Thread 17934889

>italians and greeks are FAR more roman than iberians
what happened?

>>17934889 (OP)
Southern Italy was originally settled by greekoids anon. That’s why they called it Magna Graecia. Terroni are Greeks. Spainmonkeys have a lot of Celt in them

>what happened?
Mohammed born, zillion euro seething

>>17934889 (OP)
The Roman Empire.

>>17934906
GREEKED.com

>>17934906
>>17934910
The funny thing is that Northern Italians from some regions have more J2 than Southern Italians and more Anatolia/Levant_N than Spaniards, French, English, Germans, Finns, Norwegians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Croats and Hungarians. It's no wonder they were the first Western Europeans to convert to Christianity, are the closest Europeans to Ashkenazi Jews in the PCA and have occultshit like "Venetian Black Nobility".

>A 2004 study by Semino et al. contradicted this study, and showed that Italians in North-central regions had a higher concentration of J2 than their Southern counterparts. North-central had 26.9% J2, whereas Calabria (a far Southern region) had 20.0%, Sardinia had 9.7% and Sicily had 16.7%

>A 2018 genetic study, focusing on the Y-chromosome and haplogroups lineages, their diversity and their distribution by taking some 817 representative subjects, gives credit to the traditional northern-southern division in population, by concluding that due to Neolithic migrations southern Italians "show a higher similarity with Middle Eastern and Southern Balkan populations than northern ones; conversely, northern samples are genetically closer to North-West Europe and Northern Balkan groups. The intermediate position of Volterra, between South and North Italy, is a mark of its unique Y-chromosomal genetic structure."

>It also keeps the debate about the origins of Etruscans open: the presence of J2a-M67* could substantiate the hypothesis of Herodotus, that of a migration from the sea of a population related to the Anatolians; the presence of G2a-L497 could point to a more Northern European origin; and finally, the European R1b lineages could suggest an autochtonous origin, following the theories of Dionysius of Halicarnassus

>>17934910
GYROD RAW

>>17934889 (OP)
>italians and greeks are FAR more roman than iberians
It's the reverse.
Spain received less foreign admixture, thus nowadays they're the closest to the Romans.
Here's a PCA I made:

The Italian regions that are the closest to Rome (Lombardy and Trentino) are both shifted more towards the north, and towards the Caucasus. The later one is very small, but it's there.

Another interesting point is the reduction of the WHG admixture in Italy from the Roman times. The automatic response should be the dilution from the Caucasus, but the math doesn't check out.

But whatever it is, it's a fact that Spaniards are the closest to Ancient Romans.

>>17934913
That’s because the Roman’s took a shit ton of Jews as slaves when they BTFO the second temple. Modern Jews are mostly Italian, Ukrainian, and Spanish mutts. It’s not that Italians are jews it’s that jews are Italian rape babies. The difference is important. Pic rel

>>17934928
You're implying 'Romans' were cucks because East Med admixture is extremely male-biased. Italy has similar mtdna across all regions but vastly different y-dna.

>>17934928
And here's another PCA, more zoomed in, where you can see it more clearly.

>>17934889 (OP)
Literally nobody ever claimed that the Romans were Spaniards take your meds and stop including us in your delusions

>>17934928
>>17934938
?

>>17934971
/his/ has a well known schizo who canonically claims this
you will be held responsible for his posts

>>17934974
This don't make any sense ans these distances are abyssamily large. Stop spamming your pathetic coper.

>>17934977
Who?

>>17934980
it's enough to make almost every iberian non-white due to one drop rule

>>17934987
How long are you going to spam this nonsense.

>>17934990
when you stop having dark skin because of your african admixture

>>17934990
seething african

>>17934974
At this point I don't know if it's some IDF intern assigned to derail any south European genetics discussion, or some mentally ill schizo.

