Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins?

Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Among Italics only the Romans ever amounted to much. The Sabellian or Samnites aren't particularly more impressive than the Celtiberians.
    Contact with the Greeks played a huge part certainly but there's more to it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Sabellian
      That's the name of a character in WoW and not an ancient Italic tribe.
      I'm going to kys myself now.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Many Roman patrician gens were Sabine, Samnite etc in origin
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabines#Prominent_Sabines

      Also Etruscans were great

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes and once they were integrated into the empire the iberians also had emperors and stuff.
        But by themselves they didn't amount to much.
        Etruscans are a special case, them and the greeks is what gave Rome a headstart

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There were no Iberian patricians.
          Emperors are different thing, there were more Illyrian emperors than Iberian

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Augustus was Volsci

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    These were only Latins and Etruscans and mostly due to levels of autism unacceptable to clinical psychiatrics among the former

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What about native sicilians?
    Nuragics are pretty cool.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Also Etruscans were great

    >Etruscans
    >Italic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes? It shows that they were like other italics genetically

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Etruscans were non-Italic speaking due to east med elites, but most of them were assimilated italics.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >east med elites
        Absolute headcanon

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ancients were wrong
          No

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even some ancents like Dionysus of Halicarnassus doubted that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why would we trust them on anything beyond their immediate past? Herodotus thought that an inscription left by an Anatolian bronze age kingdom that neighbour his homeland was actually left by an Egyptian pharaoh, if he didn't have a clue about the history of his own lands, why would he know about lands located hundreds and hundreds of miles from his own?

            Thucydides says Sicani came from Iberia and we found some R1b-DF27 among them. Ancients are trustworthy.

            almost all modern scholarship about the etruscans abandoned the asia minor model

            Most Etruscans were just assimilated local Italics, no one denies this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Thucydides says Sicani came from Iberia and we found some R1b-DF27 among them.
            Meaningless, autosomally they were completely different from the Iberians. Most lineages were different too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm talking about the language theory too, it's not from asia

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why would we trust them on anything beyond their immediate past? Herodotus thought that an inscription left by an Anatolian bronze age kingdom that neighbour his homeland was actually left by an Egyptian pharaoh, if he didn't have a clue about the history of his own lands, why would he know about lands located hundreds and hundreds of miles from his own?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            almost all modern scholarship about the etruscans abandoned the asia minor model

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A 2021 genetic study published in the journal Science Advances analyzed the autosomal DNA of 48 Iron Age individuals from Tuscany and Lazio and confirmed that the Etruscan individuals displayed the ancestral component Steppe in the same percentages as found in the previously analyzed Iron Age Latins, and that the Etruscans' DNA completely lacks a signal of recent admixture with Anatolia or the Eastern Mediterranean, concluding that the Etruscans were autochthonous and they had a genetic profile similar to their Latin neighbors. Both Etruscans and Latins joined firmly the European cluster, 75% of the Etruscan male individuals were found to belong to haplogroup R1b, especially R1b-P312 and its derivative R1b-L2 whose direct ancestor is R1b-U152, while the most common mitochondrial DNA haplogroup among the Etruscans was H.[32]

        OOPS! Yet another shitskin We Wuzer narrative utterly BTFO.

        White Europeans influenced shitskin culture, but never vice versa. Iron Age European Sea Peoplesdestroyed all the inferior shit Bronze age civs too and raped their women.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most were locals. Minority of invaders brought language and civilization to conquered people. Etruscans were different on civilizitional level from other Italians.

          >Thucydides says Sicani came from Iberia and we found some R1b-DF27 among them.
          Meaningless, autosomally they were completely different from the Iberians. Most lineages were different too.

