesis.

>>17793440
Yes it is.

>>17792514
Complete nonsense, northern Italians are overwhelmingly southern euro/italian, they tend to have a bit of northwestern european ancestry (mostly celtic, not germanic) but that's it, the germans who invaded italy were a minority, they didn't replace the local population and didn't leave a significant genetic impact

>>17795600
Celts were not north western euros you monngoloid

>>17795600
Northern Italians are 25% East Mediterranean, 25% NW European, 50% Italic
Southern Italians are 50%, 15%, 35%
Central in between the two but closer to the south

Add North African for Sicilians and Calabrians

>>17795212
if the "outliers" were nordic you'd be saying they wuz the actual elites and shit. You weasel.

>>17796558
Not at all. I think both of you are dishonest. Thanks for fomforting my view in this.

>>17792514
>>17795600
The only reason nordicist sissies want to claim North Italians is because North Italy as a region is better than most of Northern Europe by every metric, and they have the history that Northern Europe doesn’t have. Let’s just be honest.

>>17796804
Dismissing the East Med Latins just because they're marked as _o is dishonest. They're a significant percentage of the samples and are clearly part of an ongoing ethnogenesis. They're already dating the formation of the "Imperial cluster" to between the 4th and 2th century BC now, but we still know nothing about what was going in the Republican period in general.