>>17934928
>Another interesting point is the reduction of the WHG admixture in Italy from the Roman times. The automatic response should be the dilution from the Caucasus, but the math doesn't check out.
This one is an under talked point indeed.
How come modern north and central Italians have so low whg compared to Romans
That's the main reason Romans cluster with Spaniards actually

>>17935041
>zero negroid genetic poison in moorberia
cope

Coвpeмeнныe итaльянцы - этo пoтoмки лaтинcких, caмнитcких, итaлийcких и этpyccких плeмeн, кoтopыe нaceляли Итaлию (зa иcключeниeм Кopcики, Capдинии и южнoгo пoбepeжья итaльянcкoгo "caпoгa"), пoэтoмy нe coвceм кoppeктнo зaдaвaть вoпpoc в дyхe: "пoчeмy итaльянцы бoльшe пoхoжи нa pимлян, чeм ибepийцы?", тeм бoлee чтo иcпaнцы и пopтyгaльцы (coвpeмeнныe пoтoмки cмeшaннoгo кeльтo-ибepийcкoгo нaceлeния), хoтя и чacтичнo cмeшaвшaяcя c pимcким нaceлeниeм. Ha югe Итaлии были гpeчecкиe кoлoнии и пoлиcы(гopoдa-гocyдapcтвa). Ha ceвepe Итaлии жили кeльтcкиe плeмeнa, кoтopыe нaвoдили yжac нa итaлийцeв eщё дo пoявлeния pимa, кaк pecпyблики.

>>17935063
because iron age iberians had double the amount of WHG as etruscans/italics. most iberians (basques excluded) have only half that amount. doesn't mean iberberians aren't mutted because their whg got reduced from being mutted as well.

>>17934889 (OP)
Iberians are akin to Haitians, in that they are an inferior race colonized by a superior one, from which they adopted the language after being dominated and enslaved. And just like Haitians, they share no blood connection with this superior (Greco-Roman) race.

>>17935072
>>17935138
>>17935153
Completely mindbroken.

>>17934928
>the math doesn't check out.
It does. The Yamnaya reduced the WHG level.

>>17934974
You single-handedly have managed to discredit any notion that Iberians are brown due to your retarded posting. Congrats.

>>17935153
Wasn't half of Italy ruled by Iberians for like 500 years?

>>17935725
The nobles ruling this empire were French; Iberians were merely one of the many brown nations under their rule.

>>17934889 (OP)
>arabs and turks are more roman than spaniards and french
ouch

>>17935758
Wrong.

>>17935774
By the time Spain took control of Naples/Milan it was the Habsburgs, so Austrians. THEN the French Bourbons when they went extinct from inbreeding if that's when that's he means.

>>17935762
Means they were more similar. Why? Proabably bc of the anatolian farmer migrations. They went all throughout southern Europe. They share ancestry from that.

>>17934889 (OP)
>greeks
aka larping slavs and albanians

>>17935762
>>17935994
>>17936042
That's the Rome_Imperial sample - it's the people who were flooding the empire from the east.
The local Roman sample is Italy_IA_Republic.SG , and if OP was honest, he would use that one.

Or we can do it ourselves - what's the website that was used here?

Reading through this thread has made one thing clear, none of you understand genetics. This is just a bunch of faggots pulling shit out of their ass to call europeans they don't like "non-white."

>>17936241
>The local Roman sample is Italy_IA_Republic.SG , and if OP was honest, he would use that one.
Why would Romans be pure Italic? Those people were uncivilized and lived in mudhuts.

Though Carthage was destroyed the other Punic cities joined Rome and their merchants and urbanites, only a short sail to Rome, became a significant part of the economy along with their Iberian cities. They had become so integrated the first Emperor who was not ethnically Roman was part-Punic part-Roman, Severus was like their "Obama".

>>17936241
>Or we can do it ourselves - what's the website that was used here?
The best thing I could find is this tool ( https://www.exploreyourdna.com/pseudoroman.aspx ), which produces these goofy maps:
That's for the Italy_Republic.

>>17936303
I very much doubt the 'Romans' were these cucks because:
1) Their y-dna/genetic profile is not associated with Roman conquests/colonization. 'Italic' admixture is negligible everywhere
2) They said they were half-Trojan, so being half-East Med is in line with it.
Also there's only two samples from the Republican period. Pic related. The rest are ooga booga Iron Age tribals who lived in tiny mudhut villages at the time. It can be argued that R435 is a Gaul because it's the only one that is particularly close to South French. Romans were probably already half-East Med by this time like the other sample indicates.