          Iberian blood was diluted in them, but some lineages were preserved.
          This is similar to what happened to Hungarians. By your logic Hungarians are Slavs and never had Uralic elites.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >By your logic Hungarians are Slavs and never had Uralic elites
            Correct. Most of the Uralic component of the Hungarians was massacred because they refused chritianization.
            Also we don't have proof that the etruscan language came from the east

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Iberian blood was diluted in them, but some lineages were preserved.
            Non sense. They had more East Med blood than West Med blood, those lineages weren't prevalent in the slightest. Yes, Sicily is in the Middle of the Mediterranean so it got migrations from all over it, the fact that they got (possibly) a small migrations from Iberia doesn't mean anything. Most other stuff they got wrong: Georgians coming from Egypt, Phoenicians from the Red Sea, a broken clock can be right once a day, but in this case we can't even say they were right, since these Sicani got DNA from all over the place, and this lineage was probably not just in Iberia but in other Bell Beaker Mediterranean contexts, we have very few samples after all

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They hadn't

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Huge cope. Etruscans came from the Alps like the other Tyrrhenians and have a long proven native development record there.

            There is absolutely zero evidence of linguistic or cultural transfer from the East, but there is ample evidence that the Tyrrhenians can be identified with the "Sea Peoples".

            Therefore any cultural similarities is due to Europeans raping the locals in the Levant and leaving traces of their culture there during the Bronze age collapse.

            This would make sense as the Vinca symbols which looks similar to proto-Latin/Italic scripts predate the Phoenician alphabet by 3000 years and the latter looks nothing like Cuneiform so they almost certainly got it from Sea People rape.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sea peoples were Meds from Corsica, Sardinia and Anatolia

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            West European* meds

            Correct. Destroying your shitty old inferior bronze age civs using European iron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            West and east meds. None were white

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Indo-Europeans were White, then they raped locals and became browner.

            The direction of cultural, linguistic and genetic geneflow is still the same: from central Europe out to meds out to shitskins in Levant, Iran and even India.

            But never vice versa. Never happened even once. Carthage were the last shitskins to try and they all got butchered and genocided like the Semitic filthy they were by Chad Indo-Europeans.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Romans were shitskins and raped nordics hard

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Blue eyes, of the same recessive gene found only im Whites
            >Shitskins

            Man you are coping hard. The ancestors of Romans came from central Europe, CWC. That's why they spoke Indo-European language.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >pajeets speak indoeuropean so they are white
            Ok

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. They are R1a too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pajeets are mixed with Dravidian shit and are less than 20% CWC.

            Romans are 70% CWC and 100% paternal Steppe men.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the study includes outliers for the romans, their percentage of blue eyes is higher when you exclude outliers
            i checked the supplementary material, you can be a good boy and do it yourself
            so stop spamming this, post the actual charts with any individual samples

            plus you had very light populations in some parts of italy like the picenes, or the daunians in pic rel

            >Iberian blood was diluted in them, but some lineages were preserved.
            Non sense. They had more East Med blood than West Med blood, those lineages weren't prevalent in the slightest. Yes, Sicily is in the Middle of the Mediterranean so it got migrations from all over it, the fact that they got (possibly) a small migrations from Iberia doesn't mean anything. Most other stuff they got wrong: Georgians coming from Egypt, Phoenicians from the Red Sea, a broken clock can be right once a day, but in this case we can't even say they were right, since these Sicani got DNA from all over the place, and this lineage was probably not just in Iberia but in other Bell Beaker Mediterranean contexts, we have very few samples after all

            sicanis were hyper "west med", they almost resemble sardinians
            east med were useless migrant garbage

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this, italy was completely destroyed by eastern mediterraneans

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, northern european migrations after the roman empire kinda saved southern europe a bit from turning into a complete and utter shithole

            if there were no northern european migrations to italy and the rest of southern europe, iberia, italy and greece, would unironically be full mena troon shitholes and would resemble literal middle easterners instead of being only partially middle eastern
            unfortunately this transformation wasn't complete and so you have the modern brown italian/iberian

            as i was saying tho

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

            the study includes outliers for the romans, their percentage of blue eyes is higher when you exclude outliers
            i checked the supplementary material, you can be a good boy and do it yourself
            so stop spamming this, post the actual charts with any individual samples

            plus you had very light populations in some parts of italy like the picenes, or the daunians in pic rel

