Thread 17945664

Real

>>17945664 (OP)
Italo celts were probably nearly identical half Central European Bell Beaker and half Southern European EEF. This genetic profile was not rare, existing in Italy, Iberia much of France and even Austria, Switzerland etc. hence people could genetically be extremely similar despite cultural differences.

>>17945670
Unlikely, italo-cdltic is more ancient to be any EEF excess
They probably had something between 40%/45% steppe related

>>17945679
I wrote with my ass
I'll correct it
I meant it's unlikely, because Italo-Celtic is older than La Tene and would be placed in BA, therefore, it would have something between 40% steppe

>>17945679
>They probably had something between 40%/45% steppe related
Lol no. 30% at most. The proto celts clustered with andalusians btw

>>17945685
>lol no
Yes. Do you have any kind of temporal understanding here? Or is it difficult? Proto-Celts are from the Iron Age, Proto-Italics a little older, whatever material culture you wanted to base it on, but in case it was difficult to understand, "Italo-Celtic" would be older than Celtic and Italic itself and is directly associated with the bell beakers, Proto-Italo-Celtic which can be partially reconstructed by the comparative method. Some who believe that Proto-Italo-Celtic was an identifiable historical language estimate that it was spoken in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC. This is long before the excess of EEF ancestry that occurred in the Iron Age.
therefore, they would have more steppes than their EIA counterparts
and it is still debatable whether there was an Italo-Celtic

>>17945689
Italo Celtic is downstream from the urnfields who were already west med like

>>17945710
No, it's not downstream because we don't have samples cataloged as Italo-Celtic.
The Urnfield culture followed the Tumulus culture and was succeeded by the Hallstatt culture. Not Italo-Celtic, which is associated with BB.

There were already pre-urnfield Appenine cultures in Italy. I think it's cool that you talk about "urnfield genetics" when we don't even have a decent number of samples to support such a claim. Recently, an Iberian "urnfield" sample was released, and it had less steppe than the common Iberians. If you rely on these samples, you must necessarily deny that the people of the British Isles were Celtic due to the discrepancy in the amount of steppe.

>>17945729
>If you rely on these samples, you must necessarily deny that the people of the British Isles were Celtic due to the discrepancy in the amount of steppe
I do. They were celtic in a cultural but not in a biological sense

>>17945737
>>17945729
Urnfield wasn't a ethnicity
Just a shitty horizon

>>17945689
Proto-italics=terramare btw

>>17945664 (OP)
By the time of the gallic campaigns Rome was more similar to Imperial Rome than Iron Age Rome, hence Caesar reports the differences in phenotype between the two.
You people are comparing roman samples that existed in a small settlement under the etruscans vs an enormous polity that controlled the mediterranean during the late republic.
All of this because you don't like they were not white (republican romans were not white either, phenotypically they resembled spaniards and some northern italians, i.e mostly dark haired and dark eyed, Varg would've an heart attack on the spot).

>>17945685
>>17945670
>>17945664 (OP)
celts from central europe were french like

>>17945664 (OP)
the french-like celts mixed with further with eefs, creating the italics and the iberians

>>17945817
It's because their ancient history is pathetic and they have inferiority complexes vis a vis the Romans and Greeks

>>17945817
I didn't make the picture calm down and your post is mostly overinterpretation about roman genetics
>>17945906
so now showing that ancient romans clustered around spaniards and southern french (something actual geneticists agree about btw) is nordicism? lmao

>>17945941
"Ancient romans" didn't. Specifically iron age italics did.
Romans did not even exist in the iron age. Rome got its independence from the Etruscans in 509, so 9 years before the end of the iron age, and even then most samples are not even from that period, but like 700 BC. There is not enough data on classical rome to really say what was the typical profile say in 300 BC, after roman expansion in the south, or during the punic wars.
It's really just being super autistic about a few samples.

>>17945943
>Specifically iron age italics
tomayto, tomahto
>Romans did not even exist in the iron age. Rome got its independence from the Etruscans in 509, so 9 years before the end of the iron age
have you even read the history of rome?
>It's really just being super autistic about a few samples.
probably, i'm not being conclusive about anything, but romans with an iron age profile probably still existed by the time of the gallic war
>data on classical rome to really say what was the typical profile say in 300 BC, after roman expansion in the south, or during the punic wars
nothing suggest a notable genetic shift in central italy before the macedonian war

>>17945954
"Nothing" suggests it because there are no samples. Which is why I'm not conclusive about it either. Except for Caesar's times because Caesar lived like barely 100 years before the pompeii samples for examples. Like the average roman was imperial at that time, let's not kid ourselves.

>>17945958
>"Nothing" suggests it because there are no samples
I'm also talking from a historical pov
before the macedonian wars there's no documented mass movement of east med like genetic profiles into italy
>pompeii
is in southern italy, not all of the peninsula was affected at the same time and to the same degree and the italo-celtic romans did not become like insular greeks overnight, that's not how it works

>>17946000
>into italy
into central and northern italy i meant to say
obviously the south always had a strong greek presence

>>17946000
I agree that it didn't "begin overnight". Precisely because of that the existence of intermediate samples between the two profiles (which is what most italians are) hints at the fact that it has been going on for a looong time.
Also southern italy was east med in that time genetically so "historically" they could've been the source of the east med shift as well.

>>17945664 (OP)
>ROMANS ARE MORE NORDIC THAN CELTS