>>17936316
It's true desu. This has never been refuted.
I understand that maybe the genetic profile changed, but if I was an Italic elite founding stock the first thing I would do with power is raping random spaniard and french women.
Yet R1b U152 is only found in France and Italy at high %, which makes me think it's a joint italo celtic haplogroup, probably North Italian mediated. In Spain, France itself, the roman profile seems that of Imperial Romans. Which means very east med, south italian-like.
This is the fact that I can't reconcile about the roman narrative.
Either romans were the biggest cucks ever that let themselves basically be entirely dominated by their east med underclasses, that used the empire infrastructure to basically dominate europe as well, spreading their seed, or the partiality of the samples doesn't explain the full picture.

>>17936289
Carthaginians were not africans, not even close. They were majority east med as well. Even if imperial romans absorbed carthaginians, it's basically mixing water with water.
By the time of imperial rome, Greeks, Carthaginians and Imperial Romans basically had the same genetic profile.

>>17934913
>The funny thing is that Northern Italians from some regions have more J2 than Southern Italians
That's because Southern Italian have a high amount of E1b1b and G2a that Northern Italians don't.

>>17936357
The E1b1 is mostly EV-13. Because they are basically mostly paleo balkanite.

>>17934889 (OP)
Not genetically correct

>>17935344
>The Yamnaya reduced the WHG level.
Which is weird, because the nords who populated northern Italy after Rome fell must've not had any WHG admixture themselves in that case.

>>17934974
He looks southern euro just with a big nose.

>>17934889 (OP)
>They literally weren’t

Gypriot boipussi got the better of them it seems.

>>17936823
Italic mudhutters in the iron age vs actual imperial elite samples, family of Costantine the great, buried in serbia.
Sissiberians and fr*nch still have extremely male mediated south italian admix. You were literally bitches, taking east med dick from all holes.
Cope as long as the partial data allows you, but deep inside you know the truth.

>>17934889 (OP)
Moorish/Germanic admixture.

>>17936839
The only troon taking east med dick from both sides is yourself gyproid, now fuck off back to selling kebabs to German boomer tourists.

R1b mogs all wog haplos in Italy and has been dominant since beaker times when IE bvlls raped farmoid sluts.

>>17936839
Mutts like Cuntstantine were the byproduct of Illyrian bvlls (identical to italics) impregnating Middle Eastern sluts you stupid cuck.

His mother was some anadolu prostitution.

>>17937270
Prostitute*

>>17937270
You should actually read the study about the Balkans instead of posting these copes. Anatolian-like ancestry is male-mediated. Emperors being half Illyrian and half Greco-Anatolian just prove that this kind of mixing was common. Pure Illyrians were uncivilized barbarians like pure Italics.

>>17937339
Medieval Croatia and medieval Albania were both Greek/Italian-like. Everywhere the Romans went they brought this kind of ancestry.

>>17937396
You dumb nigger the Illyrians were already italian-greek like holy shit you're a fucking retard

>>17937339
>Anatolian-like ancestry is male-mediated.

Not really. Elite males all have typical paleobalkan Y-dna.

>>17937480
Read the paper nigger
>This study analyzed ancient DNA from 136 individuals from the Balkan region dating from the 1st to 10th centuries CE to understand population changes during the Roman Empire and the Migration Period. Here's a summary of the key findings:
>Limited Italic/Roman ancestry: Despite Roman influence and administration, there was surprisingly little genetic contribution from people of Italic origin in the Balkans.
>Influx of Anatolian ancestry: During the Roman Imperial period (1st-3rd centuries CE), there was a significant influx of people with Anatolian ancestry, particularly in urban centers. This influx was male-biased. This ancestry persisted in later populations, averaging 23%.

>>17937497
Don't bother, he's a schizo spammer.

None of these charts make sense as both South Italy and Iberians recieved equal amounts of rape from Africa, I think DNA is not a safe indicator as to what Roman imperials looked like, they probably looked like...
>*Randomly throws a dart on map*
Paraguayans. Sure why not.

>>17937753
Iberians have less than 1% sub-Saharan African the chart the faggot keeps posting is from a 2013 study using fucking haplogroups to infer alleged SSA admixture. He's a D&C shill. Spaniards are proud Aryans.