            [...]
            sicanis were hyper "west med", they almost resemble sardinians
            east med were useless migrant garbage

            blue eyes in the ancients of mainland southern italy were incredibly more common than in the modern brown south italian

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apulia
            Those are Illyrians. Sicilians and actual italics including etruscans were dark af

            this, italy was completely destroyed by eastern mediterraneans

            yes, northern european migrations after the roman empire kinda saved southern europe a bit from turning into a complete and utter shithole

            if there were no northern european migrations to italy and the rest of southern europe, iberia, italy and greece, would unironically be full mena troon shitholes and would resemble literal middle easterners instead of being only partially middle eastern
            unfortunately this transformation wasn't complete and so you have the modern brown italian/iberian

            as i was saying tho [...] blue eyes in the ancients of mainland southern italy were incredibly more common than in the modern brown south italian

            Italians and israelites are the only modern meds who contributed to science.
            Iberians produced almost zero relevant scientists after reconquista

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Iberians didn't produce any scientists before the reconquista either.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Go ahead name them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Those are Illyrians.
            those were the local people of the region, being illyrian influenced (like the picenes) doesn't turn them into non locals
            and sicanis weren't italics, so they're in the same boat as illyrians

            also, and that's the last time that i'll tell you this, the 10% blue eyes figures for latins INCLUDES OUTLIERS with middle eastern admixture, when those are removed the percentage is much higher, sorry but that's the harsh truth, so they're weren't "dark as frick"
            so i have to post the supplementary material with all the samples so you shut the frick up forever?

            >Italians and israelites are the only modern meds who contributed to science.
            italians are half middle eastern, they're migrants from the middle east
            >Iberians produced almost zero relevant scientists after reconquista
            iberians are baboons with nafri admxiture

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Apulia
            Those are Illyrians. Sicilians and actual italics including etruscans were dark af
            [...]
            [...]
            Italians and israelites are the only modern meds who contributed to science.
            Iberians produced almost zero relevant scientists after reconquista

            here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all

            these are all the samples from lazio in the study
            when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
            if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)

            you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
            you basically lost

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look at this lying piece of crap.

            There are 38 Etruscans in the study and only one of them has blue eyes. Excluding the outliers, the blue eyes ration among Etruscans/Latins is actually 6,6%

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There are 38 Etruscans in the study and only one of them has blue eyes.
            i didn't lie moronic subhuman trash

            read better what i said
            >these are all the samples from lazio in the study
            >from lazio
            >LAZIO
            get it, i only picked the samples from lazio

            if you only count the latins from lazio 27% are blue eyed when the useless irrelevant outliers are excluded
            if you count all samples from LAZIO 14% are blue eyed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
            this is correct for romans, thank you for btfoing the ibero-italian scum

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            so it's officially settled, the latins were 27% blue eyed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            seems to be the case, latins were fairly light for southern euro standards with their 27% blue eyes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >sample size is 7
            Rejected. Look at etruscans

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, i look at etruscans to judge the percentages in etruscans
            latins are 27% blue eyed

            the latin samples are 27% blue eyed
            for the etruscans, taq023, taq007, vet008 and vet006.9 are all middle eastern outliers and should not be included

            so you are actually including 2 outliers, taq007 and taq023

            you're actually right

            if we exclude those outliers all the lazio samples are 3/19 blue eyed, which makes them 16% blue eyed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >16% blue eyed
            So were andalusian tier brownoids

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the latin samples are 27% blue eyed
            for the etruscans, taq023, taq007, vet008 and vet006.9 are all middle eastern outliers and should not be included

            so you are actually including 2 outliers, taq007 and taq023

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the mas001 is also an outlier with natufian ancestry

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and? around 25% of spaniards have blue or green eyes. and around 30% for italy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            only after the germanic arrival confirmed by multiple studies

            >The average ancestry of the Late Antique individuals (n = 24) shifts away from the Near East and toward modern central European populations in PCA (Fig. 3D). Formally, they can be modeled as a two-way mixture of the preceding Imperial individuals and 38 to 41% ancestry from a late Imperial period individual from Bavaria
            >Regarding the last temporal interval of our ancient genomic transect (500 to 1000 CE), we observe that individuals grouped in the “C.Italy_Early.Medieval” cluster are generally shifted toward central European groups compared to C.Italy_Imperial and largely overlap with present-day populations from central Italy (TSI.SG) (Fig. 5A) (30). Using f4-tests, we can show that this transition is confirmed by a reduced affinity of C.Italy_Early.Medieval toward eastern Mediterranean populations compared to C.Italy_Imperial (table S2D). Moreover, the C.Italy_Early.Medieval cluster can be modeled successfully in qpAdm as a mixture between the preceding C.Italy_Imperial group and Late Antique or Medieval groups from northern and eastern Europe (among the 59 populations tested) in estimated proportions of 60 to 90% and 10 to 40%, respectively (table S4E).

            without this shifting the population north a bit modern italians would be as brown as cypriots

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >those were the local people of the region, being illyrian influenced (like the picenes) doesn't turn them into non locals
            Picenes resemble north italians unlike romans and etruscans iirc
            >the 10% blue eyes figures for latins INCLUDES OUTLIERS
            Those "outliers" make up 1/3 of the sample size. But anyway, only etruscans have good sample size and they are indeed extremely dark
            >italians are half middle eastern, they're migrants from the middle east
            Middle eastern is meaningless category here. European greeks had more in common with trojans and lycians both culturally and genetically than with european nordics
            >iberians are baboons with nafri admxiture
            Iberians are west meds and they are similar to romans even in sense that they are amazing warriors, but incompenent scientists

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

            [...]
            here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all

            these are all the samples from lazio in the study
            when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
            if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)

            you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
            you basically lost

            I'm northern european with brown eyes. 14% is low, most italics looked like me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Picenes resemble north italians unlike romans and etruscans iirc
            doesn't make them non local, half of italy was like picenes and daunians, northern italian samples are even more northeastern according to leaks

            >Those "outliers" make up 1/3 of the sample size.
            middle eastern irrelevant migrants

            >Middle eastern is meaningless category here. European greeks had more in common with trojans and lycians both culturally and genetically than with european nordics
            it's a meaningful category hence why they're classified as outliers

            >I'm northern european with brown eyes. 14% is low, most italics looked like me
            you are not, you are a southron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >northern italian samples are even more northeastern according to leaks
            It's very interesting to look at them, most of roman historians were from cisalpine gaul
            >middle eastern
            East med is more correct category
            >classified as outliers
            Northern shifted etruscans are classified as outliers too
            >you are not, you are a southron
            I'm not. I can easily prove it to you if you post a contact

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >East med is more correct category
            no, middle eastern is the correct category

            >Northern shifted etruscans are classified as outliers too
            yes because they have central european admixture, just like the middle eastern outliers have middle eastern admixture

            >I'm not. I can easily prove it to you if you post a contact
            you are a lying southron, you the same southron that didn't

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >is the correct category
            I have already explained why this is not
            >middle eastern outliers
            No such thing, they called them east med outliers. A half roman half greek would be east med outlier
            >you are a lying southron
            I'm a northerner. Let's be allies

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I have already explained why this is not
            you didn't and probably it's some moronic explanation about muh ancient greeks
            they have middle eastern admixture, not proper greek admixture (mycenean-like the only actual genetic greeks, not mutts from anatolia)

            >No such thing, they called them east med outliers. A half roman half greek would be east med outlier
            they're not half roman half greek, don't fricking start terrone, they're half middle eastern

            >I'm a northerner. Let's be allies
            you are not

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Europeans are closer to middle easterners than to other europeans from even same region. The separation doesn't make any sense. They belong to same category - east meds
            >they're not half roman half greek
            Some are
            >you are not
            Sorry but I am

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Myceneans =/= Hellenic Greeks.

            Europeans have nothing in common with middle easters except for genociding them and raping the local slaves that were left.

            Any trace of similarity in modern MENA to European peoples is due to centuries for Greco-Romano-Frankish rape.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most hellenic greeks were even more eastern shifted
            >Even those who came from the Prytaneum of Athens, and reckon themselves the purest Ionians of all, brought no wives with them to the new country, but married Carian girls, whose fathers they had slain.
            >Herodotus

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The separation doesn't make any sense.
            the separation makes perfect, and the reason some of the mutt samples from anatolia could be closer is because they're HALF MIDDLE EASTERN mutt, with more than 50% MIDDLE EASTERN bronze age anatolian

            Distance to: Greece_BA_Mycenaean
            0.02399056 Greece_Delphi_BA_Mycenaean
            0.04593352 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_in.preparation
            0.04844881 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_Pylos
            0.04909568 Turkey_Roman_4
            0.05191126 Turkey_Roman_5
            0.05989495 Turkey_Roman_2
            0.07161417 Turkey_EBA
            0.09407570 Turkey_MBA

            Target: Turkey_Roman_5
            Distance: 1.7897% / 0.01789701
            68.0 Turkey_EBA
            32.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean

            Target: Turkey_Roman_4
            Distance: 2.6227% / 0.02622669
            58.0 Turkey_EBA
            42.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean

            Target: Turkey_Roman_2
            Distance: 3.6719% / 0.03671918
            66.0 Turkey_EBA
            34.0 Greece_BA_Mycenaean

            don't start with the andalusian-italian lies

            https://i.imgur.com/27FgYlW.jpeg

            >picenes, or the daunians

            Irrelevant Black folk. Etruscans, Romans and Magna Graecians were dark as frick.

            > Romans
            not really, see

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

            [...]
            here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all

            these are all the samples from lazio in the study
            when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
            if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)

            you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
            you basically lost

            27% blue eyed, don't spread misinformation

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >0.04844881 Greece_BA_Mycenaean_Pylos
            >0.04909568 Turkey_Roman_4
            Literal same cluster, thanks for proving my point.
            That sample is pure west anatolian (lycian) btw

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Literal same cluster, thanks for proving my point.
            the point isn't proven the mutt has more greek admixture compared to other mutts

            now let's check the distance from the full MENA from which the anatolian greeks derive most of their ancestry
            >0.07161417 Turkey_EBA
            >0.09407570 Turkey_MBA
            yep, they're not the same people

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >full MENA
            Again meaningless category. We can say they are mostly european since they were mostly eef and chg

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            middle eastern is a category full of meaning, the bronze age anatolians were fully middle easterners

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No they were indoeuropean and close to europeans like mycenaeans

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no they were 100% middle easterners

            the mas001 is also an outlier with natufian ancestry

            3/18, aka 17% blue eyed in lazio
            the romans specifically were 27% blue eyed, the etruscans closest to romans were more blue eyed it seems

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the etruscans closest to romans were more blue eyed it seems
            blue eyed roman influence

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            seems like it, there's an evident correlation

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the etruscans closest to romans were more blue eyed it seems
            blue eyed roman influence

            >7 samples
            Frisian anon, it's irrelevant size

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the size is relevant, 27% of the roman samples were blue eyed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are trolling

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, you are, since you keep lying

            >without this shifting the population north a bit modern italians would be as brown as cypriots
            imperial italians were extremely middle eastern

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They resembled greeks, not even christian levantines who are european admixed. They weren't extremely middle eastern

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They resembled greeks
            cypriots are quasi middle eastern

            >not even christian levantines who are european admixed.
            christian levantines are 95% middle eastern

            >They weren't extremely middle eastern
            they were almost fully middle eastern

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, imperial sample is 5% levantine and 0% arab, but 70% aegean. Although modern central italians are half r1b italo-celtic, seems like this imperial profile was not common in rural areas or most of them migrated to eastern rome when western one collapsed

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >agean
            doesn't exist
            imperial samples are half middle eastern (bronze age levantine and anatolian)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bronze age pops didn't exist in roman era, most migrants were diogenes and galen like

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in roman era people were mixed with bronze age pops

            just how much are you going to deny the obvious?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol wrong, they were exterminated and buried in their mines

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            EEF is a meaningless buzzword. They were just a mongrel race of Natufian males and WHG females.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ancient anatolian greeks were just mutts of mena middle easterners original anatolians and greeks

            the modern populations of italy and greece are simply a bunch of mutted slaves with a portion of their dna that comes from bronze age levant and anatolia

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            incredible how much italians lie on IQfy
            everyone, and i mean everyone can take a glance at these results and reach the same conclusion (that italians and greeks have middle eastern admixture) except them

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >modern populations of italy and greece
            There have always been waves of migrations from east to west. The first greek philosopher from 600 BC was descended from Levantine merchant.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >> Romans
            >not really, see

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

            [...]
            here, just to defeat this southron troon once and for all

            these are all the samples from lazio in the study
            when you remove the 3 outliers you have 2/7 samples being blue eyed (27%)
            if you include the etruscans from lazio you have 3/21 samples being blue eyed (14%)

            you are a mutt, southrons are mutts
            you basically lost # 27% blue eyed, don't spread misinformation

            Seven samples and none of them is from Rome. Average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%. Sicilians were unironically lighter than them.

            https://i.imgur.com/27FgYlW.jpeg

            >picenes, or the daunians

            Irrelevant Black folk. Etruscans, Romans and Magna Graecians were dark as frick.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Seven samples and none of them is from Rome.
            they're all from rome and very close to rome, don't you even try to make up some fake arbitrary rule

            >. Average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%.
            average latin is 27%, stop spreading your lies you troony

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they're all from rome and very close to rome, don't you even try to make up some fake arbitrary rule

            They are not from Rome, but from different parts of Latium. The average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%. If we include outliers is even lower. I stand correct.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They are not from Rome, but from different parts of Latium.
            which is irrelevant, this is some arbitrary rule you made up and i won't consider it, latins were 27% blue eyed

            >The average for Etruscans/Latins is 6%.
            etruscans aren't latins, or we should consider the picenes and the daunians too

            > If we include outliers is even lower.
            no one except italians, specifically south italians, think those half middle easterners should be included

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >picenes, or the daunians

            Irrelevant Black folk. Etruscans, Romans and Magna Graecians were dark as frick.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >White Europeans influenced shitskin culture, but never vice versa
          what does it even mean lmao?
          greeks were the most shitskinned europeans and they literally founded euro civ. then brown romans spread it to whites

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what does it even mean lmao?
            Chariots, pastorialism, metalworking, astronomy etc. come from the Steppe and spread to MENA through repeated invasions and rape.
            >greeks were the most shitskinned europeans and they literally founded euro civ. then brown romans spread it to whites
            Hellenic Greeks are not the same as Mycenean Greeks. Hellenics came from the Steppe much later.

            Syrians are not proof of anything as they are turbo mutted due to rapes by:
            >Hittites
            >Sea peoples
            >Hellenic Greeks
            >Romans
            >Crusaders
            >Mongols
            >Various other non-Euro shit like Arabs

            Of course there's a lot of European semen entering Syria so they are shifted to us, but it never flowed back into Europe, not even once. Proof:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25912-9

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            bait

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cope diagram.

            The oldest iron age civ in Europe is Hallstatt. Europe grew out of Indo-European civilization and didn't have much interaction with the East except for sending waves of conquest there much later.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >euro civ
            Hallstatt is the oldest contuous iron age civilization in Europe, not meds.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        absolutely nothing to do with east meds, we know that they spoke the language of their eef mothers, not some "east med" language of the iron age period

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They hired my VGH Germanic ancestors as mercenaries to pointlessly brutalize other pipo
        >little in the way of brow ridges
        Brutal way to put it. That's quite odd given how typical they are in basically all west Eurasian groups, I wonder if this was common in other EEF-rich groups.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          all outdated bullshits, etruscans didn't have any middle eastern elite and didn't speak a middle eastern language
          they simply kept using the language of their eef mommies

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well the Turdetani weren't doing too bad...

    6 There are exported from Turdetania large quantities of grain and wine, and also olive oil, not only in large quantities, but also of best quality. And further, wax, honey, and pitch are exported from there, and large quantities of kermes,27 and ruddle28 which is not inferior to the Sinopian earth. And they build up their ships there out of native timber; and they have salt quarries in their country, and not a few streams of salt water; and not unimportant, either, is the fish-salting industry that is carried on, not only from this county,º but also from the rest of the seaboard outside the Pillars; and the product is not inferior to that of the Pontus."

    "The ferrets with their claws drag outside all the rabbits they catch, or else force them to flee into the open, where men, stationed at the hole, catch them as they are driven out. The abundance of the exports of Turdetania is indicated by the size and the number of the ships; for merchantmen of the greatest size sail from this country to Dicaearchia, and to Ostia, the seaport of Rome; and their number very nearly rivals that of the Libyan ships."

    "Formerly much cloth came from Turdetania, but now, wool, rather of the raven-black sort.29 And it is surpassingly beautiful; at all events, the rams are bought for breeding purposes at a talent apiece. Surpassing, too, are the delicate fabrics which are woven by the people of Salacia"

    "Along with the happy lot of their country, the qualities of both gentleness and civility have come to the Turdetanians; and to the Celtic peoples, too, on account of their being neighbours to the Turdetanians, as Polybius has said, or else on account of their kinship"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/hmO21mf.jpeg

      Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?

      "The Turdetanians are ranked as the wisest of the Iberians; and they make use of an alphabet, and possess records of their ancient history, poems, and laws written in verse that are six thousand years old,10 as they assert. And also the other Iberians use an alphabet, though not letters of one and the same character, for their speech is not one and the same, either. "

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?
    No. Central Italy was not like Iberia, Greece or really anywhere else in the world. The peoples of Central Italy, from the Samnites, Sabines, Etruscans and Latins were all a increasingly urbanised and hyper warlike societies that continued a cycle of mass conscription of young men across the region for centuries. Some 20% of men in Central Italy by the Middle Republic were actively engaged in military serivce at all times. It was the Romans who won the contest in Central Italy and they went out exporting war to the rest of the world, but it could have easily been the Samnites who started moving into Southern Italy before their entanglements with Rome, which as soon as Rome won once and for all just picked up where they left off. Central Italian society was nothing like anywhere else in the world. Even Nomadic societies had less military participation as compared to urban Central Italians, let alone the Iberians or anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean. The only other comparable state in terms of military numbers was Carthage, which was helped by their very large amount of allies and the large military participation of Punic cities.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ancient Iberians conquered America 25.000 years ago. They are the real native americans.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    Roman ability to assimilate and synthesize and use diversity as a true strength.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Italy is closer to Greece/Eastern Med/Asia, and so received civilisation (the crop package of olive trees, grapevines and wheat/barley) earlier.
    Also Italy has better farmland than Iberia so can sustain a larger population.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins? Was it due to east med influence?
    Because the people who founded Rome were the Trojans who came to the peninsula after Troy was rekt. Meaning, they already had the know-how for civilization creation.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Italics achieve so much more than other west meds like ancient Iberians, despite their similar origins?

    Because Carthage, Etruria and Greece were the three most important Phoenician colonies. Iberia was used mostly for mining. It was less attractive because it was further away from Phoenicia and Asia in general.

    >Was it due to east med influence?

    It was due to Phoenician influence. That's where they got their languages from, and even the concept of a city.

    Once you understand Europe was colonized by Phoenicia like America was colonized by Europe, everything makes a lot more fricking sense.

    Of course there was also colonization from the east through the north. A lot of the local hunter gatherers and primitive agriculturalists and pastoralists were wiped out or buried in their mines by the Phoenicians. Greek Phoenicians especially preferred to import food from Egypt and other places.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's most of the world, homosexual sapiens were from the near east

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No shit sherlock, no need to tell me.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you're a homosexual nonsapiens

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Italics
    Italy was not a country until the 19th century, racist medchud

    Italy was populated by a mixture of Franks, Germans, Phoenicians and slavs

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Links to the Greeks who had links to the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. It's easier to develop when you don't start from nothing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *